2 ms·
It 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 interpreta
by firesteelrain 1y ago
It 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.