Blue America, Red America!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2024

Fox News takes the hand-out and runs: The ironic old bromide goes like this:

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

The current instance calls for a bromide adjustment. The question would now be this:

Who are you going to believe, Paul Krugman or Jesse Watters?

At issue is a basic question about the current state of the economy. We'll let the economics professor go first, with this passage from his latest New York Times column, which we just saw today:

Why Trump Is Lying About Disaster Relief

[...]

...At this point, Trump’s campaign rests heavily on made-up stuff. And he clearly seems to believe that he needs new material, because the old material seems to be losing some of its effectiveness.

Before I get into the disaster relief issue, let me note that Trump has been a true innovator in political dishonesty...[He has] constructed a whole dystopian fantasy world, trying to persuade voters that America is a nation with a collapsing economy overrun by violent immigrants.

In reality, America has low inflation and low unemployment, and the average worker’s purchasing power is higher than it was five years ago. Yes, some Americans are struggling, but that was as true when Trump was president as it is now.

"The average worker’s purchasing power is higher than it was five years ago!" Or at least, so Krugman says—but we're a bit suspicious because of yesterday's pronouncement by Watters.

According to the leading authority on his career, Krugman was "the sole winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" back in 2008. On the other hand, Watters served, for many years, as the snarky "man-in-the-street" interview sidekick for Bill O'Reilly.

Based on that experience, Watters is now the anchor of the Fox News Channel's weeknight lineup. When the channel had to show Tucker Carlson the door, they decided to fill the 8 p.m. slot with Jesse Watters Primetime

Watters also serves as a regular cast member on The Five, the highest rated program in all of "cable news." 

On that show, he tends to engage in silly towel-snapping with fellow savant Greg Gutfeld. Did we mention the fact that this journalistic garbage can is the most heavily watched of all "cable news" shows?

We've already shown you what the Princeton / MIT / NYU professor said about purchasing power. Yesterday afternoon, on The Five, the other fellow said this (some early towel-snapping included):

WATTERS (10/3/24):  For the last four years, wages have gone nowhere and prices have gone up. Yet, take-home wages—

Yet, she says Bidenomics is working. Now she has to know that Bidenomics isn't working because she gets briefed by her economics team. She has to know because she reads the newspaper—we assume

So she knows Bidenomics isn't working, and she goes and tells the voters it's working. So she's lying about how the plan is working...

On Fox, it almost always turns out that "she's lying." It's one of the mandated claims.

As you can see if you click that link, the silly savant went on from there at considerable length. But you can see our conundrum.

Professor Krugman has now said this:

The average worker’s purchasing power is higher than it was five years ago.

Almost surely, we would have believed it! But we'd already seen Watters say this:

For the last four years, wages have gone nowhere and prices have gone up. 

We're guessing that Krugman is right about this, and that Watters is wrong. But for four hours each morning on Fox & Friends, then for eleven more hours starting at 5 p.m., people like Watters are dragged on the air to say such things on Fox.

Just a guess: Most people who watch the Fox News Channel assume that Watters knows what he's talking about and is making accurate statements. Over at the New York Times, but also on MSNBC, the finer people from the finer backgrounds just keep averting their gaze from what transpires on Fox.

Over here in Blue America, our tribunes keep trying to earn our way out. 

As part of that never-ending project, everyone gives Fox free rein. No one wants to talk about Fox.

Fox takes the hand-out and runs.


25 comments:

  1. People are allowed to lie on TV. That’s the way it is. People who want to know the truth can easily find it.

    Somerby compares resumes. That is another way to decide who to trust.

    Is Somerby advocating for a ministry of truth? There are drawbacks to that. Another wayto decide is look at the character of the candidates. Someone who lies also cheats, as Trump does. Not sure Somerby isn’t making this harder than it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you seriously criticizing someone for calling out a supposed "news" channel for lying to its audience?

      Delete
  2. People lie on religious TV shows and no one calls them on it, including Somerby. How is this any different?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe people only care about their own lives, not how others are doing. Or maybe the ones who don’t care watch Fox because truth doesn’t matter to them, just ad nothing Trump does wrong matters to red voters. They aren’t ignorant, they don’t care.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “ No one wants to talk about Fox.”

    This is so wrong it’s absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It’s not clear how Fox viewers, whom Somerby characterizes as believing Watters, will benefit from the critiques of Fox which occur elsewhere, or the truth-telling by Krugman, when those same Fox viewers refuse to consult anyone but Fox and Watters, and refuse to confirm what they’re told, or don’t care to know.

    The current GOP will believe the science and the facts, as long it agrees with what they already believe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For the last four years, wages have gone nowhere and prices have gone up.

    We're guessing that Krugman is right about this, and that Watters is wrong.

    Why do you have to guess? Did Krugman provide any evidence to support his claim? Can somebody "fact check" this?

    Besides, even if Krugman is right, this means that after 4 years of Biden-Harris, the average worker has the same purchasing power he did under Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, should have said "after digging out of the hole created by 4 years of Biden-Harris, . . ."

      Delete
    2. Krugman said “ The average worker’s purchasing power is higher than it was five years ago!"

      Which directly contradicts your last sentence…

      Delete
    3. 5:53,
      Your view that the Biden-Harris economy has been such a disaster, that it is equal to the best of the Trump economy, is the criticism of the Biden-Harris economy that you think it is.

      Delete
    4. Wasn't Trump President five years ago?

      Delete
    5. Somebody throw 5:53 a lifesaver. He's in a little over his head and thrashing the water.

      Delete
    6. Do your own research dambit.

      https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-labor-force-participation-under-joe-biden/

      https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-wage-growth-at-top-and-bottom/

      Delete
  7. Krugman is a brilliant man and an outstanding economist. The only reason he isn't always right is that he sometimes uses his expertise to find figures that support the side he's on and downplay figures that support the other side. That's not a lie, but it can be deceptive. (BTW as an actuary, I've done the same thing in my field.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Won't be long before you are singing to the grand jury like a regular Weisselberg Dave.

      Delete
    2. (BTW as an actuary, I've done the same thing in my field.)

      How about as a commenter?

      Delete
    3. Krugman is a scientist, not a paid employee of an insurance company. Academics are trained to set aside biases in order to form evidence-based conclusions. You obviously have no such training, David.

      The suggestion that Krugman would seek out data to support his preconceived views is a huge insult to a Nobel prize winner like Krugman, or any academic.

      Delete
    4. Economists are not scientists.

      Delete
    5. I saw Krugman do it with Social Security. Krugman knows much much more than I do about economics. The only field where I know something is Social Security. IM professional O, Krugman intentionally chose to present figures that minimized SS's long-term solvency problems. That was the Democratic position at the time.

      Delete
    6. It seems most likely to me that Democrats were using Krugman's figures, not vice versa, because Krugman is an expert on social security's long-term solvency (which I wouldn't call a "problem" given that no one who knows anything about it thinks there is any problem) and YOU are not, just by virtue of working for an insurance company as an actuary.

      You are free to agree with whoever you want and say whatever misguided thing comes into your brain, but Krugman is still an expert on social security and you are not an expert on anything -- you did a job and then retired. You didn't do research or analysis or anything beyond what your job required, which was to make money for your employer. Now you are shilling for the Republicans and pretending you could touch Krugman's smallest toe, while making a fool of yourself.

      @8:01, anyone who uses the scientific method to extend knowledge by doing research is a scientist.

      Delete
    7. @8:09 wrote, "no one who knows anything about it {SS} thinks there is any problem."

      The SS actuaries think there's a problem. See https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

      Delete
    8. So DiC that makes you in favor of removing the cap that lets rich people stop paying their payroll taxes. Right? Think that solves 2/3 to 3/4 of the shortfall. Rescinding the Bush and Trump rich people and corporate taxes will solve the rest. And even if it hits the 2034 wall, folks would still get 3/4 of their SS. So only poor folks get horribly screwed, but most middle class and rich be fine.

      Delete
    9. "The SS actuaries think there's a problem."

      In the report you linked, the actuaries don't characterize the condition of the OASI trust fund as "a problem." They factually report their projections for when the trust fund balance will be depleted, given current trends and policies. They further state that if no changes are made, then current funding will allow Social Security to pay 79 percent of currently scheduled benefits.

      The actuaries aren't charged with deciding if it's a problem or not. That's in the hands of Congress.

      Delete
  8. That is really weak DiC. Even given your low expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here is an explanation (by Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect) of why Biden deserves credit for ending the dockworkers' strike. It states exactly what Biden did and how they achieved a victory for the striking workers.

    Biden know how to accomplish this victory. My hope is that Harris will have learned how to achieve the same victories when she is elected. This article also described what it thinks Trump would have done, had he been president now and not Biden. And if you're wondering why you should care, the article explains how a Trump solution would have increased inflation while giving more money to the shipping industry companies, who have had 800% increases in profits since covid.

    https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-10-04-bidens-amazing-win-settling-dock-strike/

    ReplyDelete