Comment on this story
You are reading Jennifer Rubin’s subscriber-only newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox.
This week I examine what’s wrong with economic reporting, pick the pole of the week and share something else – a memory from history.
“The US economy is showing surprising momentum in the first half of 2023,” the Wall Street Journal headlined last week. Axios read: “The latest upside surprise in the economy.” Yahoo Finance stated: “surprisingly strong US economic data keeps recession fears at bay.”
You may find it remarkable that after 29 straight months of job growth, steadily declining inflation, 3 straight months of durable goods growth, 35,000 new infrastructure projects, etc., media touting their economic foresight and astute analysis keep citing the strength of the Economy could be surprised prolonged period in which real wages exceeded inflation and low-income earners made disproportionate gains. It seems as if the media was so engrossed in the narrative of failure and the looming recession that a plethora of positive dates had little impact on their “narrative.”
The most optimistic headline came from Fortune: “Economists Strive to Justify Recession Predictions… But Maybe They Were Just Wrong.” Conversely, the government may have been right in its “bottom-up, center-out” approach to building the economy , despite Republican theatrical remarks, media hand-wringing and negative opinion polls.
Follow this authorJennifer Ruby‘s opinions
Part of the problem may be that the media prefers coverage of political races to events on the ground. “What do the voters think?” (about what? about the media’s negative view of the economy?) replaces “what’s going on?”
We’ve seen far too little coverage of the economic transformation in small towns, rural areas and aging metropolises driven by new investments in factories, infrastructure projects and green energy related to the Chips Act. It sure would be nice to know what’s happening inland, if a new chip fab creates thousands of jobs, or if a new bridge creates dozens of construction jobs and then cuts commute times. The mainstream media is so intent on hyping the administration’s policies that it too often neglects to cover what President Biden’s initiative is accomplishing.
If the media consistently misunderstands the big issues or fails to report on major economic changes, one would hope that they would explain in hindsight why their reporting differs from reality and cover actual developments better than the Republican and Republican topics of discussion processed stories (how Biden “sells” his plan) and polls. Unfortunately, waiting for the mainstream media to address self-reflection (maybe they exaggerated the “but their emails” in 2016; maybe there wasn’t a red wave in 2022) could be a waste of time, let alone self-correction .
If the media is concerned about a lack of trust in the media, declaring a historic economic shift could help inform voters and make the media less “surprised” when the data comes back. Instead, they are inevitably on to the next group think exercise, the next round of somber mood, and the next batch of gullible coverage of Republican topics of discussion.
Awarded People of the Week
In the face of the Supreme Court ruling to abolish scholarship programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, civil rights groups showed steadfastness and prudence, suing Harvard for legacy admissions on the grounds that favoring a predominantly white group discriminated against colored students.
The Lawyers for Civil Rights group announced: “The Chica Project, the African Community Economic Development of New England (ACEDONE) and the Greater Boston Latino Network (GBLN) filed a state civil rights complaint against Harvard College, objecting to its discriminatory donation practices .” Preferential treatment in the admissions process for applicants with family ties to wealthy donors and alumni (“legacy applicants”). The complaint, alleging widespread violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was filed with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the US Department of Education (DOE).”
The NAACP followed suit and “called on more than 1,500 colleges and universities to level the playing field in admissions, including by eliminating legacy licenses,” the Associated Press reported.
The complaint calls for an investigation, a finding that the practice violates Title VI, an order to cease the practice, and a ban on students from citing family connections in their essays — which would rule out the “I want to be a Harvard male” stomach upset for since the 1800s every man in my family has been “the plea of students who cannot stand on their own merits.”
Harvard and other universities using discriminatory legacy (and donor) preferences need not wait for an investigation. They can end the practice now, as elite schools like Johns Hopkins University, Amherst College and MIT have done, making good on their promise after the Supreme Court ruling to continue diversity efforts.
Sherrilyn Ifill, a civil rights attorney and former head of the Legal Defense Fund, said, “I don’t know of anything in the history of black people in this country that I’ve read a report where it ended, ‘and then they gave up. ‘ That’s just not what we do. I know that we are working for the future of our children, our grandchildren and their children.”
Credit to the advocates and activists fighting for equal access to education for not giving up.
I recently picked up Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II, which somehow I never got to read when it came out in 1994. (Restoring classic fiction and outstanding nonfiction is a good reason to clean out your bookshelves from time to time and then donate books you don’t want to reread.) The masterful portrayal of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt’s efforts on the American home front during the World War II seems eerily familiar: isolationists vs. internationalists; Big corporations in search of profit vs. pursuit of the common good; the media vs. administrative manipulation; demagogues vs. defenders of democracy; Southern segregationists vs. black civil rights activists; and women vs. male-dominated politics. Lest you think that we are living in unprecedented times, remember that we revisit these conflicts and contradictions in our quest to become a more perfect nation.
But the book is also a reminder that two people deeply damaged by their childhood experiences (and in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt, disabled from young adulthood) rose to the challenge and brought unusual sensitivity, creativity and drive to the day. These were complicated, flawed and extremely talented people. In today’s politics, bouts of depression, infidelity and links to the radical left would have driven her from the public stage.
At its best, historical storytelling connects the stories of notable figures with far-reaching trends and global developments. And this is one of the best of its kind.
Every Wednesday lunchtime I host a live Q&A session with readers. Read a transcript of this week’s Q&A, or submit a question for the next one.
Guest: Did the Supreme Court do the Democrats a favor? It seems to me that the Democrats have an incredible chance of winning the 2024 election if they can organize voters based on recent Supreme Court rulings. For years, Republicans organized voters to vote against Roe vs. Wade. Do you agree that Democrats can organize diverse constituencies against all the horrible decisions being made on women’s suffrage, affirmative action, the environment, gun control, student loans, LGBTQ+ rights, etc.? There are so many reasons to get voters voting when the Democrats can motivate them. I worry that they might not “seize the day” because, as Will Rogers said, “I’m not a member of any organized political party.” I’m a Democrat!” What do you think?
Jennifer Rubin: You are right! Democrats voted pro-abortion in 2022, following the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and fared much better than expected. Democratic candidates would be wise to ask voters if they want to be ruled by judges who believe constitutional law was frozen in the 19th century. But they must also be willing to explain what they are willing to do about it. Public support for mandatory ethics rules and term limits is strong, so that’s where we could start.
Give this item awaygift items
Comments are closed.