David Leonhardt on the Media

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Russ Roberts interviews New York Times economics and business columnist David Leonhardt about journalism, media bias, economics, and healthcare accountability. Leonhardt explains how newsroom decisions are made, how the internet is changing newspapers, why objectivity remains valuable despite ideological sorting, why economists should engage with policy, and how public reporting of hospital performance can improve outcomes like door-to-balloon time for heart attack patients.

Main Topics: How the New York Times newsroom works (Priority: 5/5): Leonhardt describes the daily editorial process, including the noon and late-afternoon meetings where top editors and department heads decide what stories run on the front page and online. The changing business of newspapers in the internet era (Priority: 5/5): The discussion covers how online distribution, faster news cycles, and around-the-clock readership are shifting newspapers from pure reporting toward context, analysis, and feature-style journalism. Bias, objectivity, and ideological sorting in media (Priority: 5/5): Roberts and Leonhardt debate whether media outlets are becoming more partisan and how major newspapers can still serve as relatively nonpartisan sources even as their audiences and op-ed pages lean ideologically. Economists, ideology, and real-world engagement (Priority: 4/5): They discuss whether economists should acknowledge ideology, step into policy debates, and spend more time with other disciplines and with ordinary people rather than only theory and models. Public disclosure and hospital performance (Priority: 5/5): Leonhardt explains his reporting on heart-attack treatment times and argues that transparency and accountability can dramatically improve care when hospitals know their performance will be public. Measurement, incentives, and unintended consequences (Priority: 4/5): The conversation highlights the power and limits of metrics: rankings and process measures can improve behavior, but they can also distort incentives and require careful design.

Key Arguments: News organizations are shifting from simply reporting what happened yesterday to providing context and analysis for readers who already know the basic facts. The internet has changed newspapers more slowly than radio and TV did, but it is now the main force reshaping newsroom priorities and publication timing. Major newspapers can resist total ideological narrowing by maintaining rigorous news sections even if op-ed pages and readerships lean left or right. The demand for nonpartisan reporting will persist because blogs and partisan media still rely on traditional news organizations as a baseline source of verified information. Economists should not be afraid to influence policy when their research gives them useful insight, as long as they are explicit about uncertainty and limits. Economics would improve if economists spent more time with other disciplines and with real-world institutions and people, not just formal models. Transparency works: once hospitals knew performance data would be public, UCSF improved its heart-attack treatment times significantly. Metrics are imperfect and can be gamed, but they are often better than no accountability at all because they create pressure to improve. Health-care reforms should focus on quality and process outcomes, not only coverage, because better treatment can save lives even without major new medical breakthroughs. Journalistic and academic bias often enters through topic selection and framing more than through blatant factual distortion.

Data Points: EconTalk anniversary: 1 year / over 40 episodes - Roberts opens by noting the show has passed its first anniversary and produced more than 40 episodes. Times editing meetings: 2 per day - Leonhardt describes a late-morning and a late-afternoon meeting that determine front-page and section placement. New York Times readership issue: Not a random sample - Leonhardt says the Times readership skews more liberal than the country as a whole. Wall Street Journal comparison: Editorial pages more conservative - Used as a counterpoint showing how editorial slants differ from news sections. Door-to-balloon time goal: Under 2 hours (some think 90 minutes) - Standard for treating heart attacks by opening arteries quickly. National average within 2 hours: 67% - Leonhardt cites the share of patients nationally treated within the target window. UCSF performance before improvement: Around 3 hours average - Five years earlier UCSF’s average door-to-balloon time was roughly three hours. UCSF performance after improvement: 77% under 2 hours - Leonhardt says UCSF improved substantially after public reporting pressure. Specific UCSF case: 83 minutes - A heart-attack patient at UCSF was treated in 83 minutes. Historical comparison: 1955 Eisenhower heart attack - Used to illustrate how much heart-attack treatment has improved over decades. Business school rankings: Survey of graduating MBA students and recruiters - Leonhardt describes BusinessWeek rankings as customer satisfaction measures.

Pivotal Quotes: "we don't anymore really tell people as much about what happened yesterday" — David Leonhardt: Explaining how newspaper journalism has shifted toward context and analysis. "this is no longer a call both sides for comment issue" — David Leonhardt: His view that climate change coverage should reflect scientific consensus rather than equal treatment of fringe denial. "is this what you would want if your dad came in here?" — David Leonhardt: A UCSF nurse’s line that captured how public accountability pushed staff to improve heart-attack care.

Implications: Media, economics, and healthcare all improve when institutions face clear incentives and transparent measures, but the design of those measures matters. Readers should expect more analysis than raw reporting, and citizens should value accountability without ignoring nuance or unintended consequences.