The business press must prove its economic literacy

The media reported the financial crisis and stimulus poorly. Now the story is deficit and cuts, is it equal to the task? Anya Schiffrin

 

FT, but no comment? The public needs a business press able to narrate the macroeconomic 'big picture' intelligibly, argues Anya Schiffrin. Screengrab: guardian.co.uk

The drama of Wisconsin and the fights down in DC about the state of government finances are a chance for US journalists to write about an economic story that affects everyone. It would be good to see more articles on the big picture questions of what sort of policies make sense, rather than just ones about the political processes of what sort of legislation will get passed.

A recent report in the Christian Science Monitor was a good example of the kind of drill-down coverage we need more of. By contrast, it's been disappointing to see the news pages (though not the opinion columns) of the New York Times report on the deficit as though there is no room for debate about whether cutting spending is even a good idea right now.

Business and economics journalism is not that different from other forms of journalism. Reporters and editors mostly cover events that have already happened, not write about what could happen. They also have a tendency to rely on official and business sources, rather than on person-on-the-street interviews. This is partly because most of the people who read business news are from the worlds of money and business. Historically (the first business news sheets date to the 16th century), they relied on the business press for information that will help their investments. Sadly, this means that press reports about business and economics are often not much help to the ordinary reader trying to understand these subjects.

In recent weeks, there have been a lot of stories about how normal people would be affected by the budget cuts, and the media have certainly voiced the argument that reducing government spending is a bad idea while unemployment is above 9%. But there is room for more reporting about the larger macroeconomic picture, so I hope the media will learn from their lacklustre coverage of the 2009 stimulus package.

A study I did at Columbia University last year with Ryan Fagan ("Are We All Keynesians Now? Press Coverage of the US Stimulus Package", forthcoming) looked at press coverage of the $787m American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We analysed 718 articles about the stimulus in the months before and after it was passed. We looked at all the key mainstream US publications including the New York Times, Barron's, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Time magazine and others. The coverage was not bad, but it was in no way innovative or forward-looking. Instead of discussing the likely effectiveness of the stimulus, for example, most of the articles before passage simply focused on whether or not it would pass.

"The concept of a Keynesian stimulus is not immediately intuitive. It would have been nice if there had been more in-depth explanations. As it was, there was more of 'what happened yesterday' than 'what are the long term implications?' but that's not unusual," said one national economic reporter, describing the press coverage.

Five months after the stimulus passed, the unemployment rate was still climbing. (It was 8.2% in February, 9.4% in July and 9.7% in August 2009, and today stands around 9.0%, depending on how it's counted.) That led to a spate of articles about whether or not the stimulus would work or had worked. These articles mostly said it wouldn't and mostly didn't mention the fact that the majority of the money had still not been spent. Instead, a number of the articles argued that since the stimulus had failed, the US government should not consider a second one.

Later, after the stimulus money was spent, there was some coverage about what it was used for and what difference it had made (especially Michael Grunwald's pieces in Time magazine), but there was certainly room for more detail about what the money was used for and why this kind of spending makes a difference.

This time around, journalists have the chance to write more economic stories about what is actually an economic story. Let's hope they do.

Pakistan has abdicated its responsibilities

Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti's murders are a grim warning to those who dare to speak out against injustices

Shehrbano Taseer 

Wednesday 2 March 2011 21.57 

Pakistan has lost another brave heart. Two months after the Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, my father, was assassinated for speaking out against Pakistan's cruel blasphemy laws, Shahbaz Bhatti was shot dead by unknown assailants. Bhatti was one of Pakistan's progressives.

Under his guidance, the government introduced affirmative action for minorities – 5% of all federal employment – and designated 11 August a holiday to celebrate minorities. He banned the sale of properties belonging to minorities while law enforcement authorities took action against them. He launched a national campaign to promote inter-faith harmony through seminars, awareness groups and workshops and was initiating comparative religion classes into schools and universities.

Bhatti introduced a prayer room for non-Muslims in the prison system, and started a 24-hour crisis hotline to report acts of violence against minorities. He began a campaign to protect religious artefacts and sites that belong to minorities. This is the man we have lost.

The majority of Pakistani dignitaries fell silent after my father's murder, but Bhatti spoke out and condemned it. Many times. I will never forget that. He continued to support the revisions to the blasphemy law knowing he was up against a clerical tsunami. I salute his bravery. But the frontiers of free expression have shrunk drastically. In a country that calls itself a democracy, one wonders if there is space any more for dissent and debate.

Taseer and Bhatti's murders are a grim warning to those who dare to speak out against injustices.
Bhatti's killers left behind their pamphlets signed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Punjab , their warning "from the warriors of Islam to all the world's infidels, crusaders, Jews and their operatives within the Muslim brotherhood".

The document from the Punjabi Taliban continues: "In your fight against Allah, you have become so bold that you act in favour of and support those who insult the Prophet. And you put a cursed Christian infidel Shahbaz Bhatti in charge of [the blasphemy laws review] committee. This is the fate of that cursed man. And now, with the grace of Allah, the warriors of Islam will pick you out one by one and send you to hell, God willing."

The blasphemy laws were foisted on to Pakistan by the draconian General Zia ul-Haq in 1986. Since then, more than 500 Muslims, 340 Ahmadis, 119 Christians, 14 Hindus and 10 others have been charged under the laws.

Thirty-two of those accused – and two Muslim judges – have been mowed down by Islamist vigilantes. Since 4 January, the day my father was assassinated, there have been 16 known cases in which 23 people have been affected. Once a law is made in the name of religion, no one can touch it.
The state has abdicated its responsibilities. The majority of our dignitaries and government officials are spineless. There is no will to implement existing laws. Why were four armed men allowed to drive around the capital city? Why did they carry Kalashnikovs? Why are guns given out so easily? And why did these men feel justified taking the law into their own hands?

The state has failed to provide a viable alternative in terms of economic and educational opportunities to those who resort to extremism. The madrassa system – spewing venom and hatred left, right and centre – is not monitored and the extremists are freely raising another generation like them. Or worse.
Moreover, the state mollycoddles and divides them into "good Taliban" and "bad Taliban". The "good" ones are armed, funded, and taken care of. But now the knives are turning inwards.

If there is one thing made abundantly clear by Taseer and Bhatti's murders it is this: the chickens have come home to roost.