The Media and Brexit redux

In this post I complained about how little attention the visual media gave to the fact that the overwhelming majority of economists thought that Brexit would involve significant long term costs. All I have now is more evidence to back up the argument in that post.

First, I was not alone in these thoughts. Here is Andrew Scott talking about his foreboding concerning the Brexit debate: “I just really wasn’t looking forward to the debate because I knew that it would stifle what are the really important issues, it would become partisan rather than insightful and that the economic voice and argument was vulnerable to being politically sidelined.” [1]

Second, the argument that there will be long term costs with Brexit has not, as yet, convinced most voters. In this poll, which is not unique, only 22% of voters thought they would be worse off as a result of Brexit. It seems unlikely that voters are unaware that David Cameron and George Osborne have claimed they will be worse off, but quite rightly they may be very distrustful of what politicians say. Virtually no voters will have examined the economic arguments on both sides and made up their own minds. Crucially, unless they read one of the broadsheets, they will have no idea that there is such an overwhelming consensus among economists. 

Third, we now have more evidence besides letters that there is indeed an overwhelming consensus among economists, thanks to the Observer. True, not quite as overwhelming as I had imagined, but 9/10 counts as a consensus for economists.

Fourth, there is polling evidence that the public do have a high level of trust in what academics say. Here is the relevant data (source):

So to sum up, most people do not think they will be worse off after Brexit, economists (including academics) overwhelmingly do think people will be worse off, and people have a high level of trust in what academics say. I can only think of one plausible explanation that is consistent with these three facts, and that is that people do not know what the overwhelming majority of academic economists think. [2]

In a vote that could well be close, you cannot argue that this failure to transmit information is unimportant.

One of the structural issues that help produce this problem is what you could describe as the politicisation of truth which comes from the overriding need to be unbiased. The visual media rely on either side to bring the relevant information to the table, because to do otherwise might seem biased. If a statement is made by one ‘side’ and disputed by the other it is contested, whether it is true or false. [3] 'Contested' is the word I heard a BBC reporter yesterday describe the £350 million a week claim, even though the UK Statistics Authority and one of their own fact check websites say it is false. So if one side does not headline that the overwhelming majority of economists think Brexit will involve significant long term costs, this fact - if it is reported at all - can get lost in the endless and tedious sequence of political claim and counterclaim.

This politicisation of truth did not begin with this referendum. The Leave campaign chose to headline a figure which they knew to be wrong. They did so because they also knew it would do them no harm. They knew it would do them no harm because no one in the media other than the broadsheets would have the nerve to describe it as a lie. They knew that from observing how the media has worked in the past. 

[1] Here is an example of how the media tries to fit this consensus among economists into their standard confrontational model. Now I have no objection to economists being challenged, but it is a shame that all this interview seemed to be about was Tony Yates trying to get across the concept of a counterfactual. Just one question along the lines of why do you think that on this issue economists are so united might have been interesting for viewers

But I do object strongly to the preamble. All the statements made were either wrong or beside the point. (1) that the 364 economists were wrong is the opinion of some but not others - it is not a fact. (2) the ‘establishment’ may well have thought we should stay in the ERM in 1992 but did the majority of economists think we would be worse off coming out? I certainly did not, and published a paper saying so. (3) it was the evidence from economists in the 5 tests analysis that convinced Brown to say no, not the other way around!

So rather than examining why there is such a consensus view among economists we get a rather poor interview about the value of counterfactual analysis, and certain opinions passed off as facts without any opportunity to challenge them. If anyone in the media asks me why academics appear reluctant to appear on TV, I shall show them this.

[2] Some people have a kneejerk reaction against complaints involving the media. In reading Andrew Scott’s piece an analogy occurred to me which I think might help here. Until the financial crisis, most macroeconomists (not all) tended to view the financial sector as a simple ‘transmission system’ rather than thinking about it as a system with its own incentives and dynamic. That was a huge mistake. Equally criticisms of the visual media which amount to ‘they are all biased’ are about as informative as saying the problem with the financial sector is that everyone in it is too greedy. More sensible critiques in both cases look at the way the sector works, and the incentives actors with each system face.

[3] Equally if something is stated often enough by one side and is not contested, it becomes a fact.