4 ms·
That's a goal-post shift. GP were complaining that accurate, fulsome statistics aren't there, when they are. The media narrative is out of the control of the v
by dghlsakjg 1y ago
That's a goal-post shift. GP were complaining that accurate, fulsome statistics aren't there, when they are.
The media narrative is out of the control of the various statistics bodies, and it is up to the informed reader to seek out better sources if the article they are reading has scanty info. For the record though, FRED is frequently cited as a source in reputable mainstream media (I see it in the NYT all the time). Read The Economist some time, that's an international news source that will deeply report on these stats. Can't be helped if people prefer Fox or other garbage as their news diet.
You are complaining about media literacy and bad journalism, which is an entirely separate issue from the fact that the data both exists, and is extremely easy to access.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- firesteelrain 1y agoIt feels like both things can be true at once: the raw data is often accessible and methodologically sound (shoutout to FRED, BEA, BLS, etc), and the interpretation or prioritization of metrics by politicians and media can completely skew public understanding. The frustration isn’t about access it is about trust. People want metrics that reflect lived reality and can’t be spun or redefined every election cycle.
- watwut 1y agoExcept that mainstream media do use FRED data ... so. It is also possible to try to paint journalists as worst then they are ... that is good for actual quacks that to not like the good data.
- firesteelrain 1y agoI never said journalists don’t use FRED. The issue is which metrics get foregrounded and how they’re framed. The data’s out there, but the signal-to-noise ratio in most news cycles is terrible.