Economics

經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)

Boxed in

阻礙

The BBC's coverage of economics is not biased, but it is not impartial either

英國(guó)廣播公司對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的報(bào)道沒有偏見，但也不公正

?

“DEBT COSTS help push government borrowing to 30-year high,” the website of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) told users on January 24th. That headline exemplifies what an independent report by Michael Blastland, a former BBC radio producer, and Sir Andrew Dilnot, an economist, labels a breach of the Beeb’s commitment to impartiality, not through deliberate bias but “uninformed groupthink and lack of confidence to challenge arguments”.

?

英國(guó)廣播公司(BBC)網(wǎng)站1月24日告訴用戶，“債務(wù)成本將把政府借款推高至30年來(lái)的最高水平”。該標(biāo)題違反了前BBC電臺(tái)制作人邁克爾·布拉斯蘭德(Michael Blastland)和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家安德魯·迪爾洛特爵士(Sir Andrew Dilnot)在一份獨(dú)立報(bào)告中對(duì)BBC公正性的承諾，這種違反不是因?yàn)橛幸獾钠?，而是由于無(wú)知的群體思維和缺乏挑戰(zhàn)觀點(diǎn)的自信心所導(dǎo)致的。”。

?

In December Britain did indeed borrow ￡27.4bn ($33.7bn), the most for that month since records began in 1993. But the framing invites readers to make certain judgments. Why report the figure in pounds? Inflation over the intervening three decades means a pound is worth much less than it was in 1993; it might be more surprising if the record was not broken every December. There is also that journalistic urge to find a record to break. Yet 1993 holds no particular magic: it is just when the data series starts.

?

去年12月，英國(guó)確實(shí)借了274億英鎊(合337億美元)，是1993年有記錄以來(lái)的最高水平。但是新聞的擬定讓讀者提出了某些意見。為什么用英鎊來(lái)報(bào)告這個(gè)數(shù)字？其間三十年的通貨膨脹意味著一英鎊的價(jià)值遠(yuǎn)低于1993年；如果不是在每年的12月打破記錄，結(jié)果可能會(huì)更令人驚訝。新聞業(yè)也有一種想打破記錄的沖動(dòng)。然而，在1993年并沒有什么特別的魔力:它只是數(shù)據(jù)系列開始的時(shí)候。

?

Such choices are part of what the report says is a reflex assumption in the BBC’s coverage that debt is always and everywhere bad, rather than a tool that states can use well or badly. Whether this perspective harms the Labour Party, which has historically favoured higher spending, or the Tories, on whose watch debt has steadily risen, is uncertain. It definitely flattens debate.

?

報(bào)告稱，這種選擇表明了BBC的部分想法，即債務(wù)在任何時(shí)候、任何地方都是壞的，而不是國(guó)家可以用好或者搞砸的工具。這種觀點(diǎn)可能傷害了歷來(lái)支持增加政府支出的工黨，或是傷害了支持政府債務(wù)穩(wěn)步上升的保守黨。但這無(wú)疑使有關(guān)辯論變得平淡無(wú)奇。

?

The underlying problem, reckon the report’s authors, is that the BBC takes too much of a lead from Westminster. It uses the judgments of political reporters to decide which economic stories are important and then frames them as a two-sided contest between the left and the right. That lets the politicians determine what counts as a reasonable opinion. Both the government’s and the opposition’s embrace of austerity in 2010 meant that Keynesian economics, which might have advocated fiscal stimulus, did not get a fair shake. In that case, the consensus between the main political parties led to the false impression of consensus among economists.

?

該報(bào)告的作者認(rèn)為，根本問題在于BBC從英國(guó)政府那里獲得了太多的領(lǐng)先。BBC利用政治記者的判斷來(lái)決定哪些經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào)道是重要的，然后將它們框定為左翼和右翼之間的雙邊較量。這讓政治家們決定什么是合理的意見。政府和反對(duì)派在2010年都支持緊縮政策，這意味著凱恩斯主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)沒有得到公平的對(duì)待，盡管它可能提倡財(cái)政刺激。在那種情況下，一種錯(cuò)誤印象形成，即主要政黨之間的共識(shí)導(dǎo)致了經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家之間共識(shí)。

?

Many economists had similar beefs about the BBC’s coverage of Brexit, accusing it of trying to balance the overwhelming consensus in the profession against a few fringe figures who suggested that leaving the EU would help boost growth. In that case, political rifts obscured agreement among economists. That may not be systematic bias but it nonetheless matters—76% of Britons get their news from the BBC, far more than will ever read an economics paper.

?

許多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家對(duì)BBC對(duì)英國(guó)退出歐盟的報(bào)道有類似的不滿，指責(zé)它試圖平等對(duì)待業(yè)內(nèi)壓倒性的共識(shí)和少數(shù)邊緣人物的觀點(diǎn)，后者認(rèn)為離開歐盟將有助于促進(jìn)增長(zhǎng)。在這種情況下，政治分歧掩蓋了經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家之間的共識(shí)。BBC的做法可能不是系統(tǒng)性的偏見，但它仍然很重要——76%的英國(guó)人從BBC獲得新聞，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過閱讀經(jīng)濟(jì)文獻(xiàn)的人數(shù)。