CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press Is NPR Doing PR Work for the Credit Rating Agencies?

Is NPR Doing PR Work for the Credit Rating Agencies?

Wednesday, 27 July 2011 04:12

The major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Standard and Poors, and Fitch are best known for rating hundreds of billions of dollars of subprime mortgage-backed securities as investment grade. (They got paid tens of millions of dollars for these ratings.) They are also famous for missing the shipwrecks at Bear Stearns, Lehman, Enron and many other major corporate bankruptcies.

This is important because NPR told listeners this morning that President Obama had to fear not just a default, but also a downgrading from the credit rating agencies. It then had a quote from Jim Kessler, the vice-president of Third Way, a Wall Street-backed think tank. Kessler told listeners that a country with a second-rate credit rating is a second rate country and that a downgrading would be a serious liability for President Obama in his re-election campaign.

This one is pretty far removed from reality even for a major news organization. No poll has ever showed a credit rating to be a major factor in determining voters' decisions. It is difficult to imagine that people who would have otherwise voted for President Obama would instead vote for his Republican opponent because one or more credit rating agencies has downgraded the country's debt.

As a practical matter, the financial markets completely ignored the downgrading of Japan's debt in 2002. It can still pay less than 1.5 percent interest on its 10-year bonds. It is likely that the financial markets respect for the credit rating agencies' judgment has not increased since the collapse of the housing bubble. It is also worth noting that the credit rating agencies are seeking politicians' support in minimizing the impact of the regulations in the Dodd-Frank bill.

This piece also bizarrely asserted that a debt reduction package that included "changes" to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would help President Obama in his re-election campaign. First, the proposals on the table involve cuts to these programs. Politicians use the term "changes" to try to conceal the fact that they want to cut these extremely popular programs. Serious news organizations try to inform their audiences, they are not supposed to use politicians' euphemisms to help conceal what is at issue.

This raises the second point. NPR presented no evidence whatsoever that President Obama would gain electorally if he were to cut programs that draw overwhelming support not only from Democrats, but also Independents and Republicans. If it has some basis for this assertion, it would be interesting to know what it is.

Comments (2)Add Comment
NeoCon Propaganda Radio
written by Nassim Sabba, July 27, 2011 7:23
I stopped believing in the fake fund-raisings and all the "listener supported" nonsense in 2001 in the drum-upto the attack on Iraq. When suddenly after raising $10,000 per day, they make up their shortfall raising $100,000 the last day from a bunch of generous listeners.

NeoCon Propaganda Radio probably gets its funding from a few very generous clients whose agenda it is supposed to push onto the semi-intelligent audience it garners with stories that sound open minded by are subliminally worded to brain wash the audience.

Is of any surprise that a powerful organ has been created slowly over the years, carefully establishing itself as the voice of the people in order to push an agenda on the people who trust it now? NYT and FOX on 15 are two other examples. But sooner or later, they will slip up.
Cutting to the Chase
written by Ron Alley, July 27, 2011 8:48
Krugman eloquently describes the culture that drives NPR and almost every other media outlet:

You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will.

And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.

It’s a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.