Watch Fox News? You likely think the U.S. economy is great. MSNBC viewers not so much

[webfact]

Watch Fox News? You likely think the U.S. economy is great. MSNBC viewers not so much

By Howard Schneider

 

FILE PHOTO: A person walks by the Fox News offices after it was announced that news anchor Shepard Smith had quit the network in New York City, U.S.,October 11, 2019. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The performance of the U.S. economy has been a solid clue to the outcome of past presidential elections.

 

The upcoming campaign may be different, according to results of a new "big data" survey of consumers showing that views about the economy have split along partisan lines, associated with whether an individual approves or disapproves of President Donald Trump, watches Fox News or MSNBC, or identifies as conservative or liberal.

 

The online poll, by data firm Morning Consult, asks the same five core questions as the University of Michigan's well-known consumer sentiment survey, and for nearly two years has been collecting about 210,000 responses a month, compared to 500 or so each month for the Michigan survey.

 

It also includes questions about the respondents' political leanings, and an initial set of results released Wednesday showed a stark division that may make it hard to interpret how the economy's performance will play out in 2020 presidential voting.

 

American voters face the same set of economic facts, from low unemployment to the risks from a trade war, but the survey's index of overall sentiment - at 108 just above the 100 line that separates positive from negative impressions of the economic outlook - masked the huge divide between those who approve of Trump, whose views measured a far rosier 136, and those who disapprove of the president, with a reading of 88.

 

The results, weighted by factors like age, race and sex, to be nationally representative, were similarly skewed based on media consumption. Viewers of conservative-leaning Fox News registered 139 for current sentiment about the economy; viewers of MSNBC, an outlet often critical of Trump, registered 89. Readers of the New York Times sat in the middle at 107, near those who get their news from Facebook (110) and Twitter (112).

 

The survey will be ongoing, and Morning Consult analyst John Leer said the questions on political alignment, Trump approval and media diet, were included as part of an effort by economists and analysts to try to better define how opinions are shaped and how they influence behavior.

 

Some election models have already given Trump the edge based on the "record low unemployment rate, subdued inflation and only moderately cooler wage growth," expected next year, Oxford Economics economists Gregory Daco and James Watson wrote in a recent note anticipating a Trump victory.

 

While such factors have been good predictors of electoral results in the past, "it's important to distinguish the underlying economic phenomenon from political bias," Leer said, noting what he called the "potentially recursive relationship between consumer confidence and news consumption habits."

 

Consumer poll results: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/editorcharts/USA-FED-CONSUMER-POLL/0H001QXEP922/index.html

GAME CHANGER

A survey like Morning Consult's doesn't establish causality - whether people feel a certain way about the economy because of the news they consume, for example, or choose their news sources based on their political stance - but it does lay the groundwork to start teasing those relationships out.

 

That may be particularly important in the age of Trump, who, according to several separate studies, seems to have changed the game when it comes to partisanship influencing views about the economy.

 

The Michigan survey itself has on occasion included questions about political party affiliation, notably before and after the elections of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Barack Obama in 2008, and Trump in 2016.

 

Each time there were changes in economic expectations based on party alignment, with members of the winning party showing more faith in the economy, and members of the losing party reflecting less favorable sentiment. For Reagan and Obama, however, the shifts were statistically insignificant; after Trump there was a "dramatic" 74.6 point swing between Democrats and Republicans, according to Michigan survey director Richard Curtin.

 

And it has persisted.

 

"Ever since Trump was elected...Republicans have consistently anticipated a robust growth and Democrats have consistently anticipated a recession," Curtin wrote in a research note early in October.

 

In the past, he noted, high and rising consumer sentiment has favored the reelection of incumbents, with troughs in the outlook favoring challengers.

 

But "the intense partisanship that now prevails may upend traditional relationships," he wrote.

 

FED'S DILEMMA

It's not just political analysts who need to worry about the changing dynamic between partisanship and sentiment and how that might play out in the real economy.

 

Surveys of consumer sentiment and expectations are used to help gauge future economic conditions, and the U.S. Federal Reserve in particular relies on them to assess how consumer spending may hold up, how inflation may behave, and whether people are losing or gaining confidence in the future.

 

If opinions about the economy have become hardwired based on ideology, rather than economic developments, it could pose a problem for that sort of analysis.

 

It's possible, Leer suggested, that positive sentiment will still lead consumers to spend as if the future's bright.

 

"If consumers feel optimistic, they'll continue to support the economy," regardless of why they feel that way, he wrote in an email.

Some research has suggested otherwise.

 

A 2017 study that included Princeton University's Atif Mian and the University of Chicago's Amir Sufi also noted an "unprecedented" partisan swing in economic sentiment after Trump's election, six times larger than what followed Republican George W. Bush's election in 2000, for example.

 

Yet they found no change in spending in counties that voted heavily for Trump.

 

"Despite the substantial rise in economic expectations among those most likely to support Donald Trump since November 2016, we are unable to detect higher actual spending among this group after the election," they wrote. "Partisan bias is exerting a stronger influence on economic expectations over time, but shifts in economic expectations driven by partisan bias do not appear to affect household spending."

 

(Reporting by Howard Schneider; Editing by Heather Timmons and Andrea Ricci)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-10-25

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[thaibeachlovers]

IMO the entire MSN charade depends on portraying the economy as bad so it turns people against Trump. Facts don't matter, IMO.

[Nyezhov]

The accountant tells me whether the economy is good or not. When the accountant isnt bitchin, its good. When the other accountants aint bitchin, its good.

[RideJocky]

IMO the entire MSN charade depends on portraying the economy as bad so it turns people against Trump. Facts don't matter, IMO.

Exactly.

MSN and the like are doing all they can to sow seeds of discontent for the coming election...

[Samui Bodoh]

47 minutes ago, webfact said:

Each time there were changes in economic expectations based on party alignment, with members of the winning party showing more faith in the economy, and members of the losing party reflecting less favorable sentiment. For Reagan and Obama, however, the shifts were statistically insignificant; after Trump there was a "dramatic" 74.6 point swing between Democrats and Republicans, according to Michigan survey director Richard Curtin.

A very interesting article...

 

I remember well the radical change in economic views/outlooks that occurred shortly after Trump's election; Republicans were convinced that the "Obama Economy" was awful, but just after Trump's ascension to the White House, all of a sudden the US economy was good and improving. And, frankly, not much/nothing had changed...

 

I truly wonder how this issue of different "Truths" will ever be sorted as it really needs to be sorted; if people cannot agree on what the facts are, there is no possible way to deal with those same facts. Or, put another way, how can a government deal with/solve issues without a general agreement on what the issues actually are?

 

I suspect that the problem with slowly go away after the end of Trump, although I am not certain of that. It seems to me that Trump uniquely has credibility among his supporters that allows him to 'gaslight' them into believing whatever he tells them; I doubt that this particular skill (???) is transferable to another individual. And, given that objective organizations have noted that Trump lies over and over again, once he goes the lies may go as well. Hmm... if people think that I am wrong, let me ask; who else could tell as many lies as Trump and get away with it? (serious question).

 

One final comment; it is a testament to the quality on the NY Times and similar media that even though its credibility is attacked daily by Trump and his acolytes, it still registers a pretty good score on the believe-ability index.

 

Interesting times...

 

PS One method to begin to deal with this issue might be for news organizations, especially cable news organizations, to make clear what of their programming is 'news' and what is 'opinion'. Do Trump supporters realize that not even FOX calls Hannity, Ingram (?), Carlson, etc news? Or that MSNBC also does not refer to its evening programming as 'news'? Perhaps if they made that distinction better, then people might not be so confused...

 

 

[worgeordie]

I sometimes watch Faux News for a laugh, 

they should change the name to the Trump channel.

regards worgeordie

[Scott]

A post which changes the meaning of a quote has been reported and removed.  

[WeekendRaider]

a pretty large economy, the ADS business index updated almost daily by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve has always worked for me.... it does not show anything negative since 2014, 2015.  

 

as for what it all means to individual people, it's more of an individual situation today than when we all had the same kinds of factory jobs, etc. that are now... in a general sense also...in China. we don't have inventory based recessions anymore, where we made too much stuff and it wasn't selling as good as before.  so yeah, any "news" about any big changes in the USA economy.... is probably more about the stock market and debt market, and liquidity needs.  being liquid now is smart.  that is new.  and yeah, the underlying reason for THAT is not a "good" one.  so then that is "bad".

 

but it is not what we used to mean by a "bad economy" at all. you don't have to be Noam Chomsky to figure that out, but you also don't want to take Amerikeen "news" too literally anymore either.

 

[Tug]

I watch trump tv(oops)Fox News for comic relief imo it’s the definition of fake news I prefer pbs bbc cnn for news as far as the economy I think it’s on shakey  ground mfd is way down running up the debt during (good) economic times doesent seem right imo I think trump is doing what he always has done live on borrowed money then not pay up 

[edwinchester]

54 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

I sometimes watch Faux News for a laugh, 

they should change the name to the Trump channel.

regards worgeordie

Yeah so do I but immediately regret the decision and have to switch off before the TV screen gets kicked in.

[Puchaiyank]

Numbers are "usually" more dependable over time than talking heads.  Trumps economic numbers are mostly positive.

 

Most news outlets are pushing their own political partisan agendas...can not be trusted to give truthful, fair, and balanced reporting...????

[fvw53]

6 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

Exactly.

MSN and the like are doing all they can to sow seeds of discontent for the coming election...

 

An economy is good when the people think it is good...An economy is bad when the people think it is bad....The stock exchange speculators are a pack of dogs...if one dog pees against one tree all the dogs run to the same tree...if one dog starts to bark all the dogs starts to panic

[Boon Mee]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the entire MSN charade depends on portraying the economy as bad so it turns people against Trump. Facts don't matter, IMO.

Got that right! ???? 

[sunnyboy2018]

Fox news is blatant,  BBC a bit more subtle and thus more pernicious. MBC not credible.  They are all liars. For accurate news read the FT or maybe TWSJ.

[Sir Swagman]

^{Fox, with a couple of exceptions, is a willing propaganda tool for trump. I am constantly amazed at diehard trump supporters yammering on about ‘facts’ when this is exactly what has to be ignored to trail the belief in trump banner. Have they forgotten that even his own personal lawyer went to Mueller and said trump cannot testify as he was incapable of telling the truth!! Regurgitating trump’s utterances as facts hardly passes for news.}

[joecoolfrog]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the entire MSN charade depends on portraying the economy as bad so it turns people against Trump. Facts don't matter, IMO.

There we have it , first post on the thread and a perfect example of extreme partisanship at play.

If you had bothered to read the article you would have noted that Fox news is equally ( in fact just a shade more ) biased.

If one wants balance they must either peruse both extremes or take a middle path as demonstrated by the New York Times for example.

Unfortunately though an increasing number of people simply indulge in bias confirmation , in other words they are sheep , its not good.

[joecoolfrog]

9 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

Exactly.

MSN and the like are doing all they can to sow seeds of discontent for the coming election...

 

Did you read the article in full , did you understand the implications , are you aware that you are part of the problem ?

[jchfriis]

As an outsider (from Norway) I never understood how in the USA a broadcast about news could be called a "show". If it is news, it should be publishing facts and not opinion in my view. As far as I can see Fox News and MSNBC are shows at each end of the spectrum, although MSNB may have more facts than Fox, but it is still a show where they preach to the already converted. For a more unbiased view I believe BBC may be the best.

[Crazy Alex]

I watch clips from various media outlets because I know all media sources are biased. A person who sticks to one source isn't going to have a good grasp of any given issue. Simple fact.

 

But let's do the obvious thing and apply MSNBC versus Fox News to the upcoming US presidential election. Historically, Americans vote with their wallets. Clearly, various statistics on the economy, such as GDP and unemployment rates favor Donald Trump.

 

So obviously, a leftist news source like MSNBC is going to try to tell us how bad the economy is.

[from the home of CC]

if I watch either for any length of time I get the same feeling as when I peruse TVF too long, makes me feel like someone took a dump in my brain..

[MRToMRT]

I HATE Trump, I think he is a vile narcissist.

 

BUT MSNBC and CNN overplayed their hands long ago. The non-stop anti-trump rhetoric they blast at you 24 hours a day is not journalism just as Fox is not journalism as well. The 3 companies are all as bad as each other, they are all  propaganda channels supporting their paymasters personal opinions above all else. 

 

This is the developed world's true current curse, being subjected to media companies narratives, not journalism.

[cocopops]

4 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

BUT MSNBC and CNN overplayed their hands long ago. The non-stop anti-trump rhetoric they blast at you 24 hours a day is not journalism just as Fox is not journalism as well. The 3 companies are all as bad as each other, they are all  propaganda channels supporting their paymasters personal opinions above all else.

 

Pretty much. Fox has been a joke for as long as I can remember - 20 years at least. CNN and MSNBC have recently sunk down to their level and then kept on plunging though.

 

If you read the NYT and Wall Street Journal, avoiding the more extreme opinion columns in both, I think you end up with a reasonable idea of what is actually happening. From the UK, The Economist still seems pretty good. It has a conservative point of view of course, but I wouldn't conflate that with the kind of dishonest bias you see from plenty of other outlets.

[olfu]

US citizen here--didn't watch TV for at least 50 years and not missing it.

Learned from real life around me and resume--money dominate real life not TV.

[jm91]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

 

So obviously, a leftist news source like MSNBC is going to try to tell us how bad the economy is.

Leftist? You don't understand the definition of leftist.

Try some honesty. .  

The economy is doing well for the educated and the rich. 

It is not doing so great for the lower classes. 

The top 10% are doing fantastic. The next 30-40% are doing well. 

The bottom 50% are not doing so great as the benefits of the strong economy have been flowing to the top. 

 

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

20 minutes ago, jm91 said:

Leftist? You don't understand the definition of leftist.

Try some honesty. .  

The economy is doing well for the educated and the rich. 

It is not doing so great for the lower classes. 

The top 10% are doing fantastic. The next 30-40% are doing well. 

The bottom 50% are not doing so great as the benefits of the strong economy have been flowing to the top. 

 

 

 

Media Bias Fact Check rates MSNBC as "left", only one step away from the most extreme left rating. Most people would classify MSNBC as left or leftist. So I'm not sure what honesty you are requesting of me.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/

 

Furthermore, wage increases are increasing more for lower wage earners:

 

 

https://www.aei.org/economics/wages-rising-the-trump-economy-is-now-working-best-for-lower-wage-workers/

 

 

[RideJocky]

Leftist? You don't understand the definition of leftist.
Try some honesty. .  
The economy is doing well for the educated and the rich. 
It is not doing so great for the lower classes. 
The top 10% are doing fantastic. The next 30-40% are doing well. 
The bottom 50% are not doing so great as the benefits of the strong economy have been flowing to the top. 
 
 
 

Do you have anything to back this up or do you just make it up?

[RideJocky]

Did you read the article in full , did you understand the implications , are you aware that you are part of the problem ?

I thought the world was ending in 12 years and that we are all part of the problem, no?

[jm91]

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

Do you have anything to back this up or do you just make it up?
 

 

Sure - Look at the GINI index which is a  measure of wealth disparity. The wealthier are getting wealthier - that is very clear and the benefits of the long economic expansion has gone mostly to the wealthy.

 

Look at real wage growth over time and compare that to the wealth of the top 1%,10% and 30%.  Real wage growth is pretty static. 

 

 

[jm91]

5 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Media Bias Fact Check rates MSNBC as "left", only one step away from the most extreme left rating. Most people would classify MSNBC as left or leftist. So I'm not sure what honesty you are requesting of me.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/

 

Furthermore, wage increases are increasing more for lower wage earners:

 

 

https://www.aei.org/economics/wages-rising-the-trump-economy-is-now-working-best-for-lower-wage-workers/

 

 

Communism is leftist - Progressive democrats are middle of the road. The rightist republican party is the party of radical right extremism. IMHO. Anything to the left of that is middle of the road until you hit socialism and communism. 

 

The graph you show has the percentage change. It does not give context. After one of the longest economic expansions (which started in 2009-2010 under obama) wages are up...but no where close to the percentage increase of wealth that has flowed to the upper 1% or 10%.

 

Nuance may be hard for you to grasp but the bottom 50% of the US has not done as well as the top 50%. 

Inequity is clearing growing. Is that a problem? maybe maybe not. 

[Crazy Alex]

6 minutes ago, jm91 said:

Communism is leftist - Progressive democrats are middle of the road. The rightist republican party is the party of radical right extremism. IMHO. Anything to the left of that is middle of the road until you hit socialism and communism. 

 

The graph you show has the percentage change. It does not give context. After one of the longest economic expansions (which started in 2009-2010 under obama) wages are up...but no where close to the percentage increase of wealth that has flowed to the upper 1% or 10%.

 

Nuance may be hard for you to grasp but the bottom 50% of the US has not done as well as the top 50%. 

Inequity is clearing growing. Is that a problem? maybe maybe not. 

If MSNBC can't be called leftist as it relates to other media sources in the US, then no media outlet in the US can be labeled left or right.

 

Graphs and statistical data are how financial well-being are shown.

 

To address the remainder of your post, it's really not a matter of nuance. It's a matter logic. There is a simple truism that explains it. The rich get richer because they continue to do that which makes them rich. The poor get poorer because they continue to do that which makes them poor. That is why so many lottery winners are broke within 7 years- because they continue to do that which makes them poor. A person who doesn't manage money well won't manage money well no matter how much of it they have.