Thursday, October 28, 2010

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?

28 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Nice job, LawHawk.

Depression era numbers. MSM doesn't have the same power it wielded years ago. People just aren't buying the BS anymore and tune out.

I am beginning to think that the audience of MSNBC, CNN, and CNBC as well as ABC, CBS, and NBC are primarily comprised of unhappy conservative researchers only there to catch some stupidity uttered by the hosts. :-)

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
That message needs a much broader circulation than even Comentarama can provide. It is just mind boggling how the unbiased news informs us and this is a prime example of their failure. Of course one need look no farther than Bakersfield to understand the liberal reasoning.

It seems that over 30 person shave registered to vote in this election at the same address in Bakersfield. When the business at that address was contacted and ask if these folks lived there the answer was "no this is a place of business not a place for anyone to reside at". Did that make it to the printed media? No again is the answer.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I hope you enjoy this little bit I found.

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/27/an-open-letter-to-rush-limbaugh-and-his-listeners/

I now wonder what next Tuesday is going to be like.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Joel

Carpe diem

After reading the link you provided all I can say is WOW. True venomous hatred rings clearly through the whole of it. Yes Tuesday will be interesting, we,all Americans, must seize the day.

Joel Farnham said...

Tom,

I knew the Hillary People were a bit upset with Obama, but....

I guess we will find out just how much they are upset next Tuesday.

If this does mean what I think it means, Republican Leadership will HAVE to step up and be oh so much better than they have indicated... other wise the Republican Party AND the Democrat Party will be gone by 2012.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Joel
I could not agree more.

The twists that occur in the name of politics is astounding. I believe Chicago must be the spawning bed for all that is nasty about politics.
Even here in our little Community Service District election, lies, twisted protests and veiled threats are happening. The perpetrator of these is you guessed it a Chicagoian.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: FDR managed to maintain large Democratic majorities in Congress and turned the Depression into the Great Depression. If Republicans can get a big majority in the House and eke out even a tie in the Senate, maybe we can stop Obama from doing the same thing. I suppose then the MSM will call it the Great Recession. Of course that also means we're in for another two years of the MSM telling us that the end of the world is nigh because Republicans are now blocking Obama's brilliant reoovery plans.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: Well, at least now we know where the homeless people went. They're living in a business location in Bakersfield. I assume they're all registered Democrats.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: That's encouraging, but I don't want to get overly excited about it. Hillary isn't the savior of the Democratic Party even if she would be better than Obama (which isn't saying much). The early surge in the Republican Party in the South in the late 50s and early 60s was the result of the move of segregationist Dixiecrats to the Republicans. I wasn't too pleased about that. Time will tell if the Democrats coming over to the Republican Party on a permanent basis are largely moderate-conservative, or merely temporary Republicans who are ticked off that Hillary didn't win.

That said, I'll take 'em. As I've emphasized time after time, in the end what counts is how many "R"s there are in each of the Congressional caucuses. The vast majority of mainstream Republicans are moderate-conservative, so if we have to put up with a few ex-Democrat liberals, a few RINOs and some fluke reactionaries, good party leadership and party discipline can yet accomplish our goals.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel and Tom: The Democratic Party is dissembling, but it's important to remember that not all the defections to the Republican Party will be either good or permanent. That's why I keep emphasizing leadership and party discipline. I admire the Tea Party's goals, and I welcome disaffected moderate-conservative Democrats to the party. But if Republican leadership (and I don't mean the old Republican Establishment/Rockefeller Coalition) doesn't herd these cats and get them pulling together, within two years we'll be the party of the warring factions that Democrats are now.

Unity of purpose and direction and the dismantling of the Obama super-state must be the goal to which all other goals must defer. If we have single-issue newbies and just-for-now ex-Democrats fighting for their individual goals as Republicans instead of a united, cohesive and well-led party, this will be a very short victory indeed.

Tennessee Jed said...

Hawk - I remember Anne Coulter pointing that out in her first book (or was it Bernie Goldberg?) No matter, there is no question what the media does, and thanks to them and folks like you (plus a gazillion years mof living experience,) it becomes so easy to spot anymore.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: They've both said it, though I don't remember which one said it first. At least with Coulter, there's never been any doubt where she stood. Goldberg went through the metamorphosis I had to experience in which one day you wake up and say "what the hell have I been thinking all these years?" As an insider, he had to admit that he had been complicit in the jury-rigging of the news on behalf of the bad guys, so in a way I find his position very simpatico. His book "A Slobbering Love Affair" is both hilarious and tragicomic. For those who are not policy wonks or political junkies, I highly recommend it as a look into media bias.

The "homeless transformation" was the first time we really caught on. The current turning a pile of s__t into the Taj Mahal White House has been much broader and much more obvious. As transparent as the deception is, the MSM hopes the big lie will be told often enough to make Obama and the Democrats look successful. Their dwindling readership and viewership makes that result less likely by the day.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I understand, but what I think is important about it, is that the Republican Leaders shouldn't even try to co-opt the newbies.

Right now, even though we are on the precipice of a great change over, the RNC isn't off the hook with all their missteps this election cycle, nor their profligate spending under the BUSH administration. Who ever okayed Lisa Maggotkulski from Alaska to stay on her committee should answer to US the American People.

I am not impressed with RNC and as far as I am concerned, they are on a short, short, short leash.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: There is a proper agenda for the Party and for the country. It's cut taxes, cut spending, support business, reduce government. Any Republican leader who opposes that deserves to be ousted.

Any newbie who sidetracks that agenda needs to be co-opted and put in his or her place. Politics is the art of the possible. A naive, single-issue Congressman who stalls the major agenda while trying to hold the House hostage to, say, the Fair Tax, can do more damage than all the Democrats put together.

Obama came in promising that he would bring people together and make government work for the people. He has not only failed, but his left wing is in open rebellion and his conservatives are defecting. That's a lack of leadership. It's great to be a patriot, and have an important issue that you want to take precedence, but without the rest of the team, you're just a spoiler.

It's clear that in this election the big spending Bushies and the Republicans who defied their party's popular votes and went off on an independent tangent are not going to be the new leaders. It will be more conservative, and with a little luck and some common sense, more responsive to the will of the people. But it won't be perfect, nor as conservative as you and I would like. Still, I repeat, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I want a flat tax (or possibly the fair tax). But if I were elected to Congress and derailed other far more immediate and necessary legislation with my single issue, I would deserve to be slapped down by the leadership as much as if I had decided that raising income taxes on the rich was a good idea.

As for the RNC, I think they're on a short list prepared by you, me and about half the Republican Party. I hate that Murkowski retained her position, but considering the rancor in Alaska and the narrowness of the race, removing her might have been the move that energized just enough of her former supporters to vote for a woman they think is being picked on. There's enough Republican blood from both camps on the floor without adding to it.

StanH said...

Rush instigated his “Reverse Operation Chaos” earlier this week, advising Hitlery voters to stay home or vote Republican, essentially the same as the HillBuzz piece.

As far as the jobs report, the radical left couldn’t be happier. They stop, urban sprawl, consumerism, pollution/global warming, spreading the wealth (by us using less leaves more for the rest of the world), etc. Not to belabor the point, but all of this emanates from the ‘60s counter culture. So I believe, they think the suffering of the American people is exactly what we deserve, it’s only fair.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: You're so right. The radical left of the 60s is the Democratic/Media establishment today. And they're still using many of the same tactics.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I maintain that the RNC is a single issue entity. Power for itself. It will attempt to co-opt the newbies who are not single issue entities.

The RNC better get on board with shrinking and limiting the government or the Republican Party is gone. No question about it.

What I have heard, even from Issa on Rush, is not encouraging. And we don't have two years to get it done. We might have three months.

Ponderosa said...

As usual the language terrorists only work in one direction. This is beyond tedious.

What we lack is a way to quickly and effectively communicate the lefty BS. Our current terms are lacking: double standard, lying, hypocrisy do not clearly express the depth of the lies.

Old & tired: good is bad or good is bad.
180 degrees opposite.

New & left: good is bad AND bad is good.
180 + 180 = ???

Bush below 5%. Why not 100%?
BO over 9.5%. It is “funemployment”!

For these attacks – let’s loosely define this approach and assign a word (new or old). Then we can quickly identify, mock and move past it.

Pan: pan-ist, panner, panning, panned

Stewart panned conservatives again.
Wow shocking.

AndrewPrice said...

Jobs are overrated.

LawHawkRFD said...

Ponderosa: You should be writing material for Republican TV ads! Of course if you ever turn evil, you could be writing "news" reports for TV talking heads.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: As Oscar Wilde said, "work is the curse of the drinking class." I have another positive spin for them. "With all that extra time on your unemployed hands, look how much time you'll have available to spend on your 'free' medical care!"

rlaWTX said...

OH - I have a rant too...
Why is any disagreement equal to hate? Or maybe what I want to know is when this started. I know that there has always been vitriol in politics, and modern R's can be pretty mean-spirited. But honoestly, have the Right ever just branded everyone who disagrees as hateful, hate-filled haters? The short conversation this weekend about C Chavez was an example - among family that generally gets along. < sigh >

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: My grandkids always react the same way when they walk into my house: "Oh, no! Grandpa's watching the news and we're about to get another lecture." But they've gotten smarter. The won't listen until I fill up the candy bowl with M&Ms. Since it's my nature and training to lecture, I have to keep a LOT of M&Ms in the house.

LawHawkRFD said...

Here's today's MRC media study that focuses on how the mainstream media "report" on the Tea Party: Tea Party Trashing.

Tehachapi Tom said...

LAW HAWK
Have you considered paying voters?
There could be a whole vocation devoted to researching and applying the Constitution to each and every proposition , bill and of course candidates. To qualify you would need a degree to insure that only qualified, educated and objective employees were hired for the position of Qualified Voter. They could have constituents who they would need to explain all issues to in plane language.
There would also be the middle management and executive management levels required to see to it that the job was done properly. Possibly we could reduce the unemployed percentage by 100 to 120 percent.

This would also do away with parties and the fund raising that currently occupies so much of an incumbents time. All donations would be income for Professional Voters, Inc. As well as by law it would be a requirement for corporations and individuals to donate to insure that Professional Voters, Inc remained viable. We could set a percentage of every ones worth each year as their required donation. Based of course on a sliding scale so that the more you were worth the larger percentage you would be required to donate.

Just a thought.

Tehachapi Tom said...

The old brain works a little slow.
So here is an additional thought for insuring quality would be to use the Six Sigma program.
You see, unemployed persons, new job seekers and military service members are just a few of the thousands of students that would be able to find ways to earn a degree in voting emphasizing Six Sigma while keeping up with the demands of everyday life. With online degree options, you could go to school at a time that works best for you. And meeting your educational goals just got easier, especially with financial aid, tuition reimbursement and school grants available for qualifying students. All of these support methods would be provided by the government to make sure there was no bias being taught in the qualified institutions. Possibly a union could be formed with the requirement of over seeing any miss deeds by a qualified voter or most likely by management.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: Have I considered paying voters? Hell, no. I've been trying to find someone who will pay me for mine.

I like your professional voter idea. Particularly since the Democrats already have a stranglehold on academia. This would give them the opportunity to produce only liberal/leftist voters while at the same time expanding government so greatly that unemployment will finally have reached zero. You can't count unemployed Republicans as they will no longer be called unemployed. They'll simply be called "serfs."

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: Your plans are becoming so arcane and so byzantine that I'm beginning to think you're a secret Democrat. Let's just put it all in a two thousand page bill as quickly as possible so that after it passes we can read it to find out what it says.

Post a Comment