PD's Choice of NCB Economist to be on Panel seems Strange

Is it just us, or does seem strange to other people? The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a panel of economists from the area who it uses to forecast how things are going to go economically in the region. The PD ran an article on Sunday using this panel. One of the panel members is the chief economist from National City Bank, you know, the bank that just got sold to a Pittsburgh bank because it lost millions of dollars on bad loans. The bank that couldn't get Federal TARP funds. The bank whose demise may cost literally thousands of Ohioans their jobs. 

Now this guy may be a very good economist, and may make good predictions, but using someone from a bank that just had to be sold because of bad decisions strikes us as strange. Of course, this is nothing new for the media. 

You can look at any Sunday talking-heads show and see people who were wrong about the Iraq War, wrong about the effects of Bush's reckless tax cuts regarding federal deficits, and wrong about the economy chatting it up like nothing ever happen. Meanwhile, people who were right about these issues aren't represented on such shows nearly as often. 

The media has developed cozy relationships with so-called "experts" and uses them regardless of whether they are right or wrong. While such a practice is great for the "experts", and probably produces great friendships between the media representatives and the "experts", it doesn't do a thing for the media's credibility. 

Media Ignores McCain Not Releasing Tax Returns While Going After Clinton

Media Matters columnist Jamison Foser has a column up about how the media goes after Hillary Clinton for not releasing her tax returns while ignoring that McCain hasn't released his tax returns. Now, this could be just one more example of the double standard that is applied to the Clintons by the national media, or it could reflect the fact that McCain's opponents didn't go after him on this issue during the primaries like Obama went after Clinton.

One thing that has to be kept in mind is that a lot of these media types, people like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, make a lot of money, yet they don't release their tax returns. They would say that there is a difference since they are not elected officials, yet the fact is that knowing how much money these whores would save if John McCain's idea of making Bubble-Boy's tax cuts permanent would be helpful in evaluating their reporting and commentary.

Indeed, they take the position that while we are entitled to know every little detail about the private lives of elected officials, we are not entitled to know anything about their private lives. Like, for instance, the fact that for years Andrea Mitchell was living with Alan Greenspan while she was reporting on the actions of the Federal Government.

The double standard applied by the media is more than just hypocrisy in action. The media's refusal to critically examine George W. Bush in 2000 and then its failure to critically examine Bush's claims about Iraq have led to one disaster after another for Americans, especially working class Americans. Of course, Bush's tax cuts benefit people like Russert and Matthews and they don't have children serving in Iraq, so maybe they weren't so dumb after all.

Reporters Can Dish It Out, But Can They Take It?

Deborah Howell is the ombudsman for the Washington Post. She has a column in which she writes about readers' concerns over articles and editorials that appear in the Post. This last week, she had a column discussing the comments section that appears at the end of Post articles that appear online. This quote is from her column: Complaints first came from the newsroom. Reporters don't appreciate the often rude feedback, which I get, too. (A sample reader comment on my column last week: "I think we can all agree after reading Howell's lame comments week after week that the Post should save money by eliminating her position entirely. She is worse than a dupe.")

No one likes to receive criticism, not reporters, not politicians, so the reaction of reporters is a common human reaction. Here's the thing, though, in the past, reporters were insulated from readers' reaction to a much greater degree than today. As Howell notes at the start of her column: Not so long ago, the only way to talk back to The Post was to write a civil letter to the editor, with a verifiable name and address, or to contact the ombudsman. This meant that a person had to sit down, write or type the letter, mail it, and hope that someone in the paper actually read it. Further, there was no way to know if the person who read it was going to actually show it to the reporter who wrote the article.

Now, however, not only can readers post comments at the end of Post articles, but they can also send emails to the reporters who wrote the article. This is because the Post, like most newspapers with websites post the email addresses of the reporter writing the article. Like in so many areas, this means that the Internet is changing the relationship between reporters and their readers. No longer do readers have to be passive in their relationship with a newspaper. Now, like with blogs, they can be interactive with the newspaper.

Reporters are not used to reader accountability. They are used to employer accountability, but not reader accountability. A lot of them tend to be people who are much better at dishing out criticism than receiving it. Maybe they will come to have more appreciation for the people they write about. Maybe they will realize how hurtful a thoughtless comment can be, whether it appears in the comments section of a newspaper posted by a reader, or in an article written by a reporter.

In any event, the next time you read an article online that you disagree with, or one that you like, take an extra minute to see if there is a comments section or an email address for the writer. If there is, then leave a comment or write an email. Refrain from vulgar, obscene, or threatening language, but don't be afraid to give the writer your reaction. If Howell's column is any indication, reporters apparently read them.