Brother, Can You Spare A Job?

We all know that the mainstream media spin nearly everything in favorable terms for liberal and Democratic candidates. But they also do something more insidious. They twist or outright lie about matters that sound like neutral news when in fact they're attempting to make things look good for those same liberals and Democrats.

For instance, have you ever noticed that there are no homeless people during Democratic administrations? Ignore those filthy characters you have to step over or bribe to go away and leave you alone. Those are only homeless people during Republican administrations. During Democratic administrations, they are local color, or street theater.

The most serious issue on the minds of the majority of Americans today is the subcategory of the economy, namely unemployment. Currently, according to the mainstream media, unemployment isn't so bad. Why are you worried? It's "only" at about 10% nationwide. Never mind that our dear leader, Barack Obama, promised that if Congress passed his economic stimulus package the unemployment rate wouldn't go over 8%. What's a mere 2% error when things are looking so rosy? Yes, the Media Research Center found that during the current election cycle, 52% of media stories that even mentioned unemployment were positive and upbeat.

It's nice that the media are trying to keep our spirits up, but somehow I don't think that's what they're really aiming at. And here's whey I smell a rat. Way back in the 2006 election cycle (you know, the one where the Democrats took Congress away from the Republicans), the unemployment rate had never exceeded 5% for the previous four years. Yet somehow the media found that to be a horrific blow to America's capacity to employ everyone. 58% of media stories that discussed unemployment were negative to highly negative. Some of the stories were downright panicky.

Despite all their promises, Democrats and their wild schemes have been unable to make a dent in the unemployment figures. And if the media were actually being honest, they would admit the 9.6% rate they are currently touting would be much, much higher if they count those whose unemployment benefits have run out (and have fallen off the official unemployment rolls) and those who have just given up on finding even the most menial of jobs. To put a more visible face on it, 15 million people are out of work. And the reality is that based on the last two weeks of the month that just passed, the report that will come out just after the election will show the rate to be officially over 10% (approaching a real figure of as much as 19% of the able workforce).

On NBC's April 2, 2010, NBC's Steve Liesman called the worst unemployment rate since 1985 "a hopeful sign. It is self-sustaining job growth." Contrast that with CBS's Mark Knoller on December 3, 2005, during the Bush/Republican years, that the recent distinct improvement in employment figures (4.7%) was a freakish occurrence over which nobody had any control or stewardship. Said Knoller: "The president [Bush] insists his economic policies, including his tax cuts, deserve some of the credit." Odd how quickly the same people will look at the unemployment figures today, and finally give Bush the credit--It's Bush's fault the economy is so bad and the unemployment rate is so high. So there!

Although unemployment was still very low in the 2006 election cycle, nearly 50% of all media reports on unemployment were highly negative, and those which were not negative were unusually factual and bloodless, citing numbers without any context or any credit. As the MRC reports, in the 2010 cycle, with an unemployment rate nearly twice that of the Bush years, almost 50% of the stories about unemployment were positive, and of those that were negative, 40% had some version of "it's always darkest before the dawn," or "every cloud has its silver lining."

In April of 2006, the rate went to 4.7% and 211,000 jobs were created (NOT created or saved). And what did the talking heads do with that? First, they argued with the figures, claiming that the same agency they now accept as gospel were inflating the figures. Then they turned the positives into negatives. Brian Williams on NBC: "President Bush used the jobs numbers as a starting point for a new push to try to convince Americans that the economy is in fact on a roll." Then he trotted out a second-hand, unidentified poll which showed that 59% of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the economy. Self-fulfilling prophecy, Brian? On CBS, Bob Schieffer said "the economy was only able to crank out about 113,000 new jobs." He cut the actual number in half, and then said "only."

Over at ABC (recently a full-time resident of the White House) they had Charles Gibson saying "The government says the economy added just 128,000 jobs last month. A relatively small amount, but fresh evidence of a slowdown (emphasis added). More negativity, but at least his figures were closer to the truth. This kind of relentless negativity and phony numbers continued throughout the entire 2006 election cycle. Within a period of a mere few months, Williams actually used the original figure, the figure of 193,000, and almost got it right when he stated 215,000 (almost right).

So how are they reporting the 2010 election cycle? Well, after two years of job losses, Betsy Stark at ABC chirped: "It was the 23rd consecutive month the country has lost jobs. But even so (emphasis added), today's report was the best jobs report the nation has seen in two years." Well, I guess everything's relative, Betsy. Said CBS's Katy Couric: "The unemployment rate is not likely to fall much until we begin to get significant job growth." Thank you, Ms. Obvious. And where would our country be without this great nation of ours? But she closes with: "But at least there's a glimmer of hope tonight." Glow little glow worm glimmer, glimmer.

Diane Sawyer over at World News with Diane Sawyer said: "We tell you the clues in the brand new jobs report (yes, the 9.6% rate), about the spring and the signs of hope." Hopey change again. Do these people have to get hit in the head with a baseball bat to come to their senses? And in order to hammer home her point (?), she concludes with "But today, we learned in December, once again, thousands of workers lost jobs--85,000 of them. For a perspective, look at this, we are much better off than the worst job loss a year ago." That's some perspective, I'll tell ya.

Is it any wonder that the commercial broadcast stations are bleeding viewers faster that a sliced carotid artery, and that people trust them at about the same level as they trust Congress? And while I'm at it, what the hell's with this "created or saved" crap anyway?