Posted on 11/29/2007 12:46:41 PM PST by Kaslin
"There seems to be a pattern here. It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush."
So said presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., during a speech -- specifically on the economy -- before a crowd in Knoxville, Iowa. Okay, we understand campaign sloganeering -- purportedly funny lines and the like during the campaign season. But shouldn't the Associated Press, in reporting Clinton's line, provide the reader with a little information?
Let's look at what incoming President Bill Clinton "cleaned up" when he took over from President George H. W. Bush in late January 1993. Despite the relentless economic news by the traditional media, Clinton entered office with an economic recovery two years old. During Bush-41's last year in office -- 1992, the year voters elected Clinton -- the economy grew 3.2 percent. President Clinton's average economic growth during his eight years was 2.4 percent.
Now look at what incoming President George W. Bush faced. The economy peaked in September of 2000. Many economic indicators, such as industrial production, peaked in September 2000 -- Clinton's last full year in office -- and continued to slide through January 2001, when Bush took office. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a non-profit organization the government uses to determine economic cycles, states the recession began in March 2001, some six weeks after Bush took over. So when W entered the White House, he dealt with an economy entering a recession -- a recession that, according to the NBER, lasted until November 2001.
Sen. Clinton's quip elicited applause from her audience, but how many in the crowd knew about the economic conditions Clinton enjoyed when entering office, or the downturn W confronted when he did so? Small wonder that so many remain ignorant about this when the Associated Press, in covering Clinton's economic speech, provides no information.
Harvard, along with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, recently put out a study confirming the type of liberal bias in the media that denies information to consumers of news.
The study found that Democrats got more news coverage than Republicans -- 49 percent of the stories versus 31 percent. It also found the "tone" of the coverage for Democrats was more positive, 35 percent compared to 26 percent for Republicans. "In other words," the study says, "not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking."
In 11 newspapers -- including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today and Wall Street Journal -- front-page stories about Democrats had a "clear, positive message" 59 percent of the time, and only 11 percent had a negative tone.
For the top Democratic candidates, the difference was even more striking: Barack Obama received coverage that was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative, and Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. On the other hand, only 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive and 40 percent negative.
Democratic candidates received 49 percent of television's evening network newscast stories, while Republicans got 28 percent. And 39.5 percent of the Democratic coverage had a positive tone, while 17.1 percent was negative. But for Republicans, only 18.6 percent of the network evening news coverage was positive and 37.2 percent negative.
But perhaps you didn't hear about the Harvard/Pew study. When it was released, only 20 news stories about the report could be found in a Nexis search, and most of those made no mention of the extreme levels of bias.
Back to the Associated Press coverage of Sen. Clinton's economic speech. The Associated Press could have and should have written something like this:
"While Clinton's quip elicited applause from her audience, the actual facts say something different. Her husband, President Clinton, inherited an economy that in its last full year averaged 3.2 percent growth. So, in reality, her husband inherited an economy in a recovery, not in a recession. Similarly, President George W. Bush inherited an economy that was, according the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the non-profit organization the government uses to determine economic cycles, heading toward a recession."
Okay, okay, wake me, I'm dreaming.
Clinton...the POS between the Bushes.
Better graphic.
ping
That pretty much sums it up quite accurately!
Why mess with the economy that was totally good under the 7 years of President Bush?
Any economic boom falsely attributed to Slick was due to his being forced at times, to adhere to largely conservative principles......Wrong. Clinton inflated all figures by 30% and that could not withstand the economic model we were TOLD we were experiencing.
Send that to the article’s editor :)
Taxpayers
Further verification that Hillary is a liar.
Pizza stains weren't the worst of it.
However, SHE means business. SHE will not blunder like Slick and Bush. SHE will have an extremely Marxist Congress to perform her bidding. The results of this Marxist trifecta will be a staggering tax increase, an unprecedented growth in entitlements, nationalization of many industries (health care, student loans, mortgage lending, media, and energy), price controls through global warming restrictions, explosion of racial preferences, unchecked growth of litigation, open southern borders, and powerful rise of unions. All of these changes will be permanent, changed only by a tidal wave of opposition.
Please vote wisely next November. Remember who the real enemy is.
The kids around the thanksgiving table ignored all of the political discussion as usual. "Universal healthcare" "national debt" "raised taxes" "Social security"....all went right over their heads.
What snapped them to attention, I noticed,... what REALLY perked up their ears: I said, "That's ok...we're gonna make these kids pay for your check, grampa!...." "No worry, Hillary is going to sign these kids up here to pay for your free healthcare." "Barack Obama is going to take enough from these kids to pay for ma's social security check."
That really surpried me how much they actually got into it when it was placd on those, true terms.
And it WILL be them paying for all this garbage.
Are any of the candidates talking/framing it thataway?
The lie that just keeps on giving - Clinton inherited a growing economy and passed on a slowing economy.
Why do you say that?
Why not say that?
bttt
For the top Democratic candidates, the difference was even more striking: Barack Obama received coverage that was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative, and Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. On the other hand, only 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive and 40 percent negative.
You can cite statistics like that until the cows come home, but it goes right over people's heads because we have all been brainwashed with the propaganda that journalism is objective - and people just don't see why journalism should be slanted, or why journalism should be all slanting the same way.There are reasons, actually pretty simple reasons, why this is the case. First, "Why would the various newspapers and broadcast networks be unified?" The answer to that is that newspapers in the founding era were diverse, and they did not have efficient means of gathering news which the rest of the population did not hear first from other sources. That changed with "the wire" - the (1848) advent of the Associated Press. The AP succeeded in monopolizing the transmission of news by telegraph - and when its monopoly was questioned on the grounds that it produced a concentration of propaganda power, the AP sold the story that the AP was "objective."
The AP transformed the newspaper business into a true news business delivering information which was not otherwise available to the general public. But, all protestations of objectivity notwithstanding, the Associated Press has one inherent bias: that the news - simply because it is new and known first by the AP - is important. What if the news wasn't important?
The reality is that on a typical day you probably cannot remember anything in the newspaper from exactly 5 years ago. There is only so much going on that is actually important, and reported daily developments ordinarily are of no enduring significance. And that means that the Associated Press in general, and the journalistic outlets which it supplies in particular, are inherently superficial. They are also generally negative, because the most dramatic changes are typically negative changes - simply because it is more dramatic to realize that a house burned down in less than a day than it is to understand that the nation's building contractors finish new houses every day, too. But there is less drama in the completion of ten months-long house construction projects than there is in the surprise demolition of the fruits of one such project.
In addition, since journalism is simply talk, journalism has an inherent tendency to promote criticism at the expense of action - to denigrate and second guess the businessman, the policeman, and the soldier. And to puff up the teacher, the plaintiff lawyer, the union leader, and the second-guessing politician by assigning them the favorable label of "progressive."
Townhall must have been purchased by soros... what comes out of their place these days is dnc tripe. LLS
Did you two read a different thread and this comment on this one? Larry Elder's column factually and methodically refutes the myth that clinton inherited a recession and turned it into a booming economy and points out that Bush inherited a clinton recession and turned the economy around with growth oriented tax cuts. Yeah, sounds like a Soros joke to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.