Skip to main content

You are here

Advertisement

Most See Bias in Retirement Coverage

Media “bias” has long been cited – generally among those who take issue with what, or how, specific coverage appears. This week we asked NAPA Net readers to weigh in on the issue of retirement issue coverage and bias.

Most of this week’s respondents thought there was bias in the coverage of retirement/retirement issues – about a third (35%) said that was “mostly yes, but not all,” and another third (31%) simply replied “yes.” Roughly 10% each said it depended in the issue or the writer, while just 7% said mostly no, and a mere 3.5% were in the “they report what they believe to be the truth/reality.”

“There isn't enough substance there,” noted one reader. “The bias is to sell subscriptions – not to give the topic a thorough treatment.”

“Yes, mainstream media is Fake News and I don’t believe anything they say,” commented another. “In many cases, they don't fully understand the issues or the landscape,” noted another.

What’s the Beef?

Asked about their sense of the focus of the mainstream/non-industry media's coverage of retirement (with the ability to select multiple options), readers responded:

48% - If only we had pensions the way we once did.
45% - There's a retirement crisis coming, and we're all doomed.
43% - People don't have a clue about retirement.
41% - Nobody's saving enough.
38% - Some people will be fine in retirement, others not so much.
35% - We're already in the middle of a retirement crisis, we just don't (all) know it.
14% - Nobody could ever save “enough.”
3.5% - Thank goodness we have 401(k)s!

The rest fell into an “other” category, including comments like the following:


  • “All 401ks are being eaten up by high fees.”

  • “401(k)s don’t work.”

  • “State governments like Illinois will rescue us through state-sponsored retirement plans.”

  • “You're getting screwed by someone somewhere somehow.”

  • “There isn’t a comprehensive/cohesive message there,” commented one reader. “Mainstream now includes behaviors that turn news from ‘informative’ to ‘entertaining.’ ‘Entertaining’ generally starts sensational – ‘Why Kim Kardashian has an opinion about your 401k!’ ‘Really?’ Media is doing a better job of calling out their sponsored content.”


‘Why’ Knots?

As for why the coverage takes that focus, readers attributed it to:

52% - That’s what people who have agendas of their own tell them.
42% - That’s what people read/click on.
24% - That’s what experts/academics tell them.
21% - That’s what they see/hear in the real world.
17% - That’s what they believe to be reality.
17% - That’s what their editors tell them to write about.

There were, of course, some other opinions as well – here’s a sampling:


  • “Because we’re all getting older and too many haven't saved enough... and the litigators are after our industry (in some cases, well-deserved).”

  • “We need the government to save us by expanding federal benefits programs.”

  • “They are uninformed.”

  • “It is complicated and not everyone takes the time to fully understand the complexity.”

  • “Some misguided belief that back in the days of ‘pensions’ our retirements were more secure (though of course the facts don't support this).”

  • “Mainstream media used to reports facts. Now they report lies that fit their political agenda and warped world views.”

  • “Fear sells.”

  • “Misunderstanding of finance; lack of knowledge of history of retirement plans; myth that majority of people used to be covered under generous pension plans.”

  • “They write what will attract readers and sell ads.”


Reaction Airings

We asked readers how they (generally) reacted when they saw that kind of coverage, and they responded:

31% - Dismiss it, because that's not what I'm seeing/dealing with.
24% - Share it with clients/prospects.
17% - Share it with colleagues.
10% - Get depressed.
7% - Get energized to do something about it!

Readers also said:


  • “Review what I’m doing for our clients and if we can improve anything communication or design wise.”

  • “I share with clients and explain reality. I attempt to disabuse the clients of incorrect information.”

  • “Consider the source, then move to the next issue.”

  • “Look for the story behind the story.”

  • “Sometimes leave a comment, if that's an option.”

  • “Complicated topic. Tough to sell a complete article. Where appropriate – I comment on the article in ways that I hope are balanced and informative.”

  • “Share it on LinkedIn.”

  • “Consider the source; that usually determines my interest.”

  • “Share it on social media with commentary pointing out its shortcomings.”

  • “Check to see if there is enough ‘good’ data in it to be worthwhile to share.”

  • “Share it with colleagues since we’ll have to deal with questions.”


Most (55%) have not written to a mainstream publication about their retirement coverage, while another 10% wanted to, but hadn’t – 28% had (none had gotten any response to their response) – and the rest couldn’t remember. One reader explained, “Nothing changed... apparently, reality is too boring to print... printing an article based on positive solutions, real life success stories, or highlighting firms that are making a difference in this area is too bland and not ‘catchy’ enough.” However, another said, “Absolutely nothing... but I felt better!”

Other Comments

As for other comments about retirement plan coverage, media bias, perceptions about media bias, the realities of retirement plan coverage, perceptions about media bias about retirement plan coverage, or life in general, we had a number of responses. Here’s a sample:

“Sloppy, lazy journalism prevails. It’s less work to start from the common media narrative and find a way to confirm what they think is reality than dig in and learn.”

“The articles I’ve seen vary widely depending on the agenda of the author. We are either doomed and need the government to save us, everything is great because savings rates are actually too high, or we need to buy more annuity products. I can’t recall an article on retirement savings that didn't push an agenda.”

“Just now read a WSJ article indicating auto-enrollment is ‘bad’ because more auto-enrolled participants end up cashing out and/or taking loans than those who sign up themselves. Buried in the article was the note that those auto-enrolled still had greater balances than the voluntary folks at the end of the study period. Nowhere did it mention that starting auto-enroll at higher than 3% could reduce the number of cash-outs (since the resulting balances wouldn't then be under $1,000), though it seemed like a good solution to me.” (Note: I’ll be writing about that next week.)

“As a nation – we don’t have a retirement policy. There has been no statement that a well-funded retirement is important and fundamental to government, business and individuals. There seems to be a conflict present that isn't being called out. States – who will be damaged first and most by unfunded retirements – are trying to promote retirement. The Hill has made a retirement policy come in second to budget processes and they use a flawed CBO scoring process as a cloaking device. There isn’t a version of Washington that is near to spending less than it takes in. Retirement deductions are an easy place to pull off a revenue enhancement and get away with it. It would be good if Washington DC would make a simple statement – funded retirements are important. Then pull together a deliberate policy – not fall backwards into a policy that fits a budget process and can excuse its way around the flawed CBO scoring process.”

“There was a time when Mainstream Media (MSM) could be trusted to report the facts in an unbiased, professional way. Today, the ends justify the means and I have witnessed MSM journalists and newscasters tell bald-faced lies on the air and in print. CNN is a case in point... they used to be reliable and I watched them regularly for my news. They are now a completely discredited laughing stock good only for entertainment. When journalists in MSM lack basic integrity, the truth is the first casualty.”

“I think it depends on who is in power. In keeping with general media bias, if a liberal/democrat is in power, most coverage is either neutral or quiet. If a conservative/republican is in power, the coverage is negative.”

“I would appreciate a fair and balanced approach; if you must write/broadcast a negative topic or article, at least give equal time/space to something positive and good about our current retirement system. Media could be part of the solution, if they only would...”

“The myth of the ubiquitous pension plan of yesteryear is strong. Whenever I speak with someone about the retirement ‘crisis,’ I usually lead with that point (less than 50% coverage; 15-year vesting schedules) because it reframes the discussion from ‘How do we get back to yesterday?’ to ‘How do we maximally leverage the system we have now?’”

“Too many writers seem to not care enough to actually understand the issue, just want to get a quick story out there that will grab some attention.”

“Public policy is often set based on media representation of issues. Retirement readiness is highly mathematical, and the media certainly, and a (too) large segment of the population is mathematically illiterate. Unfortunately, that means there is a wide ability for the press to misrepresent – either deliberately or not. I’d like to believe it is simple ignorance and an inability for reporters to become educated enough to write something accurate. However, I don’t really think this is the problem. Even a mainstream column like the Motley Fool is biased and mathematically inaccurate. It is also unfortunate that certain politicians lump everything into a category of ‘fake news.’ That oversimplifies the fact that while there is plenty of fake news, there is even more biased to the point of inaccuracy. That can never be addressed simply by labeling it fake.”

“Much of the statistics cited, both by mainstream and industry publications, are used with minimal context, or have small or misrepresented data sets. Hard to get an accurate read when there is so much differing and even conflicting data coming out, not just from mainstream sources but from within our own industry. Many industry studies are sponsored by groups with a definite bias and perspective and so one wonders whether to trust results or if the ‘research’ is tailored to provide a desired outcome for marketing purposes.”

Thanks to everyone who participated in our weekly NAPA Net reader poll!

Advertisement