Comparing Media Coverage of the Bush and Clinton economies
Very interesting. Actually I had wanted to do this myself: TCS Daily compares the media coverage of the economic recoveries under Clinton and Bush.

Why do 43% of Americans believe something that isn't true? They still think we're in a recession, despite

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a key measure of economic expansion and contraction, increased by 4.3 percent in the third quarter in spite of the devastating hurricanes. Since the second quarter 2003, GDP has grown over 3 percent each quarter.

The November unemployment rate was 5 percent, where the rate has been hovering since May. (The unemployment rate has since dropped to 4.7% in January).

Continuing the solid monthly trend in 2004, 215,000 jobs were added to the economy in November.

Productivity, an indicator of rising living standards, rose more than expected during the third quarter and increased at its highest rate in two years.

Factory orders and orders for durable goods increased by 2.2 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively, in October.

A survey of America's leading CEOs, the Business Roundtable's CEO Economic Outlook Survey, showed that they expect "broad strength in the economy moving into 2006." The CEO Economic Outlook Index for December 2005 was at 101.4. The index is "centered on 50, which means anything above 50 is expansion and anything below 50 is contraction."

I love this -- comparing Time magazine's coverage:

As an example, Time Magazine published the following articles about economic recovery under President Clinton: "Overturning The Reagan Era," "Picking Up Speed," "Breaking Through," and "Who Needs a Boom?"

At a time when unemployment was at 6.5 percent, and GDP was forecasted to be 3 percent in 1994, Time Magazine wrote, "which would be no boom, but maybe something much better: a pace that could be sustained for a long time, keeping income and employment growing without igniting a new surge in inflation…. The circle (of spending, production and hiring) may not spin fast enough to produce a boom -- but who wants one anyway? Moderate, steady growth is better."

Now compare it to the one Time Magazine article ("How Real is the Squeeze?") written about economic recovery under President Bush. Keep in mind that at the time the article was written GDP grew 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2004 (which was subsequently revised upward to 4.3 percent) and unemployment was at 5.6 percent.

"Jonathan Thornton finally found a job this spring after six months of unemployment. "My wife and I almost parted ways after 13 years because of the financial strain," he says. When he started work in April as a crane operator at a screw manufacturer in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, Thornton treated his wife Rita to a few little luxuries -- a day at the salon, an evening out with the girls. "My outlook has definitely brightened," he says. But Thornton's optimism goes only so far. His paycheck has grown, but the family is still just getting by…. There's supposed to be an economic recovery under way. But the numbers paint a confusing picture."

So where's the comment that "moderate, steady growth is better," particularly when the GDP growth and unemployment rate were better in 2004 than in 1993?

For the record, I don't think much of this is intentional bias. It's just that when a Democrat is president, Liberal reporters tend to have rosy outlooks on the future, and their reporting reflects that. Counterpoints are merely distractions from the overall message.

But when a Republican is President, well things just can't be getting along ok, so there just has to be a negative view that should be reported.
- posted by The Dutchman @ 9:30:00 AM