Evan Davis
- Thread starter eoin_k
- Start date
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
I *heart* Evan Davis. And he's a brilliant journalist. He has a background in economics so he really knows his stuff, but what he's particularly good at is explaining complex economic theories in language that the average viewer or listener can understand, which is an enviable skill to have.
There's no conflict of interest, really. He doesn't make any decisions in the programme, he just presents it, introduces the willing victims and then interviews them for the post-mortem afterwards.
Although I have to admit I do like Paul Mason as well. I like the angles he works on his stories. And his voice makes me melt. I would.
There's no conflict of interest, really. He doesn't make any decisions in the programme, he just presents it, introduces the willing victims and then interviews them for the post-mortem afterwards.
Although I have to admit I do like Paul Mason as well. I like the angles he works on his stories. And his voice makes me melt. I would.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Btw, what's a thumb war? 
Perhaps the OP thinks that Evan Davis being friendly and sympathetic to millionaires in presenting Dragon's Den has a conflict with his job of being neutral as an economics journalist.
The misunderstanding is in thinking that there is such a thing as a neutral economics journalist.
Economics, much as it would like to pretend it is, is not a science. It is a sub-set of politics. There are various branches of economics that relate to the left (Keynsian) and right (Friedmanite) and varieties in between and beyond.
I suspect that some of the so called economic experts rolled out on the media do not even understand the facts of the previous sentence. They will have been trained in the currently fashionable theories and possibly not even introduced to the opposing ones. That I fear means that they sincerely present as 'facts', what are really opinions. A few spreadsheets, charts and graphs look very plausible but there is never any questioning of the basic premises.
For example all the economics pundits I have seen on the television over the last few months accept the idea that Britain, and other countries need to make spending cuts. This is just an idea that has been fed into the media by politicians. It is not objectively true. Our spending in relation to GDP is not at an historically high level. We have a recession and lots of unemployment. The answer is not to make cuts but to keep spending and even borrowing. A government can borrow (from its own citizens) at a rellatively low rate because it is a secure investment. At a time of insecurity many people will be happy to lend at a fairly low but fixed rate to a borrower who is more secure than any bank.
Sadly the ideas of making spending cuts have been hawked around Europe and worldwide and most European countries have plans to make such cuts. Each country wants to make itself more 'competitive' but cutting the cost of its wage earners, both in wage income and social benefit income. The problem is that each country is making cuts competitively with the others and there is a 'race to the bottom' to use an over used phrase. The produces an international recession. Interestingly Barack Obama is concerned that Europe may be going too far in its cut backs. He wants to be able to continue to sell American goods here.
Of course I am being as un-neutral in my description as Evan Davis and the other economists are in their narratives. But I wanted to put the opposite view. That won't come from any of the economists who want to be able to get jobs with the city institutions when their spell as pundits to the media ends.
Dragon's Den is sick, but it exposes the way that capitalism works.
The misunderstanding is in thinking that there is such a thing as a neutral economics journalist.
Economics, much as it would like to pretend it is, is not a science. It is a sub-set of politics. There are various branches of economics that relate to the left (Keynsian) and right (Friedmanite) and varieties in between and beyond.
I suspect that some of the so called economic experts rolled out on the media do not even understand the facts of the previous sentence. They will have been trained in the currently fashionable theories and possibly not even introduced to the opposing ones. That I fear means that they sincerely present as 'facts', what are really opinions. A few spreadsheets, charts and graphs look very plausible but there is never any questioning of the basic premises.
For example all the economics pundits I have seen on the television over the last few months accept the idea that Britain, and other countries need to make spending cuts. This is just an idea that has been fed into the media by politicians. It is not objectively true. Our spending in relation to GDP is not at an historically high level. We have a recession and lots of unemployment. The answer is not to make cuts but to keep spending and even borrowing. A government can borrow (from its own citizens) at a rellatively low rate because it is a secure investment. At a time of insecurity many people will be happy to lend at a fairly low but fixed rate to a borrower who is more secure than any bank.
Sadly the ideas of making spending cuts have been hawked around Europe and worldwide and most European countries have plans to make such cuts. Each country wants to make itself more 'competitive' but cutting the cost of its wage earners, both in wage income and social benefit income. The problem is that each country is making cuts competitively with the others and there is a 'race to the bottom' to use an over used phrase. The produces an international recession. Interestingly Barack Obama is concerned that Europe may be going too far in its cut backs. He wants to be able to continue to sell American goods here.
Of course I am being as un-neutral in my description as Evan Davis and the other economists are in their narratives. But I wanted to put the opposite view. That won't come from any of the economists who want to be able to get jobs with the city institutions when their spell as pundits to the media ends.
Dragon's Den is sick, but it exposes the way that capitalism works.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
He's a scab cunt
Evan Wisconsin Davis.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
He's crap on the Today programme. This morning's cock up with the Zionist's name was practically anti-Semitic.
what did he call him Dave Jewboy or something.
maldwyn
What?
Hardly anti-Semitic.
He mistakenly called Rabbi Tony Bayfield Rabbi Jonathan Bayfield
even Today's web page gets it wrong
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8824000/8824006.stm
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I *heart* Evan Davis. And he's a brilliant journalist. He has a background in economics so he really knows his stuff, but what he's particularly good at is explaining complex economic theories in language that the average viewer or listener can understand, which is an enviable skill to have.
There's no conflict of interest, really. He doesn't make any decisions in the programme, he just presents it, introduces the willing victims and then interviews them for the post-mortem afterwards.
Although I have to admit I do like Paul Mason as well. I like the angles he works on his stories. And his voice makes me melt. I would.
He is, as said earlier, an extreme right scab cunt.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Getting the name wrong was fine. His attempted "save" was the funny bit: "Oh Sorry. The Jew we normally have on is called Jonathan".Hardly anti-Semitic.
g force
Affects Shatner's Basoon
I *heart* Evan Davis. And he's a brilliant journalist. He has a background in economics so he really knows his stuff, but what he's particularly good at is explaining complex economic theories in language that the average viewer or listener can understand, which is an enviable skill to have.
There's no conflict of interest, really. He doesn't make any decisions in the programme, he just presents it, introduces the willing victims and then interviews them for the post-mortem afterwards.
Although I have to admit I do like Paul Mason as well. I like the angles he works on his stories. And his voice makes me melt. I would.
This - heard him speak and he's super intelligent but his brilliance is distilling it in a way that most people understand it. Great after dinner speaker too.
Zabo
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find he's no longer the 'economic journalist' rather he is now in the Radio 4 "Today" stable. The new economics editor is Stephanie Flanders.
Sadly as much as Evan was good with number crunching he's piss poor at interviewing/interrogating.
Evidence here - be quick. Humphrys would have fucked Mandelson over good and proper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8823000/8823628.stm
Sadly as much as Evan was good with number crunching he's piss poor at interviewing/interrogating.
Evidence here - be quick. Humphrys would have fucked Mandelson over good and proper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8823000/8823628.stm
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
He's crap. I really don't see him lasting long. He'll be shunted at some point.
This ^^^^^
As this appears to be the correct thread to call Evan Davis a cunt, I'd like to shout SCABBY CUNT! in his general direction.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
About a decade ago, he wrote a book called Public Spending, in which he apparently
Typical economist, passing off political ideology as reasoned, scientific argument.
Typical economist, passing off political ideology as reasoned, scientific argument.
eoin_k
Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
No shit sherlock. It just fucks me off when a right wing prick like Davis doesn't even bother maintaining the facade of impartiality. Not because, I believe in it. I like it whenn Paul Mason shows his allegiances.Thank you to the people who reminded me what a scab he was. When he isn't fawning over business leaders on today he is stiking the knife into strikers.
eoin_k
Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Webb really is piss poor.
Hollis
bloody furious
I have to disagree. Its a slightly bonkers interview.. but that's because he's interviewing Mandelson. I actually think by playing it as his level he shows up Mandelson quite well. Humphreys would have been 80% John Humphreys talking over him, and Mandelson wouldn't have been able to elaborate a single one of his bizarrre points.
27 posts without mention of his tattoos / piercings / 'tinsel tits' nickname?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/apr/02/evandavistoday
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/apr/02/evandavistoday
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Shit trews too.
eoin_k
Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
27 posts without mention of his tattoos / piercings / 'tinsel tits' nickname?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/apr/02/evandavistoday
That rather symapthetic article on Davis describes arts interviews with the likes of Gilberto Gill as "deadly dull" because you can't "squeeze any fancy long division or thrilling explanations of macro-economics into that." I imagine that Gill might have alot to say about political economy, but Evan comes from a generation of economists who have been brainwashed out of even knowing what that is. He is probably oblivious to the fact that Gil's musical career spans the transition from democracy to dictatoriship in Brazil and popular artists' attempts to deal with this neo liberal project. Information they could have gleened from an album sleave:
But hey, who wants to listen to music when you could be analysing econometric models.... (I hope I haven't missed the irony in that article)
