Media Dismiss Drop In Unemployment Rate As Government "Propaganda"

[ProfessionalLeftist]

Media figures have rushed to discredit the newly released jobs numbers, claiming that the drop in the unemployment rate to 7.8 percent has been manufactured to help President Obama's reelection chances. In fact, experts dismiss the claims as unfounded conspiracy theories and agree that the numbers are accurate.



MORE...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/05/media-dismiss-drop-in-unemployment-rate-as-gove/190392

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Because they need the "horse race" and it doesn't fit their racist agenda. nt

[tularetom]

2. If the administration COULD fake these job numbers

don't you think they might have done it a few months ago when the President was hurting in the polls?

Why wait until now?

These people really don't inhabit the same universe that most of us do.

[NYC Liberal]

8. If they can fake the job numbers, why don't they fake all the other economic indicators?

[still_one]

3. From where we have been led by the media we should not trust what they say

[jenmito]

4. NBC's Nightly News opened w/ this tonight, even discrediting Romney for saying today that the

drop in unemployment was due to people leaving the job market.

[elleng]

5. 'Media figures' should talk to Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics,

says manipulation couldn't and didn't happen.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. CNN's Ali Velshi says the unemployment numbers are largely meaningless on a spot basis. what

matters is how many jobs have been created, because those are much more tangible, measurable than the percentages

more important, of course, he said, are the trends, which have been (very slowly) improving, since the hemorrhaging of jobs which occurred in the immediate advent of the Caligula, I mean Bush, regime

[porphyrian]

7. Wait! This report disrupts our scripted horse race!

Should have written a better script, media. Suck it.

[Aerows]

9. Exactly

Horse race? Horse shit.

[porphyrian]

10. ...

[HughBeaumont]

11. So, does this mean we should say nothing at all about mid-2004?

Specifically, AFTER mid-2004 (Bewsh 43's re-election year)?

That's when, after a few years of weak monthly job numbers despite huge lottery giveaways to the wealthy in 2001, a few decent hiring months by UhMerica's suddenly-loosening-the-purse-strings corporations happened (IT'S A MIRACLE!). The timing was impeccable; it was partially helpful in getting him safely back in office and also helpful in making the voting public forget about the disastrous two wars and 9/11 (well, along with his trusty Ohio plant Ken Blackwell and a 24-7 demonizing of John Kerry by our purchased Crack Fourth Estate).

Sorry, I don't buy for one second that demand all of a sudden increased due to the 2001 tax cuts. NOT ONE SECOND.

Of course, once Bewsh got back in, the plundering and housing/financial bubbles continued until all of the wealth was at the top, Bewsh's SEC ignored the shenanigans and whistle-blowers, the economy crashed and WE got stuck with the bill.

So I shouldn't even mention THAT at all???

Put it this way . . . . if the Democrats were to cook the Unemployment rate somehow, don't you think they would have picked a better number and done it sooner?