I grew up in the Watergate era, when crusading journalists continually pressed to uncover the real story and ending up bringing down a corrupt president. I’m afraid this permanently warped my view of reporters, leading me to believe that they were people pursuing a mission rather than just a paycheck and a promotion. I’m somewhat older now, but I refuse to give up that view of what reporting should be, even if it rarely lives up to it in reality.

That’s why I raise issues like what the media would do if it cared about conveying information to its audience. I won’t harp on my usual line here about how media misrepresentations of the economy led voters to believe that most people were struggling in what actually is a very good economy.

Rather I will talk about two simple ways in which reporters could have done far more to inform their audience at essentially zero cost in terms of time or research. The first is calling tariffs what they are, taxes on imports. The second is putting huge budget numbers in a context that makes them understandable to their audience.

The first point is especially frustrating at the moment since confusion over the meaning of tariffs appears to have played an important role in the election. Many people, including Donald Trump, seem to believe that a tariff is a tax imposed on other countries.

The issue that is hard to understand is why reporters would use the term “tariff” when much of their audience does not understand what a tariff is. If the media had just reported that Trump wanted to increase taxes on imports, voters would have been much clearer on what is at issue.

The question is why does the media insist on using a term that is confusing to much of their audience when they could easily use three words, or even two words (import taxes) that would eliminate much of the confusion? I have not found anyone who could give me an answer that comes close to passing the laugh test.

Is the point really to save one or two words in an article? We know that reporters strive for brevity, but in a 1,000 to 2,000 word article would this really be a big deal?

Is it just being out of sync, if everyone else calls them “tariffs” an individual reporter or new outlet would be embarrassed by using the phrase “taxes on imports.” That’s the most plausible story I can envision, but it really makes the media look pathetic.

If they try to write in a way that would be more informative to their audience, they are worried they would no longer be one of the cool kids? I’m happy to be told there is a better reason, but I have no idea what it would be.

Putting Huge Budget Numbers in a Context that Makes them Meaningful

When reporters write that the Inflation Reduction Act will allocate $369 billion to support clean energy programs over the next decade, it is essentially providing no more inflation than if It just wrote “really big number.” This is exactly what the New York Times then Washington editor, David Leonhardt said when this issue was raised with him a decade ago by then NYT’s Public Editor Margaret Sullivan.

Sullivan was responding to complaints by me and others about the use of huge budget numbers without any context that would make them meaningful to readers. Sullivan agreed with this completely, as did Leonhardt. At the time it looked like there would be a change in policy at the New York Times. And given its importance in the media food chain, a change at the New York Times would almost certainly lead to a change in policy at the Washington Post, National Public Radio, the major news networks and everywhere else.

This would mean that instead of hearing that we are spending $105 billion a year on SNAP (food stamps), people would hear that 1.5 percent of the budget was going to SNAP. Instead of hearing that $3.8 billion a year was going to aid to Africa, people would hear that 0.05 percent of the budget was going to aid to Africa. And instead of hearing that $535 million a year was going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, people would hear that 0.008 percent of the federal budget was going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

I think this would be great both because people should have some idea where their money is going, but also there is enormous confusion about what are the big items in the federal budget. Almost 75 percent of the budget goes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the military, and interest on the debt.

Since people have no idea of the overall size of the federal budget. When they hear numbers in the millions and billions they think they are a really big deal in terms of their tax dollars. Polls have consistently shown that people hugely overestimate the share of the budget going to various social programs and areas like foreign aid.

Part of this overestimation is undoubtedly due to reverse causation. Because people don’t like SNAP they will exaggerate the share of the budget going there. But part of it is due to real confusion. Tens of millions of relatively liberal people who support programs like SNAP also overestimate the share of federal revenue they get.

If people constantly heard that 1.5 percent of the budget goes to SNAP or 0.008 percent of the budget was going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, it would be harder to make the case that this spending was the reason we don’t have money for other things or pay high taxes. This is still not an excuse for wasteful spending, so people who don’t like these programs may still object to this spending, but at least the debate would be grounded in reality.

Why Doesn’t the Media Try to Inform Their Audience?

Having followed economics reporting closely for more than three decades, I’m still inclined to think that the main reason reporters won’t alter their reporting in ways that make it more informative to their audience is simply inertia. Like all of us, reporters tend to be lazy. If they have always called taxes on imports “tariffs” and have always written big budget numbers with no context, why change?

The basic story is that they don’t care. They can keep reporting the way they do now and still collect their paycheck and get promoted and move up the ladder to the top. No one other than a small group of troublemakers like me will ever say anything about it, and we can be easily ignored.

There are groups that have more power that care about these programs, such as the various anti-poverty groups, but these groups also suffer from inertia. That are not in the habit of monitoring the media and complaining about inadequate reporting. Asking them to try something new is a really big lift. Their philosophy seems to be “we have been losing for half a century, why change now?”

It is worth contrasting the neglect of media coverage of major liberal groups with right-wing groups and major corporations. The right-wing groups constantly harangue the media even (especially?) when they report things accurately. And if a major news outlet published something inaccurate that could damage Amazon, Tesla, or some other major corporation, it is a sure bet that their lawyers would be immediately screaming at the top managers demanding, and getting, a retraction.

Of course, there is also the explanation that this is simply corruption. The major media outlets are owned and controlled by people who benefit from lower taxes on the rich and who don’t benefit from government social programs like SNAP. They may be very happy to report on the news in ways that leaves people confused and less likely to push for progressive measures. I don’t like to think this way about the media, I still have a Watergate hangover, but the corruption view does look increasingly plausible.

Is There a Way Forward?

The neglect of media coverage by liberals is truly bizarre given that they do recognize that campaign spending by the rich can affect the outcome of elections. Somehow, they think that seeing ads on television or the Internet just before an election can affect how people think about political issues, but the media that they consume 365 days a year doesn’t matter. There may be a world where that view makes sense, but it isn’t this one.

With a lawless Trump administration taking office next week, progressives have their backs against the wall. But they can try to take advantage of the resources still ostensibly available to them. Progressive state and local governments can fund local media through individual tax credits. We can also use social media sites to hold the major media outlets accountable. Their reporting matters a lot, despite their best efforts to claim otherwise.

Times are tough, we need to do some clear thinking, even if that means doing some things differently.