How Reuters Reports Good Economic News

Our economy is rolling. Since August of 2003 6.6 million jobs have been added to the economy. In the last twelve months alone we’ve added 1.7 million jobs. For the last 37 months, that’s three years and one month, we’ve added jobs every single month. The most recent jobs report has us adding 51,000 jobs to the economy in September.
How does Reuters choose to report this?

image

Despite jobs report?
The implication from the headline is that the recent jobs report somehow counters Bush’s positive words about the economy. What rationale is the reporter in this article using? This passage from the article gives us a clue:

President George W. Bush declared himself pleased on Friday with U.S. economic progress despite a Labor Department report that said U.S. employers added only 51,000 jobs in September.

So, because the economy didn’t add as many jobs as this reporter apparently thought we should have added the jobs report itself counters Bush’s positive view of the economy.
Media bias? What media bias?

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array 2Hotel9

    So, unemployment at 4.6 is a bad economy? What is the current running average in EU? China? Australia? Any country in Africa chosen at random? Please to explain how this is the worst economy in 60 years, I am just dying to hear this line of shit woofie.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Free Image hosting by ImageSnap

    I hope you can make that out.

    If not here’s the link. I got that from the Kipplinger org.

  • http://www.fileitunder.com/ Hoodlumman

    Hmm. I think it’s a schtick.

    There’s so many economic indicators and statistics out there, detractors will always find something to bitch and moan about.

    That’s what I think.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    2h9: Our GDP growth has been whipping on every other developed country.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    We’ve seen strong growth the past few years. Looking at Woofies chart you’ll see that last year job growth was about what was just reported.

    It’s probably better than that as they always revise the numbers upwards.

    Thanks for the help woofie.

    By the way unemployment is low at 4.6%, isn’t that great!

  • http://www.fileitunder.com/ Hoodlumman

    Maybe we should email the report and ask him how many jobs would have been adequate for the month reported.

  • robert108

    Even with the population growth entering the job market.

    Does that include illegals? Our population growth is pretty flat; most of it is in the illegal population, and they should leave anyway.

  • MikeAdamson

    I like the Econoday reports for subjects like this…no political bias that I can see. They thought that the jobs report was okay in view of the upward revisions to July and August.

  • robert108

    150k-170k to stay even.

    “Even” with what?

  • lisa

    Rob,watch fox news and it will explaine it.here in England one of the channels did mini clips from fox news reports on US economy blooming and shares rising.A joke

  • Bat One

    Both the employment (non-farm payroll) and the unemployment numbers are very good news, as they indicate that the economy’s rater of growth is gradually slowing. Now, instead of going from 30 mph to 60 mph, rhetorically speaking, in 4 seconds, we are doing so in 5 – 6 seconds. This moderation in the rate of growth is important. In econometric terms. its referred to as a “soft landing,” exactly the scenario that the FOMC and Ben Bernanke are looking for.

    The result is that there will likely be no further rate hikes this year, and quite possibly a reduction in rates sometime during the first quarter of 2007. The market has been telling us that short rates are too ohigh for 6 months now.

    As for WOOF’s population growth worries, I suspect that stricter border security and enforcement, the prospect of 700 more miles of fence, and the fact that much of the illegal employment is still “off the books” anyway should all combine to diminish any any of the pressures that WOOF imagines will appear. Nice try though!

  • robert108

    MikeA: Followed your link, and only noticed one discrepancy: They listed wages instead of total compensation. As was reported a while back by Rob, nonwage compensation is up considerably, so wages alone give an inaccurate impression of real compensation growth. Other than that, it seemed pretty good. It’s a common shortcoming of economic reporting in the media, btw.

  • HG

    The whole premise of this jobs report is wrong because liberals are wrong. Bush hasn’t created any more or less jobs than any other President in US history. That’s because entrepreneurs are responsible for job growth. All the government can do is stay the hell out of the way. Liberals see government as owning everything and anything us peons have is by the good graces of government.

  • 2Hotel9

    Toot, I want woofie to expound upon his party’s, the Democrat Party, talking point that we are in a depression and our economy is a total shambles. I want woofie to explain how 4.6 unemployment is the worst job market in all of recorded history. I just want to see him type it all down, to see if he does it in the exact order that they are listed on the email, or if he is creative enough to mix it up a bit. I don’t believe his reading comprehension is sufficient to allow him to freehand it, so he will run straight down the list.

  • Bat One

    It’s a bit incongruous to envision many of those multi-syllabic words in that talking points memo, what with them being Democrats and all.

  • robert108

    Whoops! Wrong thread with that last post. Sorry.

    Rob: I always thought that Kerry slogan was a trick one dealing with the Depression in HH’s term and 9/11 in Bush’s, and even at that, it wasn’t true. Good catch.

  • HG

    Woof, You liberals never cease to appall me. Your 150k minimum based upon poulation growth and new employees can’t be accurately judged by one month, nor does it take into account those leaving the job market, ie. retirement, self employment, etc. But then again, does it even matter to you — I doubt it. It only matters to leftist loons that they hate Bush.

  • robert108

    Woof: “weaker than expected” by whom? Why should we care about someone’s expectations, that are undoubtedly agendized. Economic projections are almost always wrong, so what is your point? Those fifty one thousand people are now working, so why the long face? You’re just a partisan.
    I noticed the lefties bashed the President’s success in reducing the deficit by arguing that his projections were inaccurate; why is this any different? You can’t have it both ways.

  • robert108

    HG: They do if you show them some results. The way it works inside an govt agency is that the more you spend on gadgets, the fewer employees you say you need, and then you can spend more of your budget on administration. Screenwatchers are cheaper than border agents, and they don’t require vehicle expense, nor do they require the training that agents do. Until we demand actual performance from a govt agency, they will continue to demand more money and do less for us. I rate border cameras right up there with intersection cameras as a govt boondoggle. If you have enough guys on patrol, though, cameras are a worthwhile addition.

  • http://www.fileitunder.com/ Hoodlumman

    Email the report*er*…

  • 2Hotel9

    I notice woofie spewed a graph,and ran. Those 2 and 3 syllabe words in the Democrat Party’s talking points email must be giving him a hard time.

  • HG

    R108,

    You’re right. I think most people don’t consider gov’t jobs good economic news.

  • robert108

    HG: Unfortunately, your position is somewhat inaccurate, since it only applies to the private sector. Govt jobs are also included, so that Dem administrations that increase the number of govt jobs appear to be increasing employment. The only problem with that is govt jobs don’t add to our prosperity; they are a direct expense to the taxpayer, and generate no new income.

  • http://www.fileitunder.com/ Hoodlumman

    Woof, what’s your cutoff between good job growth and bad job growth?

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    Schtatistics are pretty good indicators. HA! Sorry, something has come over me that I can’t control… Hoodlumman does that to me!

  • WOOFX

    50K job growth is anemic. Not good news.

  • WOOFX

    150k-170k to stay even.

  • WOOFX

    Even with the population growth entering the job market.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You know what’s really funny about this? The fact that President Bush isn’t the “first President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs” during his term in office, as Kerry and the Dems were proclaiming in 2004.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development