C'est Moi Trois

Carr criticizes the media industry for inciting the public with strategies, maps, and so forth. He even specifically mentions a couple of other newspapers and a reporting service. Meanwhile, he notes that the NY Times’ coverage was much more sober, only talking about the grim economic situation. He quite correctly talks about the connected interest of the Media and the advertising that the retailers spend with them. But of course, the NY Times is above being influenced by such things. As I read the article, I was treated to an embedded ad on the web page.

I have one thing to say to Mr. Carr. The NY Times is just as responsible as any other media outlet for the anarchy of Black Friday. I would even go so far as to say that they [media outlets] are partially responsible for the current economic crisis.

Our economy is driven by the purchase of consumer goods. Like it; hate it. This is an undeniable fact. The reduction of consumer spending causes a recession. Reduce that spending enough, and there is a depression, period. Carr appears to think that it is unseemly to make purchases during an economic downturn, and that encouragement by other media outlets is irresponsible. What does he propose we do, sit in our little hovels next to a candle waiting for this crisis to pass? Why don’t we put all of our money in our mattresses while we’re at it?

Mr. Carr, consumer spending creates demand for manufacturing, which creates jobs, which creates need for support services, which creates jobs, which creates demand for housing, which causes real estate values to go up, etc. If everyone decides to stop participating, we’ll be in a depression faster than you can blink your eyes.

Of course, this does not explain the NY Times’ culpability in the craziness of last Friday. I suggest that the “sober reporting” of the NY Times produced a panic of sorts in and of itself. Dire warnings of what it means if the retailers don’t have a good Black Friday makes consumers that much more desperate to find the best deal they can. And how convenient, all the ads and specials are included in the center section of the paper. It’s almost like it’s a last chance situation before that last bit of ledge collapses beneath us. It fosters hopelessness. Who would not be desperate? What do they have to lose?

This leads directly to my assertion of the Media doing its part to create the conditions of this financial meltdown in the first place. In the environment of the 24-hour news cycle with so much competition between the cable news networks, broadcast, print media, and now the internet, the majority think that they have to turn everything into a crisis in order to attract an audience. (Maybe they do. All it’s done for me is to make me tune everything out.) Even the Weather Channel gets into the act where every weather event becomes the “Storm of the Century.” This causes two problems. The first is the “Boy Who Cried Wolf.” When the Media makes everything a crisis, people stop paying attention. Then, when there really is a crisis, panic ensues. The other problem is that the Media is not really trying to inform the public, but rather is screaming as loudly as possible over the voices of the others like a carnival pitchman to get the customer to look at them.

I’m not suggesting that the presentation of the news cannot or should not be interesting or entertaining. (I should think that these things aren’t mutually exclusive.) But, it’s primary purpose should be to inform the public, and it certainly dropped the ball with this financial crisis as badly as the intelligence services did prior to 9/11 or the existence of WMDs in Iraq. If the Media were doing its job rather than commenting on Paris Hilton’s undergarments or making fun of the way President Bush says “nuclear,” perhaps this financial disaster could have been averted.

And maybe not … It’s just a theory. ;)