It’s really no big surprise to those of us who pay attention, but IBD highlighted — in it’s editorial yesterday — the bias coverage of the MSM when it comes to the economy.

The Dow Industrial is up over 12,000, Unemployment is at roughly 4%, 6.6 million jobs have been created, inflation has been tamed, federal tax revenues are up, and the defecit has been cut in half sooner than anyone had expected.

We have been in the strongest period of growth in this country in a long time despitet the obstacles the economy has had to overcome. Yet, when the public is polled they seem to think that the economy is bad. This is no big surprise though when you look at how the coverage has been slanted. From the IBD editorial:

This “cognitive dissonance” tends to be more pronounced at election time, perhaps because that’s when coverage tends to get more biased. Examples from past election cycles abound.

In 2004, when the Bush-Kerry race was heating up, we couldn’t help notice all the stories about trouble in the Midwest, and especially in key manufacturing states like Ohio, where the recovery that began two years earlier was said to be a no-show.

That’s funny, we thought at the time. Data showed the factory sector expanding for the 12th month in a row and employment at a 31-year high. But with Bush in office and John Kerry polling well, the media weren’t about to let facts get in the way of a good woe-is-us tale.

It was just the opposite in 2000, when Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning to replace Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and had the nerve to point out the economy seemed to be slowing. Never mind the data indicated as much, or that stocks had been signaling a downturn since they topped that spring.

Eight years earlier, when George Bush Sr. was in the White House, and Clinton, Gore and 90% of the national media wanted him out, it was all about “the economy, stupid.” Though we were in the 18th month of expansion, and activity in the latest quarter was the strongest in three years, 92% of stories written about the economy in that stretch were negative.

The negative coverage dried up as soon as Clinton and Gore were elected. Only 14% of stories in November 1992 were negative vs. 90% the month before.

In 2006? Once again, there’s no shortage of anecdotal evidence. Typical was the one we cited last week, when both CBS and CNN took the best piece of economic news in a long time — the plunge in gas prices — and turned it into an election-year conspiracy of George Bush and Big Oil.

For fresh empirical evidence, the Business & Media Institute, admittedly a right-leaning group that audits coverage of the free enterprise system, just released a study of how the TV networks covered what was a strong economy in the 12 months ended in July. Among its findings:

• More than twice as many stories and briefs focused on negative aspects of the economy (62%) vs. positive (31%). “News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm after another, yet each time the economy continued unfazed,” BMI said.

• Bad news was stressed on all three networks (CBS, NBC and ABC) and appeared in full-length stories twice as often as in shorter items.

• Ordinary people and businessmen whom reporters used to underscore negative stories outnumbered those telling positive stories by a 3-to-1 ratio.

• CBS’ coverage was easily the most slanted. More than 80% of its full-length stories on its “Evening News” delivered a negative view of the economy.

• Generally speaking, “the U.S. economy has been depicted as one major event away from collapse on all three evening news shows.”

Voters and business people alike would do well to ignore the media’s bias and remember who brought us this good economy.

Hat Tip: Ed @ Captains Quarters

1. […] For those of you who hate Fox News, please try to keep an open mind.  Click here, here, and here for more on […]

   Pingback by Dan and Jen’s Blog » Good To Know — 4/2/2008 @ 14:57

   ---

1. It’s because the economy *is* bad. Working people don’t need to read the papers to know that times continue to be very tough.

   Rich folks with stocks continue to get richer, and they’re all happy about the Dow Jones rising. But most Americans are not part of the “investor class” and could care less.

   I think really the notable story here is that a few mainstream media outlets had the temerity to challenge Wall Street’s view of the world, and to dig deeper beneath the numbers CEOs care about to see how the economy is for most of us. And frankly, it sucks.

   Finally, the budget deficit appearing to shrink finally is pure accounting trickery. Where do the costs of the Iraq War figure in the new budget? Oh, they don’t? Why did the GAO decide to change the basis it uses to calculate GDP and the deficit this year? I’m sure the more favorable-looking numbers as a result are pure coincidence…

   Comment by lalo — 10/25/2006 @ 12:02

   ---



2. Lalo,

   Are you so frigging partisan that you can’t even see the evidence right in front of your face? Show a little bit of “balls” and back your assertions with facts. Don’t give me this feelings crap, I want actual numbers for your claims that the economy is bad!

   Jim

   Comment by Jim — 10/25/2006 @ 13:05

   ---



3. Liberals need to be held accountable for every lie and deception they say.

   It should be three strikes gets them three months in jail!

   We should start building those prisons now.

   Comment by OTTMANN — 10/26/2006 @ 15:44

   ---



4. Ottman

   What a crock. If we utilized your criteria, most of the top republican house leadership and much of the Bush administration would be in jail.

   Comment by Cynic — 10/27/2006 @ 10:08

   ---



5. Cynic,

   What have I said about backing your claims up with facts?

   Comment by Jim — 10/29/2006 @ 08:40

   ---



6. Where are Ottoman’s facts?

   Comment by Cynic — 10/29/2006 @ 13:12

   ---



7. I just wanted to leave one more comment. In our last discussion with regard to Ref I, we got into a side discussion around some issues of foster care. I indicated that I had attended a number of state reviews around the issue of abuse of children in foster care. You challenged my credibility and dismissed the info as hearsay. Obviously you do not know the definition of hearsay. Hearsay is evidence based on reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness. Since my experiences were firsthand, they, by definition cannot be hearsay.
   The references you utilized in support of your position are, however, hearsay.
   One of your resources Dr Cameron did his research in the 8o’s ad his data and techniques or his research have all been debunked. He has been discharged from APA for ethics violations and his work has no credibility and has been labeled junk science.

   Comment by Cynic — 11/1/2006 @ 14:26

   ---



8. Cynic,

   I’m not a lawyer… I’m sorry. I missused the terminology. What I meant to say — and I think you know it because I sent you an email telling you this — is that I have no proof by which to evaluate your claims.

   Jim C

   Comment by Jim — 11/1/2006 @ 15:22

   ---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackback URI for this post:
http://thinking-right.com/2006/10/24/media-bias-and-the-economy/trackback/