The Media As Well As Brexit Redux

In this post I complained most how petty attending the visual media gave to the fact that the overwhelming bulk of economists thought that Brexit would involve meaning long term costs. All I receive got at ane time is to a greater extent than testify to dorsum upwards the declaration inward that post.

First, I was non lonely inward these thoughts. Here is Andrew Scott talking most his foreboding concerning the Brexit debate: “I only actually wasn’t looking frontward to the debate because I knew that it would stifle what are the actually of import issues, it would move partisan rather than insightful as well as that the economical vocalism as well as declaration was vulnerable to beingness politically sidelined.” [1]

Second, the declaration that in that place volition move long term costs alongside Brexit has not, equally yet, convinced most voters. In this poll, which is non unique, solely 22% of voters thought they would move worse off equally a number of Brexit. It seems unlikely that voters are unaware that David Cameron as well as George Osborne receive got claimed they volition move worse off, but quite rightly they may move rattling distrustful of what politicians say. Virtually no voters volition receive got examined the economical arguments on both sides as well as made upwards their ain minds. Crucially, unless they read ane of the broadsheets, they volition receive got no thought that in that place is such an overwhelming consensus amid economists. 

Third, nosotros at ane time receive got to a greater extent than testify too letters that in that place is indeed an overwhelming consensus amid economists, thanks to the Observer. True, non quite equally overwhelming equally I had imagined, but 9/10 counts equally a consensus for economists.

Fourth, in that place is polling testify that the populace attain receive got a high degree of trust inward what academics say. Here is the relevant information (source):

So to total up, most people attain non intend they volition move worse off afterward Brexit, economists (including academics) overwhelmingly attain intend people volition move worse off, as well as people receive got a high degree of trust inward what academics say. I tin flaming solely intend of ane plausible explanation that is consistent alongside these iii facts, as well as that is that people attain non know what the overwhelming bulk of academic economists think. [2]

In a vote that could good move close, y'all cannot debate that this failure to transmit information is unimportant.

One of the structural issues that aid attain this employment is what y'all could depict equally the politicisation of truth which comes from the overriding demand to move unbiased. The visual media rely on either side to convey the relevant information to the table, because to attain otherwise mightiness seem biased. If a declaration is made past times ane ‘side’ as well as disputed past times the other it is contested, whether it is truthful or false. [3] 'Contested' is the give-and-take I heard a BBC reporter yesterday depict the £350 meg a calendar week claim, fifty-fifty though the Great Britain Statistics Authority as well as ane of their ain fact cheque websites say it is false. So if ane side does non headline that the overwhelming bulk of economists intend Brexit volition involve meaning long term costs, this fact - if it is reported at all - tin flaming larn lost inward the endless as well as ho-hum sequence of political claim as well as counterclaim.

This politicisation of truth did non start out alongside this referendum. The Leave crusade chose to headline a figure which they knew to move wrong. They did as well as thence because they also knew it would attain them no harm. They knew it would attain them no terms because no ane inward the media other than the broadsheets would receive got the nervus to depict it equally a lie. They knew that from observing how the media has worked inward the past. 

[1] Here is an instance of how the media tries to friction match this consensus amid economists into their touchstone confrontational model. Now I receive got no objection to economists beingness challenged, but it is a shame that all this interview seemed to move most was Tony Yates trying to larn across the concept of a counterfactual. Just ane inquiry along the lines of why attain y'all intend that on this number economists are as well as thence united mightiness receive got been interesting for viewers

But I attain object strongly to the preamble. All the statements made were either incorrect or beside the point. (1) that the 364 economists were incorrect is the sentiment of to a greater extent than or less but non others - it is non a fact. (2) the ‘establishment’ may good receive got thought nosotros should rest inward the ERM inward 1992 but did the bulk of economists intend nosotros would move worse off coming out? I sure did not, as well as published a newspaper proverb so. (3) it was the evidence from economists inward the five tests analysis that convinced Brown to say no, non the other agency around!

So rather than examining why in that place is such a consensus take in amid economists nosotros larn a rather hapless interview most the value of counterfactual analysis, as well as sure opinions passed off equally facts without whatever chance to challenge them. If anyone inward the media asks me why academics appear reluctant to appear on TV, I shall exhibit them this.

[2] Some people receive got a kneejerk reaction against complaints involving the media. In reading Andrew Scott’s slice an analogy occurred to me which I intend mightiness aid here. Until the fiscal crisis, most macroeconomists (not all) tended to take in the fiscal sector equally a unproblematic ‘transmission system’ rather than thinking most it equally a organization alongside its ain incentives as well as dynamic. That was a huge mistake. Equally criticisms of the visual media which amount to ‘they are all biased’ are most equally informative equally proverb the employment alongside the fiscal sector is that everyone inward it is too greedy. More sensible critiques inward both cases hold off at the agency the sector works, as well as the incentives actors alongside each organization face.

[3] Equally if something is stated oft plenty past times ane side as well as is non contested, it becomes a fact.