Polls have repeatedly shown a public dissatisfied with the economy under President Bush. A January 2006 Pew Research Center survey said 64 percent of those questioned thought economic conditions were fair or poor – and that wasn’t even Bush’s low point. The May New York Times/CBS poll gave Bush just a 28 percent rating for the economy.
Network news stories have painted a bleak picture of an economy in decline. Reporters treated gas prices as a metaphor for the economy – only when they were high. And a slowing housing market coming off two record years was just another club used against Republican incumbents by a pessimistic press.
But the truth of the economy is far different. The United States continues to enjoy solid job growth. In the last year, 1.7 million new jobs were added and nearly 6 million have been created since August 2003 – a streak of more than three years of positive growth. Unemployment is a low 4.7 percent. Gas prices have declined once again – more than 75 cents from their recent highs. And though the economy actually grew just 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2006, which followed the rapid expansion of the first quarter – revised upward to 5.6 percent.
That’s not how things looked on the evening news shows on all three broadcast networks – ABC, CBS and NBC. The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute looked at all stories referencing the “economy” or “economic” news between Aug. 1, 2005, and July 31, 2006. Here are some key findings:
Reports Negatively Charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent) compared to good news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm after another, yet each time the economy continued unfazed.
Negative Stories Given More Air Time: Bad news was emphasized on all three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as often as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs. More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
Man-on-the-Street Interviews Spin Stories: Reporters used ordinary people to underscore negative stories by roughly a 3-to-1 ratio over positive. Since these are interviews chosen entirely by the reporter, this shows particular bias. NBC was especially bad at this, featuring negative accounts six times as often as positive ones.
Worst Network: More than 80 percent of the full-length stories on the “CBS Evening News” delivered a negative view of the economy – easily the worst of the three broadcast news programs. The network hid the good news of jobs or economic growth in short items. More than 56 percent of CBS’s brief stories were positive.
Best Network: ABC was hardly the “best” anything for its economic coverage. It simply wasn’t as negative as either NBC or CBS. More than 56 percent of ABC reports were negative compared to slightly more than 36 percent positive.
To improve coverage, BMI recommends that the networks:
Carefully select a range of economists and analysts to balance negative reporting.
Cover stories that reflect the economic data, not the reporter’s opinion.
Educate the public about what the economic data really mean. Don’t just report changing numbers like sports scores.
When it comes to politics, the US press is about as honest as Parvda was in the old USSR. They favor the Dumb-o-crats because the press is every bit as amoral as the Dumb-o-crats
The media, surveys, polls and statistics are easy to manipulate. Spin works on them too. Making a big deal in the news about the DOW reaching 12000, considering when it first reached 11000, is silly. As well, if you look at the labor dept graph of unemployment figures for the last 14 years you can see a linear decline in unemployment until Bush was in office. I don’t hold the President responsible for that, but lately I hear comments about the improving job market. That’s crap. Blaming a President or praising him for the economic condition makes little sense in a TEAM sport which running a country is.
You might care to review the inflation rate for the last several years and compare what you spend over the same period on most products and services. I suspect you will find that the prices you are paying are higher than the inflation rate.
My personal opinion is the economy is stagnant and I do not blame the President. I have other things to blame him for but not that.
I agree that things are easy to manipulate, but i disagree on you Dow outlook. The Dow reaching 12,000 is huge considering all the factors that drive it…It is the POTUS’s job to have economic polices in place to keep the economy growing or at the very least not going downwards…
“The Dow reaching 12,000 is huge considering all the factors that drive it:It is the POTUS’s job to have economic polices in place to keep the economy growing or at the very least not going downwards:â€
1. The Dow reaching 12,000 isn’t huge by any measure. (Unless perhaps you bought a bunch of GW stock a year ago) The Dow is only 30 stocks.
2. President Bush isn’t responsible for the Dow at 12,000 any more than President Clinton is responsible for the Dow at 11,722 eight years ago.
3. I’m still happy to see the Dow at 12,000.
Sorry, I meant GM stock; not GW.
(Ha; GM has done better than GW. in the last year) Sorry for the type-O
Zelda, the Dow reaching 12,000 is huge and there is a great deal more than your 30 stock explanation. The Dow is a good indicator of how the economy is functioning. It is the job of the POTUS to have sound economic policies in place and like it or not, they are responsible for the policies they set forth which have an effect on the stock market
wait until the end of 2007, it may not be as good as you think:oops:
the stock market will go up and up to about 16,000 and after that come down to almost 0. when that happens the real wars will start and may god help you all. buy land away from the big population areas buy guns to save your families. but if i am wrong buy more and have fun.
So whats wrong with gas prices going down is it a hinious crime for gas prices to fall?:lol: