9/12 Class work: Primary Sources- “Fox business news, The Economist”
“The Economist” and “fox business news” use several key conventions in everyday communication. They rely heavily on statistical data and visuals (can be without/with cited work), use sector specific terminology (mostly, will discuss further later), and highly organized as to make it easy for viewer to get the material they need. Both sources have, and are expected to, publish books and other papers about sector specific events (market crashes, unique happenings, etc).
Both primary sources occasionally break these conventions with the primary intent, I believe, to educate and make their texts more accessible to the public. An example of this is breaking sector specific jargon to help the everyday consumer understand what is going on in their world. One of the most surprising breaks in conventions that I found was the incorporation of politics and other fields into economic discussions. Thinking upon this, it makes sense; However, it was still shocking to witness.
- I found the incorporation of politics to be not only a subversion of what I expected, but also surprising. This shows you how important politics really is and that it’s not just about scandals and the other negative media being put only on a daily basis.
- Personally, I find graphs and other statistical data, backed up with sources, to be the most helpful and attractive information on these websites. This is a personal preference, however I feel it is a universal truth that articles such as these are most trust worthy.
- Another disturbing break of convention- which seems common, unfortunately- is the bias found in both sources, specifically “The economist”.
You seem to assume here that objectivity is (1) possible and (2) a convention within the economics discourse community. But I wonder: economics and politics are not easily separated. One’s politics will affect one’s economic practices and ideologies, and vice versa. Moreover, economics is simply political: it’s a question of where we invest, what we value, and what we don’t. So I wonder if you might question your assumption. It might be worthwhile to talk with your adviser about this.