When journalism becomes propaganda

A few days ago I took part in a Royal Economic Conference session on the implications of the Brexit vote. There is no need for me to describe how it went, as there is a good write up in the FT. By good, I mean that it was a fair reflection of what went on. Philip Aldrick, economics editor at the Times, took exception to something I said at the meeting on twitter.

Almost a month ago I wrote a post on propaganda. I used a definition borrowed from Jason Stanley, where intent was key. A good journalists provides what they believe are they key facts that the reader needs, while propaganda involves providing facts that advance the newspaper’s view. The interesting thing about this twitter conversation was that Aldrick thought that selecting facts to support the papers view was not propaganda, and that he thought it was what the other newspapers he named and I as an academic did.

Just to crystalise what I mean, take this article that recently appeared in the Telegraph. The headline (and remember this is all that many Telegraph readers will read) said “EU migrants without a job make up city the size of Bristol”. The article continued:

“EU migrants of working age living in the UK who do not have a job account for a city the size of Bristol, new figures have revealed. One in seven of the 2,733,000 EU migrants aged 16-64 - a total of 390,000 - are unemployed or “inactive”.

A survey by the Office for National Statistics does not give a breakdown of how many claim benefits, but those who are unemployed will be eligible for jobseeker’s allowance and may also claim housing benefit and child benefit. People who are “inactive” include those claiming disability benefits.”

The ONS survey can be found here. The fact that the Telegraph chose not to report was that 1 in 5 UK nationals was unemployed or inactive (excluding students). The reason that this is such a high figure is that ‘inactive’ includes mothers staying home to look after children, another fact that the Telegraph decided not to report.

The real story therefore is that migrants of working age are more likely to be working than UK nationals of working age. Other things being equal, this means that they will be paying more taxes and therefore contributing proportionately more to public services that UK nationals. By selecting which facts to report to their readers, the Telegraph turned this into a story about how many migrants were not working, and the amount of benefits they were collecting. In doing this, they were following in the proud traditions of the Mail, Sun and Express. 

Would you call this journalism or propaganda? There are a great many good journalists who would not want this described as the same as what they do, and it fits the definition of propaganda I gave exactly. Propaganda distorts the truth, and in a country like the UK good propaganda does not need to resort to lying about facts to achieve its goal. And of course it matters a lot. I suspect that stories like this are one of the reasons the state can treat migrants so badly in this country. 

Why it’s your bloody GDP, not ours

Why does the recovery mediamacro constantly talk about seem not to apply to most people? Aditya Chakrabortty tells the story behind my title better than I did here, and picks up the important regional angle. But there is more to it than that.

First, there is the abuse of language I talked about here. I make a strong case that recovery should only be used when GDP is catching up with a past trend. Instead mediamacro use it for any non-negligible increase in GDP. They are egged on, of course, by the politicians who are partly responsible for our failure to actually recover from the Great Recession.

Second is an old favourite. Mediamacro constantly uses GDP rather than GDP per capita. This makes a big difference when an economy experiences a large increase in immigration. This chart from an article in the FT recently attracted attention, showing that the UK was the only major economy over the period 2007 to 2015 to combine growth in GDP with a fall in real wages. (I assume below the chart means growth between 2007 and 2015, rather than between 2006 and 2015.)

If we use the latest ONS data, UK GDP did indeed grow by 7% between those years (0.85% average annual growth), but GDP per head increased by only 0.8% (0.1% annual growth). It is one of the great ironies of this period, and a largely untold mediamacro secret (because mediamacro hardly ever connects dots), that the government has relied on claims about GDP growth that were in large part a consequence of the immigration which they were at the same time complaining about.

GDP per capita is of course the relevant comparison for real wages. But the claim in the FT article remains true: the UK does combine growth in GDP/capita (albeit small) with falls in real wages. The chart below uses ONS data on average earnings deflated by the consumer expenditure deflator. [1] That is the relevant deflator to use, if you want to look at the purchasing power of wages. However if instead you use as a deflator the price of GDP as a whole, the GDP deflator, then you get a very different story. As the chart below shows, that measure of real wages has increased by a similar amount to GDP per capita between 2007 and 2015.

So what has caused the price of consumer goods to increase more rapidly than the price of total output? There are a number of factors, but I emphasised two in a similar analysis I did two years ago: the depreciation in sterling in 2008, and the increase in VAT in 2011. The impact of the later is clearly evident in the chart, but so is the depreciation if you recall that there was a temporary cut in VAT in 2010, which led to a short term fall in consumer prices. The depreciation raises after a lag the price of imported goods and therefore consumer prices, relative to the price of domestic output. [2]

The disparity between GDP growth and real wages is therefore due to a combination of three factors: immigration, which boosted GDP, a rise in indirect taxes and a depreciation which both raised consumer prices. If we focus on GDP per head, as we should, then very weak GDP growth caused by the global financial crisis and austerity was translated into negative real wage growth, because of the global financial crisis (the depreciation) and austerity (the rise in indirect taxes). We are not seeing a shift from wages to profits. [3]

If there is one overall message here, it is that since the global financial crisis overall GDP growth in the UK has been terrible, and austerity plus an exchange rate depreciation has made it even worse for real earnings. That the media have not presented it that way is an important reason why it seems like your GDP, not ours. 

This disconnect in mediamacro between GDP and real wages has been very evident more recently as well. On the one hand Brexiteers have made great play about the fact that GDP in 2016 has been much stronger than some had expected. The media has also noted how inflation is increasing, and earnings growth is flat, implying a squeeze on real wages. Yet the two facts are hardly ever brought together. If they were, they might note that the 1.8% growth that the Brexiteers are so proud of in 2016 falls to 1.1% if you take out population growth (immigration). And they might also note that any growth in GDP in 2017 is likely to seem like ‘your bloody GDP’ if real earnings fall because of the Brexit depreciation. (No wonder they are in such a hurry to start negotiations.) Another message of this discussion is that the media could try a little harder to relate GDP growth to average earnings, rather than treat them as disconnected events just because the statistics are published on different dates.

[1] The fall in real wages shown in this chart is a lot less than in the FT chart, but without knowing their exact source it is difficult to know why.

[2] If you are wondering how real wages managed to ride out the recession, there are two main factors involved. The recession reduced the share of profits in national income (as recessions generally do), and in addition there was a large increase in unemployment.

[3] The labour share (of GDP at market prices) did fall by over 1% over this period, but the profit share also fell. The share that increased was taxes, reflecting the VAT increase already noted.  

Hitting back

Not a post about a certain byelection, but a reaction to reading this:

“A more serious incident was the forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the UK, which said last week that Brexit would have severe economic consequences. Coming only a few months after the economics profession discredited itself with a doomy forecast about the consequences of Brexit, this is an astonishing reminder of the inadequacy of economic forecasting models.

The truth about the impact of Brexit is that it is uncertain, beyond the ability of any human being to forecast and almost entirely dependent on how the process will be managed. “Don’t know” is the technically correct answer. Before the referendum, Project Fear was merely a monumental tactical miscalculation. Today it is stupidity. One of the debates was whether people should be listening to experts. We have moved beyond that. Because of a tendency to exaggerate, macroeconomists are no longer considered experts on the macroeconomy.”

Shrug your shoulders and move on? If it had appeared in the partisan press that would be a sensible reaction, but this was written by a widely respected journalist in the UK’s internationally renown financial newspaper. Furthermore - lest my motives be misunderstood - written by someone whose knowledge on the Eurozone is beyond dispute and whose views I often agree with. Well on this occasion this particular member of a discredited profession who is no longer apparently considered an expert on macroeconomics is not prepared to take this kind of stuff anymore, whoever it may come from.

It is difficult to know where to start with such apparent and complete ignorance. Nonsense expressed as platitudes. You can only make sense of “beyond the ability of any human to forecast” if you either think we know nothing about the impact of trade restrictions, which is false, or that forecasts are non-probabilistic. No journalist has any excuse nowadays for misunderstanding the probabilistic nature of forecasts (Bank of England fan charts), and any academic economist who knows anything about forecasting will tell you that unconditional macro forecasts are only slightly better than intelligent guesswork. They exist because it is worth being slightly better than guesswork when the stakes are so high.

You can also only make sense of these two paragraph if the writer is unaware or is just choosing to ignore the difference between conditional and unconditional forecasts. These are long words for a very simple concept. You would not dream of asking your doctor to forecast the number of times you would catch a cold over the next year (an unconditional forecast), but if you gave them all your relevant data they could probably make a better guess than your own. Their forecast would be probabilistic, but if you took the mean as ‘the forecast’ then in any particular year your doctor would generally be wrong. It would be absurd for you to then say that, having ‘discredited the profession with this inaccuracy’ you were now going to ignore their advice about how to avoid catching colds (advice based on conditional forecasts). But this is the logic of these two paragraphs.

As for a tendency to exaggerate, the simplest response involves a black kettle. But on this particular occasion I think there is a more honest response. In the Brexit campaign I felt the temptation to exaggerate (I don’t think I ever succumbed), because the media was failing to get the message from economists across. Our collective knowledge about the impact of trade restrictions was treated as just one more opinion, or described as Project Fear. When you are effectively being ignored you tend to shout louder.

But this is all defensive. Trying to explain yet again some basic economic ideas, and to be honest about what you can or cannot do and any failings you have. I’m just tired of doing this stuff over and over again, so it is time not just to defend. There are many good journalists out there, who when they write about macroeconomics do try to check with academics that what they are writing makes sense. (It was one of those journalists who drew my attention to the article I quote above.) It simply lets them down when others think they can write this sort of stuff without any of the kind of basic fact checking that journalists are supposed to do. It brings the profession of journalism into disrepute.

And they can only get away with it because academic economists only get a media voice by the grace and favour of journalists. If anyone should be doing some serious introspection after the Brexit result it should be journalists and the media. Warning of the dangers of trade restrictions was not a ‘tactical mistake’. What was a mistake was for journalists to allow those warnings, that knowledge, to be characterised as Project Fear, all in the name of ‘balance’ or cheap copy. But this was not a temporary lapse in an otherwise good record, but just another example of a growing tendency for the media to allow politicians to define economic facts and truths, a record I described in my lecture.

To have the nerve to blame economists for the Brexit result, to suggest that using their knowledge was a ‘tactical mistake’, to imply that the OBR should pretend they know nothing about Brexit, all that is itself amazing malevolent chutzpah. But it goes beyond audacity to criticise a profession and subject matter you appear not to understand when it is this lack of understanding that has contributed so much to the damage over the last few years.