Skip to content
  • Home
  • Who was Erasmus?
  • Radical History
  • Arts and Culture
  • Political Sociology
Erasmus Research

Erasmus Research

for a better world

Gary’s Economics Almost has it Right. Understanding the role of Agnotology in economic journalism.

Posted on November 11, 2022November 11, 2022 By erasmusresearch

Gary Stevenson, the brilliant economist and commentator has contributed a great deal to our ability to understand the economics behind inequality, and his project should be robustly supported. We would like, however, to take this opportunity to address one small but important weakness in an argument he frequently makes in relation to why economic predictions in the media, are almost always wrong. Gary points out, with a great deal of validity, the fact that in the media, there is neither an incentive to get it right, nor a sanction for getting it wrong.

While this is undoubtedly true, this analysis gives only a partial view of the picture, missing the most important aspect altogether. The main flaw in this argument arises from the mistaken assumption that the actual role of economic journalists is to ‘be right’ about the economy. We would argue that exactly the opposite is true. This assertion is evidenced by the fact that economic commentators who are consistently ‘right’ in their analysis and their predictions, find it increasingly difficult to provide their brand of economic analysis on a mainstream media outlet. A good example appeared this week when Richard Murphy, well known for his critical position in respect of the government’s economic policies, was booked to appear on Sky News to discuss the Bank of England’s increase in interest rates. He then Tweeted to say the item had been dropped, only to Tweet again shortly after to inform us that he had actually been replaced on the programme with someone whose view was much more closely aligned with that of the government, and by extension the billionaire oligarch elite.

While this is undoubtedly true, this analysis gives only a partial view of the picture, missing the most important aspect altogether. The main flaw in this argument arises from the mistaken assumption that the actual role of economic journalists is to ‘be right’ about the economy. We would argue that exactly the opposite is true. This assertion is evidenced by the fact that economic commentators who are consistently ‘right’ in their analysis and their predictions, find it increasingly difficult to provide their brand of economic analysis on a mainstream media outlet. A good example appeared last week when Richard Murphy, well known for his critical position in respect of the government’s economic policies, was booked to appear on Sky News to discuss the Bank of England’s increase in interest rates. He then Tweeted to say the item had been dropped, only to Tweet again shortly after to inform us that he had actually been replaced on the programme with someone whose view was much more closely aligned with that of the Bank of England, and by extension the Government and the billionaire oligarch elite who funds it.

No one should be surprised by this. George Monbiot was so effective at conveying his message on the BBCs Question Time, he has never been asked back, and believes he never will. Nigel Farage, on the other hand, has appeared as a Question Time panellist more than anyone else in the programme’s history. The evidence speaks for itself. Mick Lynch is no longer a regular feature on our nightly ‘news’ screens, for the same reasons that Richard Murphy’s brand of economics is largely ignored in favour of voices that are aligned with the prevailing economic orthodoxy.

This is the central issue that Gary Stevenson overlooks when he conflates ‘the City’, and its trading function, with the media and its entirely political function. Herein lies the difference between the trader and the economic commentator working in the ‘media’. The role of the city trader is to make money. In order to make money, they have to know what the markets will (or at least might) do. That should not be confused with the entirely political function of the journalist, whose role has little to do with the actual ‘truth’. The real task of the contemporary economic commentator is to pull the wool over our eyes, to muddy the waters and to promote disinformation, all in the service of those who employ them, namely the oligarch class. It’s not an accident that they are so spectacularly wrong, as Gary points out, almost all the time.

We would like to counter this liberal world view – that the role of the media is to keep us informed – by putting forward the concept of ‘Agnotology’. Agnotology is the cultural cultivation of widespread ignorance, in order to confuse people and to obfuscate the truth about important issues. Political propaganda has been around for a long time. Fake news, false information presented as news, is also nothing new. Agnotology is different because it represents a generic means by which ignorance is produced and is presented in the form of either news or analysis, including economic prediction. As Gary’s work shows, Agnotology has even colonised academia, with an entire range of Economics’ Professors now parroting the prevailing economic orthodoxy of what Mark Fisher referred to as Capitalist Realism.

Gary’s Economics is right to call out the fact that media (and academic) economic commentators get it so spectacularly wrong, with such astonishing regularity. But what he misses is the fact that these people are actively chosen to speak because of their ‘particular’ position on an issue. Ask yourself this – how long would a mainstream media celebrity last if they were to start talking about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people? How long would your on-screen economic commentator last if they talked about rising inequality, the impact of privatisation or the need to tax the rich?

Failure to understand this perspective, that is to say, failure to move beyond the myth of ‘liberal democracy’, places each of us in a position where we become not only vulnerable to the ‘Agnotology’ that courses through the veins of the state, but an instrument of its very reproduction, promotion and dissemination. 

Political Sociology Tags:Agnotology, Economics, Gary Stevenson

Post navigation

Previous Post: Vegan Entanglements – A Book Review – Part 3 – Anti-Carceral Veganism
Next Post: The Public Order Bill and the Expansion of the Police State

Related Posts

Highlighting the Problems of the OLR Sentence in Scotland Crime and Justice
Understanding the Power of Scapegoating Cultural Criminology
The Problem with PREVENT Political Sociology
Conflating Bigotry and Hate Cultural Criminology
Unaccountable Power – The Universal Logic of Policing   Political Policing in Scotland
Vegan Entanglements – A Book Review – Part 1. The Problem with Carceral Veganism. Cultural Criminology

Recent Posts

  • The Pleasure of Punishment: Unconscious Desire and the Performance of Judicial Power
  • Highlighting the Problems of the OLR Sentence in Scotland
  • Risk, Power, and Deception: How the Punishment System Fails the Vulnerable

Archives

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • November 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • February 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • March 2019

Copyright © 2025 Erasmus Research.

Powered by PressBook Masonry Dark