In a delightful column in the Washington Post, Barton Swaim discusses what he considers "a widely committed journalistic sin".
The sin? Dressing up opinions as facts by saying, "It is widely believed...." without documenting "believed by whom and by how many?" when more often than not (one suspects) the statement that follows "it is widely believed..." is little more than the writer's opinion, which is shared by some people who have a similar outlook on politics or policy.
Some examples:
... [F]rom a recent article in the Economist on the trend toward greater college enrollment by women: “Numbers in many of America’s elite private colleges are more evenly balanced. It is widely believed that their opaque admissions criteria are relaxed for men.” Maybe it’s “widely believed” and maybe it isn’t — it depends on what “widely” means — but that allegation is a serious one, and it deserves more support than a casual allusion to what’s “widely believed.” ...
Earlier this year, for instance, a writer for the Los Angeles Times began his column by noting that “it is widely held that the dopiest anti-Obamacare lawsuit is King vs. Burwell.” And an editor at the New Republic observed that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is “widely considered one of the most socially inept candidates.” Maybe both these statements are true and I am irritated by them only because, not sharing the writers’ political views, I am not included in their uses of “widely.” But when the New Yorker, in a highly flattering profile of Secretary of State John Kerry, refers offhandedly to “George W. Bush, who is widely considered the worst President of the modern era,” I am pretty sure that that “widely” does not mean what most of us mean when we use it.
I get it. I used to think George W. Bush was the worst president in US history and then Barack Obama was elected. It is widely believed among about half my Facebook friends that Obama is the best president ever; it is also widely believed among about half my Facebook friends that Obama is the worst president ever. I just happen to have a wide circle of friends from numerous walks of life.
And that brings me to all the journalists who quote an economist in their stories. I'm making this next one up, but it captures the essence of what happens:
A journalist will do a story on some proposed economic policy, say, increasing the minimum wage. S/he will call some economist at some university and get a quote that says, "Over eighty percent of economists believe that raising the minimum wage will reduce job opportunities for York and Calgary graduates unskilled workers. But the journalist cares about the working poor and doesn't want to hear this view.
And so the journalist calls another economist known to have more elitist, interventionist views who will say, "The evidence about job loss is unclear, and even if there is job loss, it is very minor, compared with the increased income for the working poor." Of course this quote will be introduced with, "But many other economists disagree." How many others?
All too often I hear or read quotes from economists who have little or no empirical or theoretical backing for their statements referred to by the MSM as representative of the profession. So here's another, this one from me....
It is widely believed that most journalists are more left-wing, more big-gubmnt, and more elitist-interventionist than the general public.
It is widely believed that most journalists have no clue about the concept of opportunity costs.
It is widely believed that most journalists think the demands for housing, gasoline, York and Calgary graduates unskilled labour, and water are all perfectly inelastic (i.e. they believe that the quantities demanded do not decline as the price goes up, ceteris paribus).
It is widely believed that journalists need to learn more basic economics.