Flashback-Pre-election media on jobs reports, then and now

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. Stephanie

    Stephanie Diamond Member

    Jul 11, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    links in article at site

    posted at 2:31 pm on October 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

    Yesterday’s jobs report from the BLS had an interesting analogue in history.

    The month before the 2004 election — also a contest for an incumbent President’s re-election — the jobs report for September turned out to be rather weak. The BLS reported a net increase of only 96,000 jobs, weaker than the previous several months, and as it turned out only a short-term blip in a fairly strong recovery of jobs from a lingering recession. That’s slightly weaker than yesterday’s +114,000, and in September 2004 the jobless rate remained unchanged at 5.4%, but it’s close enough to compare the media coverage of then and now.

    Let’s start with the New York Times. How did they lead their coverage in October 2004 of the September jobs report?

    How did they report yesterday’s jobs report? Let’s just say they gave it a … different emphasis:

    In 2004, a jobless rate of 5.4% “cast doubt” on the economy, and suddenly 7.8% is a sign of “a steadier recovery.”
    In 2012, the NYT never even mentions the need to grow jobs by 150,000 each month to keep up with expansion in the labor force. Not even once.

    All right, that’s the New York Times. No one expects them to be unbiased. How about PBS? (Stop laughing, you guys.) Believe it or not, they did marginally better, only because they didn’t get so in the tank in 2004:

    all of it here but remember folks, they tell us there is NO BIAS from the lamstream MEDIA

    Pre-election media on jobs reports, then and now « Hot Air
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012

Share This Page