There are so many comparisons of the current recession with those of the past century. “This is going to be much worse than the 1929 depression” was the most recent idiotic sentiment being trotted out by yet another commentator on mainstream news.

For all the comparisons that we can make between different periods of recession, one thing is for sure. In 1929 we didn’t have 24 hour news channels, desperate to boost their viewer ratings with the latest shock headline. In 1974 we didn’t have the internet, peddling false alarm stories or stirring up fearful rumours for the average household saver. Even in 1991, breakfast news was still an emerging phenomenon and most of us received our daily dose of depression at six or ten in the evening. Now, it’s almost impossible to go anywhere without media intrusion.

So am I blaming the media for the recession? Of course not. That would be as foolish and as ill-informed as most of the opinion on the front of our daily national newspapers.

But I would suggest that they have played a strong role in shaping reactions to the current situation. And here’s why…
Language – words, phrases, sentences – may not determine thought, but they do shape thought. They shape our interpretation of what is happening to us and they shape our emotions in response. To illustrate the point, look at the work of the psychologists Kahneman and Tversky. They put two scenarios to medical doctors (typically well educated and rational professionals we would assume) requesting funding for a health programme. The first was outlined with cautious language such as ‘saving the lives of 200 people out of 600 people who are vulnerable’, while the second was outlined with riskier language such as ‘resulting in the death of 400 people out of 600’. The vast majority of the health professionals opted for the cautious programme, even though there were no discernable differences in the actual risk.

Steve Pinker makes the point – in his book Stuff of Thought – that nobody is forced to construe situations in the way that a speaker presents them, but, when we have no prior knowledge of the situation, we are far more likely to be persuaded by the way that he or she presents them. In most instances, hard facts and figures reassure us that we are correct in the way that we are thinking about a problem.

But with the current financial situation, there are few real facts and figures. The numbers trotted out everyday are beyond comprehension. Few people have prior knowledge or expertise. Even the bank traders seem to struggle to describe some of the financial deals and techniques that have given rise to such inflated debts.

In the 1960s, Albert Ellis, a remarkable psychologist most widely known for his work in cognitive-behavioural therapy, made the point that if human beings focus on a problem, then not surprisingly the problem will seem to grow. He further illustrated his thinking when he defined a list of irrational thoughts that we all, to some degree or another, experience. These included ‘polarized thinking’ (where things are either fantastic or disastrous), ‘catastrophising’ (where what-ifs quickly turn into certain doom) and over-generalisations (where one-off events lead us into drawing generalised conclusions about the future). Do these sound familiar?

So where does that leave the recession in the media? In a frenzy, it seems. The television and newspaper media now resort to managing their own uncertainty about what is happen by over-speculating. In the process, they use words and statements that shape our thoughts in a very negative and emotional way. Words such as ‘crisis’, ‘depression’ and ‘edge of a precipice’ typically lead us into making emotional over-generalisations and catastrophising about the future. It leaves investors wanting to withdraw their money from the banks and adopt the very irrational tactic of stuffing in their mattresses.

News chiefs beware. Irrational language drives irrational thought, which inevitably drives irrational action.