NYT: Do Newspapers Make Good (econ) News Look Bad? (AEI accuses bias)

[DeepModem Mom]

ECONOMIC VIEW
Do Newspapers Make Good News Look Bad?
By EDUARDO PORTER

Published: September 12, 2004


CONSERVATIVE pundits routinely accuse the news media of injecting a liberal bias into coverage of issues from abortion to gun control to gay marriage.

Now, two months before the presidential election, the economy has been invited to the culture wars. In a new paper, Kevin A. Hassett and John R. Lott Jr., economists at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization in Washington, say they have discovered that economic reporters commit the same archetypal sin: slanting the news unequivocally in favor of the Democrats....

***

The two economists combed through 389 newspapers and A.P. reports contained in the LexisNexis database from January 1991 through May 2004, during the administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. They picked out headlines about gross domestic product growth, unemployment, retail sales and orders of durable goods and classified the headlines' depiction of the economy as either positive, negative, neutral or mixed. Then they crunched some numbers.

They found that Mr. Clinton received better headlines than the two Republican presidents. Even after adjusting the data to compensate for differences in economic performance under the three presidents, the Republicans received 20 to 30 percent fewer positive headlines, on average, for the same type of news, they concluded....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/business/yourmoney/12view.html

[Flubadubya]

1. Whiny, sniveling little mama's babies...

Nah, nah, Clinton got better headlines on the econmy than our guys. Waaahhh!

While the vast right wing conspiracy was utterly destroying the man personally and professionally, they carp about how reporters tried to make the economy look good? Sheez... if I recall correctly, the economy WAS doing good during those eight years, and NOT the four before or the four after.

Well, but what do we expect from titty babies? :puke:

[ClintonTyree]

2. Well, let's see.........................

when the economy is GOOD is it possible that reporting in a positive way is much easier?

When the economy is BAD (like under the 2 Republican pResidents mentioned) is it possible that negative reporting might be easier?

Another neo-con "let's not confuse the people with the facts" article.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. The article actually goes on to question the charge and makes clear...

the political affiliations of those making it. Your point, however, which I think any thinking person would agree with, is, I don't believe, made in the article.

[jpgray]

3. That's because the economy was GOOD in the Clinton years!

We are through the looking glass here. Unemployment figures will always be cast in the overall light of the economy, and if a president is the first to preside over a net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover, than you can bet that some negative light will be cast on unemployment numbers. You can't take that in isolation.

[Democat]

4. Why does this get in the New York Times - two right wing liars claim bias?

This is such bullshit propaganda - why doesn't the times print Media Matters opinions every week instead of this right wing bullshit?

Media Matters will show you the right wing bias every day, but the Times would rather publish anything they can to help Bush and slam Democrats. Fuck them.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Sorry -- post glitch

[slojim240]

7. AEI is just another PNAC appendage.

These folks are all around and disguised as many things. Just match the names of groups with JINSA documents and membership.

[snippy]

8. This study is seriously flawed.

Aside from the fact that the study was conducted by self-procalimed liars, they cherry picked their data by selecting a limited time period which covered only two complete economic cycles, and parts of two others. That this was done deliberately is evidenced by the portion of Poppy Bush's term included in the study.

Economic news and headlines reflect the economic trend as much or more than the actual economic data. So does the public perception of the economy. And both economic news and the public perception of the economy are lagging indicators. So by choosing the portion of Poppy Bush's term which followed his recession guarantees that the news and headlines would be more negative. Had the study included the time preceeding Poppy's recession there would have been more positive news included for Poppy.

The biased flaws in the study also are demonstrated by comparing the average unemployment rate and the news coverage thereof during Clinton's presidency to that during Bush the Lesser's presidency. Aside from the fact that news coverage over an 11 year period of unemployment rates is completely unrelated to the actual unemployment rate at any particular point in time during that period, the study ignores what the unemployment rate says about the economy.

The most important thing about the unemployment rate as it relates to the economy is the direction of the trend of unemployment. When the economy is strong and growing the unemployment rate trends downward. That is what happened under Clinton. When the economy first begins to recover from a recession the unemployment rate will go up initially because of discouraged workers returning to the labor force and when the economy is weak and either contracting or growing very slowly the unemployment rate goes up or is unchanged. That is what happened under both Bushes.

Of course this study may also have ignored the vitally important eBay selling portion of our economy which vice president Go-Fuck-Yourself recently referred to. I have no idea what to make of that. I only wonder whether Bush has asked the important question: "Is our eBay sellers earning?"

[DeepModem Mom]

9. LOL! Who knew my vintage shoe-buying on eBay...

was part of a neglected segment of the American economy, skewing the true economic picture?

[struggle4progress]

12. Well AEI isn't really a think tank: it's a big hose spewing ...

ideological slime.

[robbedvoter]

10. Yup, the media just pampered Clinton to death....NYT especially!

Why, that liberal media dared to intrerrupt coverage of Whitewater , Monica, Vince Foster, Travelgate etc with news about the economy! For shame!

[Cocoa]

11. the media hypes the economy

like they hyped Enron.

Remember the "Saddam Hussein bounce"?

[TahitiNut]

13. "adjusting the data to compensate for differences in economic performance"

Oh. I see. OK.

So... since every good AEI sckolar knows that the Clinton economy was really crap, anything that was too positive was obviously biased. Likewise, all these really "right-thinking" ekonomists know that DimSon has struggled with the terrible conditions he inherited from Clinton, so negative reports are clearly not seeing the wonderful job he's done.

Riiiight. :eyes:


They really like to keep "adjusting the data" don't they? Yeah. That's a 'Good Thing,' right?