The Washington Post offered a news analysis piece Mondaycritical of the varying “populist” movements around the globe. The story, on its face, may seem fairly even-handed, but it is another in a long list of economic stories biased toward an establishment, neo-liberal view of the world.
This comes primarily through its tone, which is built upon a set of word choices that divide the economic world between serious economists and irrational populists.
Consider this passage, which is pretty typical of the entire piece:
Economists have long argued that the benefits of globalization far outweigh the costs to workers who might be displaced by those half a world away.
Seems rather straightforward — unless you do what I ask my students to do with everything they read: interrogate the text. Here, the use of the unqualified “economists” turns economists into a broad — and by implication unified — class. It is “economists” — not “some economists, not many or a majority, but economists.
One might argue that I’m quibbling, that the reader should know that the writers doesn’t mean all. But the point is that words matter. The words we choose, the decisions we make about how they are used, create the meanings we are intended to take from them. If the writer meant to indicate a broad swath of the profession he should have said that, rather than assuming that his unqualified use of a broad term would be easily understandable.
The issue with this story goes much deeper than just a single word choice. Consider the first two paragraphs:
The world economy is nearing what international policymakers fear could be a dangerous turning point, as populist uprisings in the United States and Europe threaten to unravel decades-old alliances that have fostered free trade and deepened economic ties.
The tension has reached boiling point in Britain, which in two months will vote on whether to leave the European Union. The International Monetary Fund, which wrapped up its annual meetings this weekend in Washington, warned that a so-called Brexit is a “real possibility,” one that could usher in a new era of uncertainty and undermine the already fragile global recovery.
There is the use of the word “dangerous” in the lead, which is qualified — attributed to “international economists — but still implies that something perilous is in the offing. This danger is tied to words with negative connotations like “turning point,” “uprisings,” “unravel,” “boiling point,” and “usher in a new era of uncertainty and undermine the already fragile recovery.” It paints a bleak picture and lays the paint brush at the feet of those pesky populists.
The organization of he story doesn’t help. The story’s critical voices — neither of whom question free trade, ought they do remind us that we have not figured out how to assist those who lose out — are buried at the end of the story, which undercuts efforts at balance. These critical voices are treated as afterthoughts, positioned after the more overtly free-trade economists have finished making their case.
To describe this as an imbalance is to be generous. Is kind of bias is not a surprise — Dean Baker has been hammering the Post for years over its economic reporting, which has tended to be critical of progressive policy and very supportive of elite, insider economics — i.e., calls to cut Social Security, to expand unfettered free trade, etc.
Author: hankkalet
Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.
View all posts by hankkalet
Hank Kalet 