Skip to comments.Networks Flip Flop on Jobs [Identical Unemployment Numbers ‘Good’ for Obama, 'Bad' under Reagan]
Posted on 10/02/2009 6:18:05 PM PDT by rhema
Unemployment under President Barack Obama is at a 26-year-high. The last time the economy had 9.7 percent or higher unemployment was under President Ronald Reagan. But despite similar periods of rising unemployment, Obama and Reagan received almost exactly opposite treatment from the network news media.
Under Obama reporters have gone to great lengths to spin rising unemployment by finding positive trends in the job losses, even focusing on as few as 25 jobs being saved by the economic stimulus package. But when Reagan was president journalists showed unemployed families living out of their cars under a bridge in Texas and quoted Democrats or union leaders attacks on the presidents wicked and sadistic fiscal policies.
ABCs George Stephanopoulos looked on the bright side for Obama Sept. 4, 2009, telling viewers, the unemployment rate nears 10 percent, but the numbers arent all bad. Rewind to May 7, 1982, when unemployment hit 9.4 percent three-tenths of a percentage point lower than it would be in August 2009. That night, NBC found people in Seattle in dire straights. The lines for free food at food banks are four times what they were six months ago, NBCs Don Oliver told Nightly News viewers. Olivers report focused on the new poor and the emotional effects of unemployment, including suicide and battering.
The Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute examined network unemployment stories on the evenings that unemployment data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from March 2009 to September 2009 and March 1982 to September 1982. During that timeframe in 1982 unemployment ranged from 8.9 percent to 9.8 percent, and in 2009 it shot up even faster from 8.1 percent to 9.7 percent. Here are some of our findings:
Network Reports 13 Times More Negative Under Reagan than Under Obama: An overwhelming majority of stories mentioning the Reagan administration were negative 91 percent (20 out of 22) while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Additionally, Obama mentions were favorable 87 percent of the time, but there were zero positive mentions of Reagan.
Networks Connect Reagan White House to Negative Jobs Numbers Almost Twice as Often as Obama: Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time (22 out of 31), but 2009 stories mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time (14 out of 35).
Charles Gibson: 9.4% Unemployment Good News (Obama) and also All Bad (Reagan): The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and Obama. But ABCs Charles Gibson covered the identical rate very differently in 1982 than in 2009. Gibson told viewers May 7, 1982, [T]here really isnt any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad. But by 2009, Gibson had turned into an optimist citing good news June 5 and hope the economy may be finally turning the corner Aug. 7.
We had real joba under Reagan and no jobs under Obama.
But, but, but...
We can’t “look back”!!!
We’ve got to keep moving forward and get busy doing things the American people really care about, like affordable healthcare.....
So whats new.
There are some members of this forum who also have selective amnesia when it comes to the Reagan legacy.
And in January 2007, the Dems inherited 4.4% unemployment from Bush and the Republicans.
The state-run media is so far up Bammys rear end, they need mining helmets.
If a house burns down in a Republican administration the former occupants are Homeless.
If a house burns down in a Democrat administration the former occupants are Displaced.
I remember under GW Bush, that the media was constantly nagging that the everything should be perfect as far as the economy almost right after 9/11. They would not cut him any slack at all. They did not let up and when things started to get better they ignored that. They constantly talked as though if a Democrat was in everything would magically be all better instantly.
I remember reading one of those stories, about a man, wife, child and dog living in their car. The dog chewed up the upholstery (and did what dogs do when they're inside too much, and stressed). Then the husband spun a bearing or something inside the motor racing a guy who challenged them. It was a sob story about these "poor people's fate", and all I could think of was how effing stupid these people were to keep a dog in their car and race a guy with your family in the car.
As I keep saying, in America, if you're poor, it's almost certain it's because you keep doing stupid things over, and over, an over. . .