Pre-election media on jobs reports, then and now

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?

Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported Friday.

The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy just hours before the second presidential debate.

The Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy added just 96,000 jobs in September, substantially less than the roughly 150,000 needed to keep pace with the expansion in the labor force and start absorbing the slack in the job market.

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

The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign.

The improvement lent ballast to Mr. Obama’s case that the economy is on the mend and threatened the central argument of Mitt Romney’s candidacy, that Mr. Obama’s failed stewardship is reason enough to replace him.

Employers added a modest 114,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported on Friday, but estimates for what had been disappointing gains in July and August were revised upward to more respectable levels.

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:

Still, the September job-creation total fell far short of Wall Street economists’ forecasts for 148,000 new jobs.September’s net increase of 96,000 payroll jobs was less than August’s rise, which the Labor Department revised downward from 144,000 to 128,000 it reported a month ago.The latest figures show four straight months of weak job growth after three strong months in the spring. It was the final jobs report before the Nov. 2 presidential election with polls indicating that jobs are a central concern of voters.

How about yesterday?  It was “a rare banner day.”  No, really:

A rare banner day on the jobs front, at least at first glance. The official unemployment rate — U-3 — dropped below 8 percent to 7.8 and even our all-inclusive U-7 is down 0.08 percent — to 16.87 percent. The most impressive numbers are in job creation as reported by the monthly survey of “establishments.” While the 114,000 new jobs added in September is a modest figure, the upward revisions for July and August are substantial: 86,000 more jobs, or a bump of better than 30 percent. It’s a good reminder not to take any given month’s numbers too seriously. But it’s a reminder in the right direction.

Yeah, well … call that the revenge of Big Bird.  How about the Washington Post?  From Nexis, here’s their report from October 9, 2004:

U.S. job growth slowed last month as manufacturers, airlines and retailers shed workers, the government reported yesterday in its last official snapshot of the labor market before the presidential election.

Employers added 96,000 non-farm obs last month, down from 128,000 in August, as losses in some industries were more than offset by hires in others, such as real estate, construction and temporary help services.

September was the fourth-straight month of gains below the roughly 150,000 a month that many economists estimate are necessary to keep pace with population growth. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.4 percent as hundreds of thousands of people stopped looking for work and therefore were not counted among the jobless, the Labor Department said.

Aaaaand from yesterday:

The nation’s jobless rate dropped to its lowest point in nearly four years in September. And unlike some recent declines, this one happened for the right reason: not because people gave up looking for a job, but because far more people reported having one.

It is a surprising improvement in a job market that had appeared listless in recent months. Although employers added a modest 114,000 jobs in September, the unemployment rate dropped sharply, from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, the government reported Friday.

Unemployment is at its lowest level since President Obama took office in January 2009, offering him a political boost just days after his performance was widely judged as lackluster during a debate against GOP rival Mitt Romney.

Just as the New York Times did in 2004, the context of the necessary +150K each month to keep up with population growth appeared within the first three paragraphs. In 2012, the Post never mentions that context at all.

Up for another round?  Here’s the Chicago Tribune in 2004, and this time, we’ll start with the headline, again from Nexis:

JOBS REPORT: September employment growth a disappointment

The nation’s payrolls grew by a less-than-expected 96,000 jobs in September, as joblessness remained at 5.4 percent, the Labor Department said in its last employment report before Election Day. …

Economists said the latest report was disappointing, and that job growth remains anemic for this stage of an economic recovery.

The country should be creating 250,000 jobs or more per month by now, one analyst said.

Disappointment at 96,000 and 5.4%! How about in 2012?

The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to a near four-year low of 7.8 percent in September, a potential boost to President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

The Labor Department said on Friday the unemployment rate, a key focus in the race for the White House, dropped by 0.3 percentage point to its lowest point since January 2009.

A survey of households from which the jobless rate is derived showed 873,000 job gains last month, the most since June 1983. The drop in unemployment came even as Americans come back into the labor force to resume the hunt for work. The workforce had shrank in the prior two months.

The household survey is volatile. A survey of business establishments showed employers added 114,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, a touch above economists’ expectations for 113,000 jobs. Employment for July and August was revised to show 86,000 more jobs created than previous reported.

And just in case you don’t get the message from the coverage, the Tribune’s editors tell you today that the American economy “has finally broken loose,” and that the overall result is “modestly positive” at +114K and 7.8% while +96K and 5.4% in 2004 was “a disappointment”:

After 43 straight months in the cold grip of an 8-plus percent unemployment rate, America finally broke loose — by a little.

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the jobless tally dipped in September to 7.8 percent, its lowest level since January 2009. That was down from 8.1 percent in the month-earlier report. …

The volatility in the household numbers contrasts with the more stable, larger survey of employers, which is the basis for the job creation figure of 114,000. The more encouraging part of the report was an upward revision in the number of jobs created in July and August, which suggested that the jobs slump this past summer wasn’t as deep as previous reports suggested. America’s jobs engine is bumping along a little more steadily than economists might have thought. It’s hardly robust, though.

This was a modestly positive report — period.

Ah, the huge difference between +96K/5.4% and +114K/7.8% … or really, between Republican incumbents and Democratic incumbents.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

OT – Keep an eye out on this scandal, ’cause the media won’t.

Story to hit Monday and Obama trying to suppress.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Ed, thank you for featuring this. Reuters and Yahoo are derelict in their misleading titles and dwelling on the suspicious reactions, instead of the fakery.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 2:33 PM

EVERYTHING coming out of this Regime is a lie.

Romney is going to have to do a lot to restore ANY reason to believe anything put out by the government.

Including firing A LOT of entrenched government partisan hacks.

wildcat72 on October 6, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Thanks, Ed. This is conclusive proof of media bias, if I ever saw it.

dogsoldier on October 6, 2012 at 2:38 PM

…the MSM is the rear guard of the enemy.

KOOLAID2 on October 6, 2012 at 2:42 PM

So you’re sayin’ the media is a little biased?
//

Bitter Clinger on October 6, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Sol…what’s new?

Terrye on October 6, 2012 at 2:48 PM

The more encouraging part of the report was an upward revision in the number of jobs created in July and August

The upward revision consisted entirely of government jobs so I guess that is good news for the journolisters.

Wigglesworth on October 6, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Hey, no offense Ed but…

Do we really need posts like this? I mean, seriously, is there anyone who reads HotAir not convinced all they down to their bone marrow that the MFM is in the tank for all things Democrat?

trapeze on October 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Stellar post Edward!

ted c on October 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM

trapeze on October 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I, for one, appreciate the info so well laid out in one place.

pambi on October 6, 2012 at 2:57 PM

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

Ed,thinking out of zee box,a different slant,Most Excellent:)

canopfor on October 6, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The USA, circa 2012.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 3:02 PM

blink on October 6, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Illegal is illegal.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM

OT – Keep an eye out on this scandal, ’cause the media won’t.

Story to hit Monday and Obama trying to suppress.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 2:32 PM

…nobody did anything then…and the thugs are arrogant enough to have every donation come in from Bert, Ernie, Grover, Oscar, Cookie Monster. Elmo, Count, Snuffy, Rosita, Big Bird, Hoots the Owl, Abby, Rosita, Murray Monster, Harvey, Kneeslaper, Ernistine, Slimey the Worm, Forgetful Jones, etc…. just to thumb their nose at everybody!
What’s going to be done if they overtly cheat?
What?

KOOLAID2 on October 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM

and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy just hours before the second presidential debate.
============================

And I see it was timed before the second debate,….interesting!

Oh,and to bolster John Kerry!

canopfor on October 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM

The Main Stream Media — the codpiece of the Democrat Party

socalcon on October 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Hey, no offense Ed but…

Do we really need posts like this? I mean, seriously, is there anyone who reads HotAir not convinced all they down to their bone marrow that the MFM is in the tank for all things Democrat?

trapeze on October 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Yes, we DO.

The internet is for the entire world to see.

In this case the media are exposed nakid, in an excellent way.

It’s not the NYTs either.

May all the media who eat Oama’s sh*t, mistaking it for Beluga caviar, sontaneously combust, for dereliction of duty.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 3:06 PM

The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office,
===========================================

Ya know,I’m not a rocket-scientist,but this smacks of
a Liberal Talky Pointy,jus say’n!!

canopfor on October 6, 2012 at 3:07 PM

well we already knew they were lying propagandists back in 2004 when that evil dwarf Robert Reich was claiming 4.7% was a Recession.

rayra on October 6, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Hey, no offense Ed but…
Do we really need posts like this? I mean, seriously, is there anyone who reads HotAir not convinced all they down to their bone marrow that the MFM is in the tank for all things Democrat?
trapeze on October 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I would say absolutely. These kinds of posts are perfect for people who have little to no idea that the media are telling us lies. I still have friends who believe the media is objective. I forward these to them and its helped to convince some of them that we are indeed being mislead daily by the palace guard media.

jawkneemusic on October 6, 2012 at 3:12 PM

The improvement lent ballast to Mr. Obama’s case that the economy is on the mend and threatened the central argument of Mitt Romney’s candidacy
=============

Sweet bibby,the Hopey/Changey Titanic just ripped itself
open,on the Mittens Icebreg at the debate!!

Ain’t gonna be zero,zip notta of ballast thats going
to right,er,upright the Mom Jeans CruiseLiner!!

canopfor on October 6, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Let’s also remember that there were not 400-500k leaving the workforce back in 2004.

jukin3 on October 6, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Oh, come on. Job reports are always — always – reported based on recent trends, never as absolutes. If the trend is suddenly better, that’s the news. If it’s suddenly worse, that’s the news. This was a substantially better than expected report — that’s news. Bush had a worse-than-expected report — news as well.

You’d have a better case if the jobs report released immediately after the DNC hadn’t triggered unrelentingly negative headlines.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Yes, but to the Obama Enemy media, any old excuse in a storm is good reason to start the rooting section for the Failure-in-chief! The fact that they have the credibility of John Lovitz, in character, is of no consequence for the sycophants looking for anything to change the tide of a losing Marxist Messiah.
Final Update for those following:How to take on the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM

When historians write of this era, and they will, I certainly hope that they’ve got the integrity to point out this slant in what passes for the main stream media these days.

I hope they reflect on that moment at which slant becomes horizontal.

The level of bias in main stream reporting has reached such epic and endemic proportions as to render it not only purple prose, but veritable poison pen letters to the electorate, as they seek to poison people’s minds with propaganda and deny them the simple truth. Who, what, when, where, and why. That’s all we require of them unless the article happens to be clearly marked op-ed.

thatsafactjack on October 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Good post Ed.

Ed is the hardest working man in the blog bizniz.

SparkPlug on October 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Oh, come on. Job reports are always — always – reported based on recent trends,
urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM

So the fact that companies did less hiring in September than the two previous months is a good thing? That’s the trend?

You are the useful idiot.

CW on October 6, 2012 at 3:19 PM

thatsafactjack on October 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Proof once again that you have a beautiful mind.

SparkPlug on October 6, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Great Post!
Nothing left to be said.

tbrickert on October 6, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Hey, no offense Ed but…
Do we really need posts like this? I mean, seriously, is there anyone who reads HotAir not convinced all they down to their bone marrow that the MFM is in the tank for all things Democrat?
trapeze on October 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I would say we do. There are a lot of liberals who truly believe the MSM are ‘fair’ in their reporting of the differences between Dems and Republicans; the Dems are the good guys while Pubs want to kick grandma out of her nursing home, tip her off a cliff from her wheelchair, then go sell the wheelchair for a tidy profit.

There are also liberals who are convinced all the media are hopelessly slanted right-wing because of Rush Limbaugh.

Details such as Ed quotes are quite noteworthy and useful.

Liam on October 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM

So the fact that companies did less hiring in September than the two previous months is a good thing? That’s the trend?

You are the useful idiot.

CW on October 6, 2012 at 3:19 PM

And you’re frankly, just an idiot.

Unemployment dropping to the lowest level in four years is the obvious and correct headline.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM

…you’re a busy little troll today!…how come you didn’t go over and help gummeandpokeme on his concentration of threads today…and he didn’t come over and help you on the DNC raising money or GOP Rally thread…or the QOTD thread…odd how you have plenty of times for threads like Ryan’s GOP Rally… and have no interest in crossing into someone elses territory… on others…

KOOLAID2 on October 6, 2012 at 3:31 PM

… or really, between Republican incumbents and Democratic incumbents.

LMAO – what a great piece.

You don’t get more illustrative than this.

Tim_CA on October 6, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Absolutely INFURIATING….

cmsinaz on October 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Only when a Democrat is president is 7.8% unemployment a “good thing.”

natasha333 on October 6, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Hey, no offense Ed but…
Do we really need posts like this? I mean, seriously, is there anyone who reads HotAir not convinced all they down to their bone marrow that the MFM is in the tank for all things Democrat?
trapeze on October 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I would say absolutely. These kinds of posts are perfect for people who have little to no idea that the media are telling us lies. I still have friends who believe the media is objective. I forward these to them and its helped to convince some of them that we are indeed being mislead daily by the palace guard media.

jawkneemusic on October 6, 2012 at 3:12 PM

It would be interesting to go back to the 1930′s and see if the media treated positive economic news differently than it did before the Wall Street crash of 1929. Because, you know, once in a lifetime financial crises that lead to massive de-leveraging and wealth loss may actually affect the way news is reported. Not that conspiracy theories aren’t more exciting.

You may also note that job growth actually was very weak throughout the Bush year- and not because of Bush, but because of the ongoing effects of globalization that have led to deep jobs losses across the US manufacturing sector and an equally deep trade deficits. If anything, the media did a poor job of explaining why Bush had such a poor jobs record.

bayam on October 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

When historians write of this era, and they will, I certainly hope that they’ve got the integrity to point out this slant in what passes for the main stream media these days.

I hope they reflect on that moment at which slant becomes horizontal.

The level of bias in main stream reporting has reached such epic and endemic proportions as to render it not only purple prose, but veritable poison pen letters to the electorate, as they seek to poison people’s minds with propaganda and deny them the simple truth. Who, what, when, where, and why. That’s all we require of them unless the article happens to be clearly marked op-ed.

thatsafactjack on October 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Methinks that there is small likelihood that historians will get this right. After all, consider where they are receiving their education.

natasha333 on October 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM

The USA, circa 2012.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 3:02 PM

….well I’m sure that urban bullsh!t and turdfreeordie are shocked that the MSM have picked up on the acceptable bigotry!

KOOLAID2 on October 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Ed: nice work… “PRESS ON!”

Khun Joe on October 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

And you’re frankly, just an idiot.

Unemployment dropping to the lowest level in four years is the obvious and correct headline.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Well, certainly there is an idiot here, but you appear to have misidentified said idiot. If the unemployment rate really dropped to the lowest level in four years, that would be cause to celebrate. However, the fact that in order for unemployment to drop from 8.1% to 7.8% in one month, given that only 114K jobs were created raises significant questions. To drop that drastically requires over 800K new jobs to be created last month; that’s not passing the laugh test. Labor force participation rate didn’t change significantly enough to explain this, U6 didn’t change enough to explain this.

In real life, when running experiments, when you get results that are suddenly wildly out of the norm, you start looking at your instrumentation and methodology. That is the case here. Buying that top level jump and praising the heavens for the recovery at last is an idiot drinking the Koolaid.

AZfederalist on October 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Ah, the huge difference between +96K/5.4% and +114K/7.8% … or really, between Republican incumbents and Democratic incumbents.

Just as long as the right side wins, just like 2004. And make no mistake with the MSM so in the tank for the left there are sides.

Obama is the enemy. Not because of his mixed race, his racist faith, or his arrogance but because we do not need four more years of scandals ignored by the media, Executive orders replacing legislation, stonewalling Congressional oversight, the idea that the Middle East would be a whole lot more friendly to the US if we just let them “get” Israel in much the same way Osama “got” Bin Laden. And if that is not enough to convince others just think who will slither to the SCOTUS with an unfettered socialist getting to replace the elderly commies itching to retire but afraid that they’d be replaced with people who believe in the Constitution trumping international law in the US. I’ll say it again, Obama is the enemy.

Happy Nomad on October 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

In real life, when running experiments, when you get results that are suddenly wildly out of the norm, you start looking at your instrumentation and methodology. That is the case here. Buying that top level jump and praising the heavens for the recovery at last is an idiot drinking the Koolaid.

AZfederalist on October 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Which is why Wall Street isn’t buying Obama’s claim that it all worked and he just needs more time to make all things wonderful. But of course the times have changed. Obama would kill for the economy he inherited no matter what he says on some random college campus with a bunch of idiots behind him.

Happy Nomad on October 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM

How much of the improved number had to do with eliminating the work requirement for welfare?

Fewer people looking for work boosts Obama’s unemployment number.

hepcat on October 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Methinks that there is small likelihood that historians will get this right. After all, consider where they are receiving their education.

natasha333 on October 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Winners get to write the history. Another four years of the filthy rat-eared coward and you better be prepared to read that history in Chinese.

Happy Nomad on October 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM

If unemployment had such a decrease then the Welfare & Food Stamp numbers and all other government assistance must have proportionally and dramatically decreased too.

No?

batterup on October 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Unemployment dropping to the lowest level in four years is the obvious and correct headline.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Yeah, and a headline that a certain baseball has the fewest losses in four years, but still managed to be in dead last, wouldn’t be ridiculous either.

Nutstuyu on October 6, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Bush era: “Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations”

Obama era: “indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought”

Every month, for four freaking years, we’ve gotten the unexpectedly low economic numbers. Now, all of a sudden, we get this unexpectedly high number.

I’ve asked this countless times over the past four years, and I ask it one last time, WHEN were these numbers unexpected?

Did the New York Times, or any other radically leftist media organization, ever publish a summary of their prognostications for the FUTURE?

‘Cause I never saw that. Not once; ever. All I ever see are the results of after-the-fact predictions. And, even more bizarrely, they are always wrong. How is any part of that even remotely possible?

logis on October 6, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I just love WaPo’s comment about far more people reporting that they have a job. Is that like another Obamaphone gimmick and they paid people to report it so it could look good for the campaign? Yeah, and if nothing else, this all does prove beyond a doubt the libturd slimestream bias.

stukinIL4now on October 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Add to these propaganda pieces by the local newscasts which are doing daily stories on how employment numbers are just magnificent, businesses are booming and hiring is up to such an extent that there is a shortage of workers,
and how housing prices and demands have bounced so high that soon for- sale- homes will be scarce pretty soon .
This is a very coordinated effort to poison the minds of stupid voters, who depend on opinions for news.

burrata on October 6, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Unemployment dropping to the lowest level in four years is the obvious and correct headline.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Yeah, and a headline that a certain baseball has the fewest losses in four years, but still managed to be in dead last, wouldn’t be ridiculous either.

Nutstuyu on October 6, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Except with that baseball team you saw it coming all season. There was absolutely no indication of this jobs numbers bs.

stukinIL4now on October 6, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Come to Curt, my bug-eyed love!

/hearts

CurtZHP on October 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Don’t like the job the media is doing?
Write to media and complain:

Email Address of Journalists, News Editors, TV Anchors & Web Reporters

The Free Speech Zone Media Contact List

albill on October 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Oh, come on. Job reports are always — always – reported based on recent trends, never as absolutes. If the trend is suddenly better, that’s the news. If it’s suddenly worse, that’s the news. This was a substantially better than expected report — that’s news. Bush had a worse-than-expected report — news as well.

You’d have a better case if the jobs report released immediately after the DNC hadn’t triggered unrelentingly negative headlines.

urbane effetist on October 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM

In your desperation to absolve your Democrat Media of any blame, you’re attacking the wrong target. It’s not the report itself, it’s how the report is being “reported” by your Democrat media when a Democrat is President, as opposed to how they “report” job reports when a Republican is pResident, to use a quaint DU term. And as Ed’s post proves in spades, that Democrat Media does have a double standard in how they “report” such things.

Probably the shining example of that began in March of 1991. In that month, the Fed released data showing that the economic recovery that Bill Clinton later falsely took credit for started. Over the next 18 months, the Fed’s numbers continued to show that the recovery had begun.

But your Democrat Media never reported it. Because they knew they had to help get a Democrat elected President the following year. This despite not even knowing who the eventual candidate would be.

They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, of course.

By the way, at least one member of said Democrat Media later (finally) admitted, in writing, that in fact the economic recovery that Clinton took credit for did in fact begin in March of 1991. That would be the editorial Board of the New York Times.

They made their admission in an editorial in said paper. In 1999.

Del Dolemonte on October 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM

When historians write of this era

thatsafactjack on October 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM

99.9% of all American “historians” are Democrats, and 99.9% of all international “historians are Liberals.”

In other words, don’t hold your breath.

Remember that before he died, the “Dean of American Historians” Arthur Schlesinger likened Bush’s liberation of Iraq to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. And going even further back in time, Democrat “historians” are still whitewashing the “legacy” of FDR.

Del Dolemonte on October 6, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Unemployment suspiciously dropping to the lowest level in four years one day after the incumbent President gets shellacked in his first debate is the obvious and correct headline.

urbane effetist on October 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Corrected.

Del Dolemonte on October 6, 2012 at 4:38 PM

It would be interesting to go back to the 1930′s and see if the media treated positive economic news differently than it did before the Wall Street crash of 1929.

bayam on October 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

No need to go back that far. See my 4:33 PM post.

Del Dolemonte on October 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The media is the enemy of the state.

KMC1 on October 6, 2012 at 4:47 PM

BrokenTwistedBentAxleRod weighs in…………………..

David Axelrod ‏@davidaxelrod

Brutal summer heat yields to seasonable temps, just as election looms. Is it real, or rigged data from pro-Obama Weather Service?

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod

canopfor on October 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM

BrokenTwistedBentAxleRod weighs in…………………..

David Axelrod ‏@davidaxelrod

Brutal summer heat yields to seasonable temps, just as election looms. Is it real, or rigged data from pro-Obama Weather Service?

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod

canopfor on October 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Wow. THAT kind of snark tells me their internal polls are showing them that NO ONE believes the jobs numbers, and while the survey might be an outlier, to those “low-info voters” axelgrease and co. are so interested in, it only looks like LIES and DECEPTION. They’re low info, remember? They don’t follow survey methodology. They follow their gut, and their gut is telling them unemployment is going up, not down, so their only reasonable conclusion is that Zero is lying to them to get their votes — and that pisses them off. The Zero team must be sweating buckets over this. Live by the low-info voter; die by the low-info voter.

Rational Thought on October 6, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Reminds me of when the media said this in august 2008:

A growth rate of 3.3% is a good, solid number, one that shows real substance in the economy. It remains weak in some areas as does the dollar, but fundamentally strong.

Oh wait. That was Ed. Yikes.

red_herring on October 6, 2012 at 5:30 PM

bayam on October 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Where ya been you shill?

Hey can you tell me about some of those awesome liberal successful companies again? Please!!!
/

CW on October 6, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Unemployment dropping to the lowest level in four years is the obvious and correct headline.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

You do realize we have less people working now right?

CW on October 6, 2012 at 5:34 PM

U-6, which counts part-timers, who want full-time work, and the discouraged, is 14.7% and has remained unchanged. If the underemployed (people working a jobs below their skill-sets) are included, the U-6 hits the high teens or low twenties. All combined, there are about 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed.

The employment numbers still suck and the trolls are useful idiots.

CW on October 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Great post Ed.

Captain Kirock on October 6, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Unemployment dropping to the lowest level in four years is the obvious and correct headline.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Actually, the obvious and correct headline would be:

No one believes the obama labor department’s claim of unemployment dropping to the lowest level in four years

Rational Thought on October 6, 2012 at 5:48 PM

It would be interesting to go back …

*snip*

bayam on October 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM
.
The media in this country has a long and disgraceful track record of partisanship.

If you look to the election of Andrew Jackson, you will find papers on both sides that knew few boundaries.

Read a biography of Joseph Pulitzer, in his day he was considered a “muckraker” because he was willing to not only expose the corrupt politicians but the corrupt papers of his day that turned a blind eye to the political machines which ran MOST cities.

The advent of radio led to greater partisan excesses since it was not constrained by print schedules or special editions. The “breaking news” fiascos of today are the grandchildren of the radio news bulletins.

The thought that struck me reading the excellent side by side comparisons Ed has provided above …

is the media is the inspiration of the trolls which afflict the internet.

Truth can be ground into dust in the pursuit of an ideology – if you don’t have a conscience.

PolAgnostic on October 6, 2012 at 5:50 PM

The employment numbers still suck and the trolls are useful useless idiots.

CW on October 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM


FIFY

PolAgnostic on October 6, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Ed, you MUST find that gal and interview her!

“So, Mz.____, how’s it feel to be the face of shock and disbelief on Hot Gas?”

Akzed on October 6, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Great read

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I am the one who is convinced that the power of the state should be aimed at the media.

I could have predicted this and most of you could, too.

My question is about the “Newswatch” show today. The two lady members of the panel were emphatic that the tape of Obama where he incited a crowd at Hampton University, was “not the same thing as Mitt R’s comment about the 47%. I think they meant that the Romney comment was worse and more relevant.

What did he say? That some part of the electorate would not support him and take responsibility for their lives? Whoa! That is sure dangerous talk, he must not like handouts.

Then we have our president lying about withheld benefits. Using his “expert power” as an elected official to add credence to his nonsense, he was infuriating a group of people who have been really ripped off and lied to for..centuries!

I am friends with blacks and many of them are not the effete model. They are angry as we would be with their history. To play with their anger and scars is incredibly cruel and well, evil.

I think he should go back and set the record straight. I also wish someone would tell me why Romney’s comments are anything more than impolitic.

IlikedAUH2O on October 6, 2012 at 6:56 PM

http://nissaninnovationgarage.com/gallery/idea/5927

Your author just condensed the whole thing (the Obama phenomena) but did a sterling job.

The problem is thinking of what to do if he wins another term.

Aside from enjoying a media that is not in a constant, shrill and wild crusade to toss the CIC in jail, there really is a problem with the way the country is working and it seems to be getting no better. As a matter of fact, the more he does, the worse it may get.

IlikedAUH2O on October 6, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Nothing new. Some of you say this should be circulated far and wide. By who? The people who need to see and hear it don’t read these sites and are skeptical of those who frequent conservative web sites. The media is corrupt and evil and the only way to stop them is by an uprising of the population that could look a little bit like the Boston Tea Party or the confrontation at the bridge in Mass. when the British confronted the armed townspeople. Unfortunately by the time things in this country reach that stage, the general population will have been emasculated. There will be very bad times for this country if this election goes south.

wepeople on October 6, 2012 at 8:04 PM

It will be interesting when this is all over to see if any records have been crushed. So far, media bias winner is:

1984: 91% negative coverage of Ronald Reagan.

Let us not forget that it didn’t work.

TheBad on October 6, 2012 at 8:56 PM

“Add to these propaganda pieces by the local newscasts which are doing daily stories on how employment numbers are just magnificent, businesses are booming and hiring is up to such an extent that there is a shortage of workers,
and how housing prices and demands have bounced so high that soon for- sale- homes will be scarce pretty soon .
This is a very coordinated effort to poison the minds of stupid voters, who depend on opinions for news.

burrata on October 6, 2012 at 4:04 PM”

And it works.

gumbyandpokey on October 6, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Excellent comparative post, Ed. Just excellent!

Trochilus on October 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I’m trying to figure out the order here… Politicians, MSMers, then Snake Oil Sales Men? Or is it the other way round?

RalphyBoy on October 8, 2012 at 1:24 AM