A Tale of Two Presidents: How Media Treated Bush’s Unemployment #’s Compared to Obama’s
by Warner Todd HustonIt never ceases to amaze me how differently the Old Media treats Republican presidents compared to how they treat Democrat Presidents during times of unemployment reporting. Today, in the vaunted era of Obama, the unemployment numbers for November 2009 have come out and it shows some of the highest unemployment numbers since the Great Depression. Despite that the Old Media seems to be playing this as a sign of optimism. Such optimism was decidedly not in the cards when that same Old Media was reporting rates during Bush’s years, however.
Let’s take two reports from The New York Times for example. One from September 7, 2002 in Bush’s first term and one from December 4, 2009, early in the Obama presidency.
In 2002, The New York Times reported Bush’s 5.7 percent unemployment rate, noting that it was a drop from 5.9 percent, with the following headline: Unemployment Fell in August, But Drop Is Called Insignificant.
For the Times, David Leonhardt started off on a sour note whilst reporting this drop in unemployment.
The labor market improved slightly last month but offered little hope that the economy would soon emerge from its prolonged weakness.
For the Times a 5.7 percent unemployment rate in 2002 was doom and gloom. This rate did not excite, said the Times. Later in the piece Leonhardt reported that the decline was “almost meaningless” and that ”(t)he drop in the unemployment rate should be ignored.”
Remember, in 2002 Bush was president.
Flash forward to 2009 as the Times finds that from Bush’s 5 percent to Obama’s 10 percent unemployment we have double the bad news but as far as the Times is concerned it is actually all good news. On Dec. 4, the Times happily issued a report with this headline: U.S. Economy Lost Only 11,000 Jobs in November.
Hallelujah, we “only” lost 11,000 jobs! Yes, it was all sunny optimism for a 10 percent rate. The Times went on with more happy talk.
In the strongest jobs report since the recession began two years ago, the nation’s employers all but stopped shedding jobs in November, the government reported on Friday, and they appeared to be on the verge of finally rebuilding the work force.
The Times then informed us that, “(t)he sudden and unexpected improvement surprised even the most optimistic forecasters.”
Let’s review to what party the president today belongs, shall we? Yes, a Democrat.
During a Republican administration, a report of a drop in unemployment is seen as meaningless, easily dismissed, and no sign that the economy is turning around. Yet when a Democrat is in office the same paper reports that a 10 percent rate — double what it was during the Bush years — is a sign that everything is wonderful and the economy is obviously on the mend.
The difference couldn’t be more stark. The Old Media is obviously little but an arm of the Democratic Party.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
78 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Michael Chavez, Big Government, Big Government, Patrick Henry and others. Patrick Henry said: A Tale of Two Presidents: How Media Treated Bush’s Unemployment #’s Compared to Obama’s: It never ceases to a… http://bit.ly/7QXidr [...]
but why are they saying 2 year old recession?? a determination of a recession is 2 quarters in a row of negative gdp, that is only q4 2008, and q1 2009, they say 2007 for the express purpose of saying it started in the bush years. but look closely at the numbers, and in reality, while the unemployment rate was slowly going up, we still had growth for 3 quarters in 2008. so i do not buy into a recession starting in 2007.
No suprise here. I guess the NYT wants to have a lot of company in the unemployment line where they will all be soon unless BHO bails them out. The puplic certainly will not support them much more.
People voted for change……..we changed from 5.9 under Bushes watch to 10.0 that means we had
3.1 change………I'm excited
a couple of things to keep in mind about the "drop" in unemployment for november…
1. many businesses are hiring for the holiday season and those jobs will be gone come 2010.
2. look at the calendar… november had only 18 business days, the fewest of any month this year, including february (19). when you have a month starting on a weekend, with 2 holidays and 3 days when most unemployment offices are closed, obviously there is a very high probability that fewer claims would be made in fewer days.
What do you expect? The media has been in bed with Obama since his announcement of running for presidency. They're treating him as if he's God. I think that once Zero is out of office, lawsuits should be filed against the news media too.
Some of the Lame Stream Media is suffering, because We The People are sick and tired of their transparent bias. We have stopped patronizing them, which is affecting their bottom lines, just as intended.
So, if the Democrats try to bail them out, We The People need to have a HISSY FIT! And I mean one that they can not possibly miss or misinterpret.
Bailing out these companies would be tantamont to spending our tax dollars on their reelection campaigns. I, as well as many others in this nation, have VOTED WITH OUR POCKETBOOKS. If they can't produce a product that people want to buy, then they NEED TO FAIL!
I have been watching this situation closely, because I knew, if We The People did what we needed to do, that this issue would appear sooner, instead of later.
If the Dems do try to bail out the lame stream media, and networks, that refuse to report the truth, We The People need to
Someone pointed out to me that the numbers reported today was the total number lost minus(-) the number of people who lost their unemployment plus(+) all those that are just doing Holiday work, so in late January-mid February the numbers will jump again. Also take in the U6 & we are still nearing 18%, if we haven't surpassed it yet.
Some of the Lame Stream Media is suffering, because We The People are sick and tired of their transparent bias. We have stopped patronizing them, which is affecting their bottom lines, just as intended.
So, if the Democrats try to bail them out, We The People need to have a HISSY FIT! And I mean one that they can not possibly miss or misinterpret.
Bailing out these companies would be tantamont to spending our tax dollars on their reelection campaigns. I, as well as many others in this nation, have VOTED WITH OUR POCKETBOOKS. If they can't produce a product that people want to buy, then they NEED TO FAIL!
My gosh! If you followed a toddler around, and intercepted their every single move, they would never learn anything. How hard is that to understand? It's called CONSEQUENCES!
Never watch ABC NBC CBS News So all I know is the economy sucks
Girl Scouts don't give merit badges to Boy Scouts…Of course the OLD Media will laud the slightest improvement in teh numbers and attribute that to their boy… it's only natural
u6 dropped to 17.4, down from 17.6, but hey nobody reports that number anyway.
Thank you, I stand corrected. Still way to high. Also when HW Bush was in that 5% the media cried about included what is now the U6.
Razor:
Bingo!! We have a winner!
Very clearly stated. But the populace doesn’t understand this, or so he thinks. He is counting on us still being in a Turkey coma.
Temporary hiring of help is the norm at this time of the year. But BHO is counting on us ignorant, unwashed masses not to catch on to that.
How stupid do they think we are? Very. But we are not!!!
The old, very old, decrepit, falling-apart, deaf, blind, unthinking, senile media. That can't find a juicy story right under its nose, but will dive on into any brown mess a liberal shoves it into like it was prime sirloin.
It's too cruel to let the old beast go on to its painful dragged-out death. Call the vet, we're putting this old dog down.
"During a Republican administration, a report of a drop in unemployment is seen as meaningless, easily dismissed, and no sign that the economy is turning around. Yet when a Democrat is in office the same paper reports that a 10 percent rate — double what it was during the Bush years — is a sign that everything is wonderful and the economy is obviously on the mend……Hallelujah, we “only” lost 11,000 jobs! Yes, it was all sunny optimism for a 10 percent rate. The Times went on with more happy talk.."
The non stated difference here is Obama inherited a job market that is intensely deep into the Bush tax cut era. The 2003 tax change was promoted as measure to increase jobs. Sarah Palln went to bat for Senator McCain over and over again stating on the campaign trail that tax cuts create jobs. Tax cuts aimed at the majority of Americans can stimulate the buying markets and increase demand in the short term. Since the tax cuts do not expire until 2010, this level of employment should not be expected if cutting taxes created jobs. Creating jobs in America is the real problem. And with Wall Street profit mentality driving big business, any stabilization of jobs in this country is an improvement.
Golly, RS must have been educated by an Obama age teacher; 2 + 2 = whatever! Actually, the so-called massive change should be equal to 4.1!!!!!!!!
Cheers, RS, and that's an easy error to make but it had to be pointed out!
People basically read what they want to believe. If someone is blindly pro-Obama they will take what they are spoonfed by the Times and accept it as if it were gospel. For the rest of us who actually think it will take actual facts to sway our opinion. It does not take a rocket scientists to figure out that 10% unemployment is terrible, regardless of what the legacy media wants you to think.
It is the coolest situation, keep so!
Yeah, keep shining up that crap…
How's Larry and your other brother Darryl doing? Selling blood for tar paper on the shack?
God, liberals are SO stupid…
I've read this story so many times before it is hardly news any more.
It would have been nice if the NYT story noted that the .2% drop only cost $787 billion dollars.
What they have been counting on is the 'silent majority' staying silent. Just like the unraveling of the climate change fraud, there will always be those who no amount of evidence will shake them from their beliefs. Today on FOX they were interviewing one of the 'experts' in Gore's church and the fact the GRU twisted the numbers is irrelevent. He went on to say that they have numbers from lots of other, still respected institutions and essentially, the game is still on! We need CEI to force NASA to show it's hand in this. Keep shining the light in the dark recesses and sooner or later all the cockroaches will be seen. Just like in the ACORN and SEIU case, we need that steady drum beat to root them all out.
So what does that work out to, a hundred million per job saved?
Today I heard on the radio that the number of new unemployment claims dropped this month. I forget how many new claims were made, but the fact remains that new unemployment claims were made. The lamestream media spins this to sound like a positive result of the Obama administration. On top of that, they claimed that the national unemployment rate dropped to 10 percent (down from 10.2 percent). My question is: how can there be a large net loss of jobs for the month and at the same time a decrease in the national unemployment rate? Obama and gang are counting on the misleading way that the numbers are presented by their puppet newscasters to influence public opinion.
It is even worse than that! Change from 5.9 to 5.7 is 3.39% drop! Change from 10.2 to 10.0 is a 1.96% drop! The improvement under Bush was 1.43% better than the improvement under Obama!
The media has done that for as long as I can recall. A Republican administration always has good economic news downplayed and bad economic news overplayed by the media. The Democrats of course get good economic news overplayed and bad economic news spun into good economic news by the media.
Idiot!
The unemployment increase is due to Obama's self confessed raise in taxes on those small business owner's and the wealthest. They are laying off because they have not been able to borrow from the banks to meet payroll since Obama took office.
They can't afford higher taxes for themselves and their businesses with taxes on top of all that comes more taxes on their insurance premiums.
Obama is absolutley ruining this country. I am truly afraid he has to much longer in office to save this nation. Our only hope is the mid term elections to stop him.
are you kidding me? what a dumbass
That one's easy…
The ONLY way to show net loss in both jobs AND a decrease in the national unemployment rate is through net loss of available workers. In other words, a BUNCH of people gave up looking for jobs in what they used to do, and either took temps, min wage that they could find, or gave up looking ENTIRELY, and dropped off the stats…
Thanks a load, Barry…
/sarc
The lamestream media, particularly the NYT, is a joke. After all, this is the paper whose executive editor said, "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
Nothing can save these people from their delusions.
[...] original here: Big Government » Blog Archive » A Tale of Two Presidents: How … By admin | category: how | tags: china-demographics, court, democrat, democrat-presidents, [...]
We sure do seem to have a double standard: For Democrats, failure is a resume enhancement. For Republicans, it's the precursor to a job hunt. No wonder Barack Hussein Obama currently leads the Democrat party!
Take in to account the NEW economic system based on ebonics. as in 2+2= what hussein say.
The lamestream media, particularly the NYT, is a joke. After all, this is the paper whose executive editor said, "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
Wow. Not only is that an asinine comment, but it reeks of ego. No wonder they get along so well with Obama. They all make me sick.
They were even trying to say it was an improvement on Fox news!!! I was appalled! Bill O'Reilly trying his best to spin this nonsense off as a good thing!!! Now who do we trust…Glenn Beck seems to be the only one not afraid to tell it like it really is!!!
I really loved O'Reilly's recent suggestion of a nationwide 2% sales tax. Sometimes poor Bill just can't get things right.
There are folks out there that think profit is evil. As a business owner I am "profit" driven. The off-shoot of profits is job creation. I never look at my company financials to see how I can create more jobs. I look to see how I can create more demand and profit. So for all those commentors who are on the bandwagon of "profits are evil" I say as long as this administration speaks out against business profits, there will be high unemployment. And now with Cap & Trade, Health Care, Corporate tax increases, and a growing list of future unknowns, businesses will continue to cut jobs as profits slide. Any capital they have will be kept in reserve to handle the future "unknow" b.s. this administration is going to ram down the throats of the business owners of this country.
as a small business owner, I have no confidence in making investments for growth, acquisitions, or increasing payroll/headcount. The degree of new rules, regulations, taxes, surcharges, et al that are being pushed through Congress scare me more than taking a well calculated buisness risk, along with the many banks I use that no longer are lending capital. How can anyone plan future investments with all the new legislation being discussed?? Thus, I am trying to delever all debt, cut headcount, cut expenses, cut capex spend, and remain defensive until 2012.
Actually the MSM has been in bed with Obama since the Dem primary when they tore Hillary apart, ignored Edwards affair and made it appear as if Obama's preacher of 20 years was not a racist that hated white America, but a black person that was treated poorly over the years giving him a legitimate reason to hate America.
I agree Mago..it's just that he seems to give Obama a pass too many times…Beck seems to be the only one not to back down to the pc…
I've got another example. The media used to print headlines such as "NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED BREAKS RECORD". You could just have easily said "NUMBER OF EMPLOYED BREAKS RECORD".
Now, they print the headlines as they should have been all along "UNEMPLOYMENT AT 10%", etc.
Have to admit I truly admire small business owners. Once tried to start a business and failed. Learned a lot from the experience. There are more pitfalls to starting/running a small business than the average person knows: local ordinances (signage, etc), state laws, city/state/federal taxes, licenses, workman's comp, insurance, FICA, Social Insecurity, accounting, legal, city services, private services (gas, electric, trash hauling), OSHA rules, environmental rules, union rules, and the host of rules/regulations you knew nothing about until they come up. God help you if you want to go into food service! I'm sure that major corporations encounter even more crap rules/regulations.
Now we have a government that is intent on pushing in even more rules/regulations in the mistaken belief that that will solve the "problem". Is it no wonder that our manufacturing has gone out the bottom? Is it no wonder that we outsource so much of our production?
Government IS destroying us.
politics is rife with gamesmanship about how terrible the other side is,
[...] Signs of Trouble for Reid Re-Election Bid Anyone shedding tears? Anyone… anyone… A Tale of Two Presidents: How Media Treated Bush’s Unemployment #’s Compared to Obama’s Warner’s not implying The Media is biased? What was he thinkin’? NASA-Gate NBC Nightly [...]
Good article, but you have to KEEP GOING. Remember how EVERY week the media would bring up the Jobs report, and EVERY week Bush would announce new jobs? The media would say, "X amount of jobs were lost this week, and what did Bush do about it?". And then Bush would come back with, "This week we created X plus 2 amounts of jobs." Every Jobs report was a happening, and every time Bush would SOMEHOW create more jobs. But this wasn't good enough for the Democrats or the media was it? No. They said these jobs had LOWER WAGES. OK. Would you rather have had NO JOBS created at all??? Now with Obama, he CANNOT create ANY JOBS. And the Media goes crazy when he ONLY loses 11,000. What about those low paying jobs? What about the "Created or SAVED" jobs? NOTHING. A lot of people didn't like Bush, but he GOT THE JOBS. And if I may, he wasn't that bad as an economic president. He got KILLED by Democrat policies like the Low-Income Loans, which he gave 14 WARNINGS to Congress about in his last year. And Bush is the bad guy and Nobama is the good guy… WOW. We really need to reign in this DISGUSTING MEDIA and their DEMOCRAT MASTERS
I couldn't agree more. They MUST NOT "Bail Out" the newspapers!!! There is a reason that they're all GOING OUT OF BUSINESS…. THEY STINK!!! They don't report the news, they don't tell the TRUTH, and they CERTAINLY have an AGENDA. It's not that they MUST NOT be bailed out, it's that they WILL NOT BE BAILED OUT!!!
I am with you 100%. We have to make more noise than we ever have before, because if these self-proclaimed Media Outlets go out of business, that's the FREE MARKET, and that is AMERICANS MAKING THEIR CHOICE… And WE CHOOSE not to read your RUBISH AND LIES ANY MORE!!!
The sarcasm when completely over your head, I see.
Who is the "dumbass" now?
USN (Ret.)
Ah, is it not obvious, the dripping sarcasm, given by RS?
USN (Ret.)
Do you really believe there are no democrats that profited in big business/wall street. That is delusional. I have heard of no liberal/democrat that has returned their tax cuts out of conscious reflection. The ring leader himself keeps touting that he has cut taxes for "95% of Americans". Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Corporate profits = jobs unless you threaten to tax them more…. don't be an idiot.
[...] Big Government » Blog Archive » A Tale of Two Presidents: How Media Treated Bush’s Unemployment …. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
With intelligence like this, it is surprising you were even able to turn the computer on.
Your comment is so fraught with stupidity, it is hard to select which point to refute first. But I will go with the "Wall Street profit mentality". What is wrong with desiring profit? ALL businesses need to turn a profit. That's why a business exists. You don't make money, you can't have employees, or buy from vendors (who have their own employees to pay) or pay your rent or utilities. Profit is the first and primary goal of business, not employment. Want a different system, try to the Castro brothers down south.
Now, tax cuts don't expire until all the way out until four weeks from now. Gee, amazing that businesses are already considering that in their plans. Guess they are being selfish again. With the pending tax increases (and yes, the expiration of a cut DOES equal an increase) business must consider the impact, not just on their own enterprise, but also on their suppliers and customers. Will their costs go up? Will their market shrink? More money going to government means less in the economy.
Now, as to the atrocious economy now, as opposed to 2002. I seem to recall an incident in September of 2001 which shook a shaky economy, as well as the strength of the nation as a whole. Guess that doesn't count to liberals. And I'm sure the current President's filibuster of the bill to reign in Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the demise of those GSE's, with the resulting collapse of the housing markets. When your hero is bitching about people "making the mess" tell him to look in the mirror.
it's not good if you got laid off in Nov because your employer is still downsizing. My daughter was laid off by a very large corporation.
of course. it's all about "appearances", never about substance. (that might actually require them to do something that makes them {gasp} uncomfortable)
they don't count people whose unemployement benefits have expired. They don't count people who got a part-time temporary holiday job (they're working you know). These numbers are biased just based upon the methodology they use to count, they are not the actuals.
That, and the increase in business taxes they have to pay per employee. It's cheaper to lay off employee's and make due with fewer.
watch for them to stick their fingers in their ears, saying "lalalalalalalala" why calling out "I can't hear you". Actually, I think they're doing that now.
those numbers only started going up when Pelosi took over as speaker and her dem incompetent house started doing her bidding. what a joke she is.
This whole financial mess was created by the media in the first place to get a democrat elected. Remember, it's "the economy, stupid." I've been saying this for the past four years, the media has purposly and willfully reported embellished, negative news stories about the econonomy. Well they got what they wanted. How many layoffs at the NYT? Not enough, but it serves them right.
If they do bailout these horrible newspapers and make sure we all get one to read-My suggestion would be to collect them all and make a BONFIRE on every mainstreet in the USA! Oh, and make sure its filmed! They don’t have enough jail beds to incarcerate ALL OF US/ANARCHY!
When deficits are $400 billion and unemployment was 5.4%, the Treason Media told us that Dubya and the Stupid Party were reckless spendthrifts and it was a "jobless recovery."
We now have $1.4 TRILLION deficits and 10% unemployment – actually higher when you factor in those who've given up looking – and we're told that a new Golden Age of Wonder has dawned and no matter what the Chinese and those lending us money say, the only thing that will truly save us is Cap & Tax and ObamaCare on top of what's already been done..
What media bias?
The lamestream media, particularly the NYT, is a joke. After all, this is the paper whose executive editor said, "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
So… they're going to hold a concert/make a commercial to show how much they care and yet do nothing that actually helps or saves anything?
Unemployment figures, as bad and as scary as they are these days, don't tell the whole story. I'd like to see the changes in the amount of money earned by Americans, rather than just the jobless rate. Something like X number of employed people earned a total of Y. How many who lost their jobs over the last few years have taken new jobs that pay a fraction of what they were 2 – 3 years ago? How much earning power has been lost, and continues to be lost? Does any know if there is such a statistic?
Another question I have, what is the effect on the unemployment figure ifsomeone who lost their job and is now working 2 or 3 part -time jobs. Does it mean 1 employed person or 2 or 3 "jobs".
[...] A Tale of Two Presidents: How Media Treated Bush’s Unemployment #’s Compared to Obama’s from Big Government by Warner Todd Huston [...]
You know, O'Reilly is just playing the middle ground. I'm not saying he's a moderate, but as an Independant, he does need to try to look at the positive on both sides. I'm accused far too often by my friends of being so negative, even though I'm somewhat restrained in my Conservative thought. Do I wish Bill O would be more Conservative? Of course. But the man does give a fair shake most of the time.
Good questions.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Michael Chavez, Big Government, Big Government, Patrick Henry and others. Patrick Henry said: A Tale of Two Presidents: How Media Treated Bush’s Unemployment #’s Compared to … <more> [...]
I do know that…I think that's why O'Reilly gets so excited about Glenn Beck….:) Beck is not a journalist and he isn't afraid to say anything..
Unemployment offices were closed for two days due to Thanksgiving holidays.
Unfortunately, this administration does exactly as it wants to with the help of our representation in the house and the senate(Nancy and Reid). We will have to look to the 2010 elections, and we will all have to organize.
Boy, Obama''s rhetoric really works on some people! Didn't you look at when the recession really started, and our current policies are really working aren't they. They have even succeeded the Carter era!
Don't forget both state and federal government running the pay scales and changing them every six months, when you look at your financials figure an increase on all incidental cost associated by your vendors due to this regulation. While you are at it, you had better increase your prices so that your financials are still profitable and do this often.
Sincerely, CPA
Hmmmm, kind of a stretch there.
When Bush left office we were at 8.1% unrmployment…is a 3% gain insignificant as well?
Good, then Obama's doing fine at 10%, since that's only a 1.9% increase since he's taken office.
Birthers, Tea baggers, FOX commentators are hardly silent, and they're certainly not the majority
Jim – December 6th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
‘Hmmmm, kind of a stretch there.’
much like your statistics and math jim (public school education?).
the unemployment rate at the end of Dec 08 was 7.2% according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (i won’t bother linking, try google).
the actual difference between unemployment at 7.2% and 10.0% expressed as a percentage is…….20.1%. of course i realize that in leftist dogma this is a feature, not a bug
Ñîâðåìåííàÿ ÑÒÎ ýôôåêòèâíî è êà÷åñòâåííî âûïîëíÿåò ñâîè ôóíêöèè ïðè ïîìîùè ðàçëè÷íîãî âèäà îáîðóäîâàíèÿ…
àâòîðåìîíò…
Øèðîêèé ñïåêòð ñîâðåìåííîãî øàõòíîãî è ãîðíîîáîãàòèòåëüíîãî îáîðóäîâàíèÿ íàñ÷èòûâàåò áîëåå 100 íàèìåíîâàíèé…
âèáðàòîðû, ãðîõîòû, æåëåçîîòäåëèòåëè…
Really cool post. I do agree with almost everything you talked about, but not quite all of it. Let’s say I agree to disagree on a few points. Good stuff though.
àñôàëüòîóêëàä÷èêè, àâòîêðàíû, áóëüäîçåðû, ãðåéäåðû, êàòêè, ïîãðóç÷èêè, ýêñêàâàòîðû…
Ïîãðóç÷èêè èñïîëüçóþòñÿ äëÿ çàñûïêè, ðàñêîïêè, âûðàâíèâàíèè è äðóãèõ ðàáîò ñ ðàçëè÷íûìè ìàòåðèàëàìè…
You must be logged in to post a comment.