http://nftunderground.blogspot.com/2004/09/my-letter-to-ny-times.htmlThe misleading part is the idea that we should be looking at the average over Clinton's eight years and comparing it to the average over Bush's first three. The problem with that is that you automatically handicap Clinton because when he took over for Bush Sr. The unemployment rate was over 7%. On top of that you give a big advantage to Bush Jr. Who takes over from Clinton with a starting rate of under 4%. The real measure of performance should be the trend which -- speaks for itself:
--------SNIP------------
Negative economic reporting during Bushs presidency, like positive economic reporting during the Clinton years, is not evidence of a liberally slanted media. If anything, it is evidence of a fair and accurate media.