The Media's Role in Economics

by John Hudson

John Hudson

      For the nation as a whole, the war in Iraq dominated 2006 election rhetoric.  Michigan’s political discourse, however, proved to be unique.  With an unemployment rate of 7.1%, the second highest in the country (Thomas), economics and job creation took precedence over all other issues.  In the 2006 Michigan Gubernatorial race, Governor Jennifer Granholm defended her 21st Century Jobs Fund and promised a brighter economic future under her leadership.  Republican challenger Dick DeVos emphasized his business savvy and a plan to replace the Single Business Tax in order to stimulate economic growth and job creation.  As both Granholm and DeVos generated a barrage of spin and half-truths concerning the economy, the mainstream media disseminated the politicians’ rhetoric and left it largely unchallenged.  The media has a crucial role in distinguishing fact from fiction, especially in a field such as economics where its complexities make it fertile ground for spin and deception.  Michigan State University Journalism Instructor Bonnie Bucqueroux articulates this deftly, “Using the candidates’ faulty economic data is spin…News organizations are often guilty of perpetuating spin by being nothing more than conduits for political distortion” (Bucqueroux).  It is my claim that in the 2006 Michigan Gubernatorial race, Governor Granholm and Dick DeVos were relatively free to spin economic issues in their favor and the media’s willingness to play along contributed to the promulgation of spin and an under-informed public. 

      At the outset of the election race, it was clear that public frustration over the economy needed to be quelled.  Governor Granholm responded with a plan that promised hope to her constituents and the media was happy to cover it.  CBS affiliate WWMT Channel 3 “Sat down with Granholm” to discuss her response to DeVos’s claim that she hasn’t “accomplished much in her first term” (Wyllie).  After the online story notes this, the report turns into a one-sided monologue of Granholm’s factless optimism: 

“She says… her 21st Century Jobs plan is picking up speed…‘We as a state have the biggest plan to diversify the economy of any state in the country’… She points out industries like alternative energy, and hi-tech businesses are gaining momentum…Granholm urges people to stick it out in the state…Granholm wants to speed up training and education to ready workers for companies coming in” (Wyllie).  

From beginning to end, WWMT offered no critique, inquiry or opposing

viewpoint to Granholm’s statements.  Vague and unverifiable assertions such as “picking up speed,” “gaining momentum” and “There’s a lot of things happening” go unquestioned and unanalyzed.  The reader learns no specifics regarding the implementation or design of the proposed 21st Century Jobs Fund.  The story simply serves as a microphone for Granholm’s political rhetoric.

      The Detroit News was also guilty of a shallow presentation of Granholm’s plans.  In an article devoted to the two candidates’ focus on the economy, the Detroit News briefly described Granholm’s 21st Century Jobs Fund as “her plan to improve Michigan's job climate, including diversifying the state's economy, accelerating $4 billion in road and infrastructure improvements to create 40,000 construction jobs and toughening high school graduation requirements” (Cain and Hornbeck).  While Granholm’s creation of 40,000 construction jobs might sound beneficial, the true aim of the initiative shows how deceptive this race has become. 

      Dr. Ross B. Emmett, a professor of economics and politics at Michigan State University, criticizes the construction job initiative for being a policy that “Will only produce short term benefits” (Emmett).  He explains that the plan aims to speed up the construction of roads thus requiring the state to hire more construction workers.  He finds it important to note that quickly constructed roads and an increase in construction workers will do little to improve the economy.  The purpose of the initiative is “to give Granholm the ability to say jobs were created on her watch”(Emmett). 

      Not only did the Detroit News fail to criticize or inquire about the policy, but the Lansing State Journal, Detroit Free Press and Grand Rapids Press also failed to bring substantial criticisms to light regarding Granholm’s proposal.

      The goal for Granholm has turned into an effort to say she has created jobs—not at actually passing economically beneficial policies.  Her focus has become this, in part, because of the misleading charges DeVos has brought up against her that have permeated the media. 

      DeVos’s ubiquitous allegation, re-asserted in newspapers across the state, claims that Michigan has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs since Granholm took office in January 2003 (Thomas).  This fact has become the center of the debate.  Unfortunately, the media has oversimplified this fact and has falsely portrayed its significance.  Dr. Emmett explains this problem:

All we heard was jobs, jobs, jobs from the media.  That isn’t what’s fundamental about the Michigan economy.  What we need are structural changes in the economy.  Just making jobs [referring to construction road work] isn’t healthy for the economy.  The media bought in to the rhetoric of “jobs are the most important issue” and you see it everywhere.  What I find interesting is using a fact that is true but giving it a meaning that is wrong.  For instance, “On Granholm’s watch, x amount of jobs were lost.”  That’s supposed to be a telling fact.  The fact is true.  You can check the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Employment did go down.  It was a true fact but it was spin because it was given an importance that was unimportant.  Jobs are created and destroyed, people retire and switch jobs.  It’s completely misleading to say, “Under Granholm’s watch, she lost jobs.” (Emmett) 

The media’s constant repetition of accusatory sound bites such as “100,000 manufacturing jobs lost” created an oversimplified picture of the economy and DeVos wasn’t the only one making these deceiving allegations.  According to Dr. Emmett, Granholm’s charge that Dick DeVos sends American jobs to China was “Equally misleading” and “reveals little knowledge about how a business functions” (Emmett).  Emmett explained that by investing globally, DeVos headquartered a successful business in Michigan, helped Michigan consumers and created high quality jobs in the state.   

      Instead of dedicating a large amount of explainer articles to deal with these misleading claims, the media spent too much time on horserace stories about who’s ahead in the polls.  Consequently, these misleading statements had a huge effect on how voters made their minds on election day.  After Granholm won the election, the Detroit Free Press published a story on why Granholm got re-elected.   One of the primary causes for her success was that “She [Granholm] and the Democratic Party found an issue that stuck to DeVos like burrs, accusing him of transferring Michigan jobs to China when he was president of Amway in the 1990” (Christoff).  It is not a surprise that this issue had such a strong effect on voters, after all, the media failed to offer a critical analysis of these deceptive statements.

      So why didn’t the media do a better job in informing the public?  It is hard to make an argument for bias because the lack of analysis for both candidates’ spin was fairly equal.  So if not bias, then what?

      Some very important answers to this question came out of this year’s Zabrusky Lecture at Michigan State University.  At this lecture, Ron Dzwonkowski of the Detroit Free Press, Charlie Cain of the Detroit News and Kathy Barks Hoffman of the Associated Press Lansing Bureau answered questions about the media’s coverage of the 2006 Gubernatorial race from Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Freedman and Emmy winner Sue Carter of MSU’s School of Journalism.  During the forum, Ron Dzwonkowski said that “The politicians spin and Michigan has not gotten a fair look at important issues and has not gotten important discussion on Michigan issues” (Top Michigan journalists discuss campaigns of today and yesterday).  Dzwonkowski suggests that Michigan voters have not been adequately informed, but things get really interesting in Dzwonkowski’s comments later in the lecture.  When Sue Carter and Eric Freedman bring forth questions about whether or not the media focuses too much on the horserace and the polling instead of the issues Dzwonkowski says that he likes the horserace stories with their “strategies” and “catch-up” aspects.  Dzwonkowski says, “I gotta tell you, that’s the fun story to do and I like those stories better than some one saying ‘Ok now we need an explainer on the Single Business Tax.’”

      To say that the Michigan voters are uninformed with regards to the issues and then to continue to write horserace stories instead of “explainer” articles on important economic issues is completely hypocritical. 

      The mainstream press in Michigan has a responsibility to explain issues and separate fact from fiction.  It was clear that in the 2006 Gubernatorial debate they failed to adequately inform the public on the deeper complexities of a variety of economic issues and consequently, many voters went to the polls uninformed.

 

---