"You'll be happy to know that stupidity is not hereditary. You acquired it all by yourselves."
--Margaret Garrison (Deadline U.S.A)
During the reporting of the Boston bombing, I heard one pundit state that we should consume media info using 'the 75% rule', meaning that media consumers should assume that only 75% of what is presented about a breaking story is actually true.
For many stories, it seems like 75% is far too generous.
Take, for example, reports surrounding the error in the Reinhart and Rogoff (RR) research about the relationship between sovereign debt and economic growth. A central finding of RR's work, work that we have considered a number of times on these pages, is that higher debt is associated with longer term economic growth. At some point, the debt becomes insurmountable and generally leads to default either directly or via inflation.
That these findings should be considered surprising suggests how far off the rails from basic economic understanding that we have travelled. Nevertheless, it took a multi-century empirical study of debt escalations and economic collapses by high profile researchers to bolster the legitimacy of basic ECON 101 findings in the eyes of some.
Last week three academics from UMass produced a working paper claiming significant errors in the analysis of two RR working papers from 2010. Note the term 'working paper,' meaning that all three of the works--the two RR papers and the UMass critique, should be considered to be works in progress and have not been published in any peer reviewed outlet to date.
That said, it does appear that some of the findings from the two RR working papers have spilled into some work that has been published. See, for example, Reinhart & Rogoff (2011) and Reinhart, Reinhart & Rogoff (2012).
Now, calling out researchers on their findings is a serious matter that cannot be dismissed. RR must answer to those charges and they have indicated that they will.
However, challenges w.r.t. the magnitude of RR's empirical results do not alter the underlying theoretical framework. Higher debt is associated with lower economic growth. As demonstrated here, RR results adjusted for the UMass observations do not alter the negative relationship between debt and growth--something that the UMass researchers, despite the title of their paper, do not seriously contest.
The disagreements between these academics will be resolved over time via the traditional back and forth process. That is the power of formal, written thought process for advancing the truth.
Unfortunately, the media do not follow such a process. As observed in this missive, the media have once again revealed their bias in the way they have treated this story. The sensationalistic headlines speak for themselves. For example:
LA Times: How an Excel error fueled panic over the national debt
Business Week: The Excel error that changed history
Responsible journalists would have a) waited for the full RR rejoinder, and/or b) considered the UMass claims in light of materially altering the implications of the original RR study before writing. Instead, many media outlets have engaged in slanting the UMass study in a manner that can easily be construed as agenda driven.
It is straightforward to conclude that many in the media do not like the idea that government spending and debt constrain growth, and that journalists are jumping at an opportunity to discredit the idea.
This morning I heard a 'financial expert' suggested that the UMass study gives government greater license to spend our way out of problems.
Rather than offering well thought perspective about the merits of such a suggestion, the media's recent efforts appear to endorse it.
References
Reinhart, C.M. & Rogoff, K.S. 2011. From financial crash to debt crisis. American Economic Review, 101: 1676-1706.
Reinhart, C.M., Reinhart, V.R., & Rogoff, K.S. 2012. Public debt overhangs: Advanced economy episodes since 1800. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3): 69-86.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
2 comments:
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
~Michael Crichton
Wall Street collided with social media on Tuesday, when a false tweet from a trusted news organization sent the US stock market into freefall.
The 143-point fall in the Dow Jones industrial average came after hackers sent a message from the Twitter feed of the Associated Press, saying the White House had been hit by two explosions and that Barack Obama was injured. The fake tweet, which was immediately corrected by Associated Press employees, caused a sensation on Twitter and in the stock market.
~the guardian
Post a Comment