Biased Economic Reporting

Rather than hijack AlexC's post onto a tangent, let me offer my own post.

Every decline in the stock market, every piece of bad economic news is tied to the President. Every good bit of news is ignored, downplayed, or attributed to sunspots.

Tigerhawk grabs this in a great post, "The rally in the stock market: It's Bush's fault."

The stock market hit a 4 1/2 year high on Friday (Pajamas Media round-up here). The fall rally reflects the muscular American economy, which managed to produce economic growth in the third quarter at almost triple the rate of the Euro zone. The comparative American strength was particularly impressive in light of the hurricanes: As I wrote a few weeks ago, not a single European city was destroyed this year (although I suppose Paris had a close call).

Today's news also forces me to remember -- against my will, to be sure -- the tradition at the New York Times of linking short term swings in the financial markets -- at least when they are negative -- to the policies of the Bush administration. On April 16, 2005, for example, the Times ran a front page story with the headline "Stocks plunge to lowest point since election," suggesting that it was the election that had something to do with the "plunge."

We eagerly await the front page story with this headline: "Stocks soar to highest point since before September 11, 2001". We're fairly sure, however, that we won't see it in the Times.

The story I am waiting for is a report on strong retail sales for Christmas. Both online and brick-and-mortar stores are off to a good start. And after hurricanes and volatile fuel price, this is pretty big news. Pretty important news.

But to admit it, as I tried to spin the comment, would be to imply that tax cuts might have worked and we can't have that. We must raise taxes and return to Rubenomics immediately -- only then will good news make the front page.

Perhaps I am over-sensitive, but this AP headline blew me away: "Big Sales Lure Reluctant Holiday Shoppers." The implication is that consumers are "reluctant" to spend money in such turbulent times, and that steep discounts are required to pry these recalcitrant wallets open.

Clear implication, yes But the story is not about that at all. The lede is about some guy who didn't want to go shopping because of the crowds, a guy who just went to an outdoors store and bought a few presents.

[Richard] Lane didn't pick up a new iPod, laptop or plasma screen TV, but he knocked off a chunk of his shopping list with one visit to the Orvis outdoor store.

"When Orvis has a 50-percent-off sale, you can't ignore it," said Lane, who otherwise would likely have stayed home. "I never shop on this day."

By the end of lunch hour Friday, Lane stood outside and waited for his wife to pick him up. On the ground next him sat a new fly fishing rod, hip waders and a collar for his bird dog.

I wouldn't shop on Black Friday were they giving away guitars. But it would be disingenuous to cite me -- or Lane -- as an example shopper.

The sixth paragraph carries the buried lede; "Today, things look really good."

UPDATE: Irwin Stetzer's piece in the Weekly Standard is good as well:

THE WASHINGTON POST doubted that Americans would enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday, announcing on the morning of turkey day that 61 percent of Americans are "anxious about money." So anxious, in fact, that the very next day between 130 million and 150 million headed to the malls to spend a sum that exceeds the GDP of three quarters of the world's countries. Wal-Mart alone racked up some $2 billion in sales.

Media and Blogging Posted by jk at November 26, 2005 12:27 PM