Why Does This Work With Democratic Voters?

At the Democratic Convention politicians:
1. Demonized corporations.
2. Demeaned "the rich".
3. Assumed that "caring" was synonymous with more government.
4. Implied that if a politician didn't propose raising spending,
e.g., on education, then the politician must not care about children
or about families.
4. Asserted that all of this was what it really means to be American.

Don Boudreaux summarizes it nicely:
Government's modus operandi today is to bestow goodies on politically
powerful interest groups, and to pay for these goodies by taxing
politically unpopular groups (e.g., oil companies) and politically
impotent groups (most notably, future taxpayers). The bottom line is
that, through government, Jones imposes costs on Smith without
Smith's consent.

Peter Boettke points out the problem as "one of dependence on the state to deliver us from uncertainty and insecurity in the market economy and in life in general." He believes this desire for" paternalism and public choice are bedfellows that continually advance the power of the state and atrophe the individual
spirit." James Buchanan says we are, "afraid to be free."

Yet given the massive unfunded liabilities of Social Security,
Medicare, and all the rest facing us in the future, avoiding talk of
future crippling debt on our children should appear blatantly
irresponsible. Why, then, does this kind of talk work so well with
voters, particularly with Democratic voters?

Context for Discussions of Political Economy

Honest discussions of political economy that arise over whether
government should be responsible for solving this or that problem or
social ill, must begin with agreement as to the overall context of
the opposition between freedom and government. The context is that of
the two great ideologies—free markets and government socialism—and
the relative good each has demonstrated for humankind throughout
history.

The inspiration of socialism—that it has social value—has led to
governments that have killed tens of millions of innocent people and
have destroyed the economies of billions. On the other hand, free
markets, when allowed to operate, have produced wealth and social
good that have consistently lifted people out of poverty, disease,
ignorance, and isolation. Both ideologies have often been
misinterpreted. However, for whatever the flaws of free market
capitalism as it is applied in the real world, its sins pale in
comparison to those of the consequences imposed by socialism.

This context means that someone who advocates more government or
government as a method to solve social or economic problems must
assume the burden of proof that such a program will, in fact, operate
contrary to what history has consistently shown and contrary to the
explanations of economic theory.

Media Bias or Lack of Incentives?

Some have made much of media bias in the reporting on issues such as global warming, the environment, the economy, etc. Bias could come from ideologic or political beliefs held by reporters or it may simply come from the lack of incentives to dig deeper into topics. After all, what incentives do reporters have for spending additional time when readers want mostly quickly read and easily digested summaries.

For example, take this on how the quality of US health care and the high mortality rates of the US is compared to other countries.

The main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported—and how such babies are treated statistically—tells a different story than what the numbers reveal. Low birth weight infants are not counted against the "live birth" statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates. According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500 kg is not considered a living child.

But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies — considered "unsalvageable" outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive — is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the United States....

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive. If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a "miscarriage" and does not affect the country's reported infant mortality rates.... Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world's 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

So are reporters who mislead by superficial reporting or omissions of information intentionally misleading us, or are the incentives of reporting such that in-depth reporting is not valued?