If good news happens on Bush's watch, and Bush would get the credit, it ain't news.

Bluesman · 10-15-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

2 of 3 ‘Newspapers of Record’ Fail to Record Federal Fiscal-Year Deficit News
Filed under: Economy, MSM Biz/Other Bias, Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 9:04 am
The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Bluey reported in his Sunday Townhall column that there was disinterest at the hallowed “newspapers of record” in the government’s news about the just-ended fiscal year’s deficit (links to White House deficit announcement and to Business and Media Institute report are in the original):

The U.S. budget deficit fell to the lowest level in five years last week, but three of America’s leading newspapers — the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times — couldn’t find the space to mention the dramatic drop.

Journalists who have spent years trashing President Bush’s tax cuts appeared to suddenly lose interest when the budget picture brightened. That’s not surprising, however, considering that mainstream reporters frequently ignore upbeat economic news.

For 49 straight months, dating back to August 2003, the U.S. economy has added jobs. More than 8 million, in fact. Yet the only time economic news seems to hit the front page is when there’s something bad to report. No wonder Bush gets little credit.

See for yourself at the NY Times, the Post, and the LA Times (searches are on “deficit billion” — not in quotes):

The Post’s Neil Irwin wrote a 600-word article (”Economy Signals Damage Control”) about supposedly weak retail sales (you’re wrong, Neil — they were “stronger than expected“) and the deficit. But it was the trade deficit and not the US budget deficit, which Irwin ignored. The Post did carry the uncharacteristically balanced deficit coverage of the Associated Press’s Martin Crutsinger, but apparently only online, as there is no print edition page indicator at the link.
Bluey had one minor oversight, as the New York Times did carry a one-paragraph Associated Press item — on Page A22 in the October 12 print edition. That hardly counts as “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” especially considering that the Times, like the Post, also did an in-house piece on the trade deficit.
The LA Times had no report relating to the federal budget deficit. That’s like the paper’s sports editor deciding not to report on the previous night’s Dodgers game because it wasn’t interesting.
Does anyone seriously believe that the news would have been almost completely ignored if the deficit had instead gone up?

Because the “newspapers of record” won’t cover it, yours truly will. Rather than provide 2,000 words, I’ll provide two pictures, which are worth 1,000 each (:–>):

Now for some cold water: I hope I’m wrong, but I believe that the long run of increased tax receipts is over, and that receipts in future years will go up by no more than 4%-5% annually — if we’re lucky. That’s because none of the economy-prodding suggestions made at the end of this post last year have been put into place. The current Congressional majority has no interest in making the Bush 2001-2003 tax cuts permanent. If that were miraculously to happen, the economy would likely go into orbit at the sudden rush of bi-partisan sanity. But that makes too much sense.

If, as appears likely, the Bush cuts are instead allowed to expire at the end of 2010, that will in reality represent a huge tax increase after seven years of a mostly-static tax structure. Worse still, a Democratic presidential victory in 2008 could not only mean a probable earlier end to the Bush cuts, but steep additional taxes on top of that. All three major Dem candidates have already promised exactly that.

Because of these things, it would not surprise me in the least that investors and corporate managers considering expansion are becoming more cautious, hindering current economic growth.

What’s really needed, as I’ve suggested several times in the past few months, is another tax cut. It would nice to hear at least one GOP presidential candidate talking about that, and not merely holding the line on the Bush cuts.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

The New York Times is the New National Enquirer, and anybody that reads it to get their 'news' is a dam' fool.

crooks · 10-15-2007, 09:15 AM

Impressive performance from the US economy - the recession fears that everyone in the world, especially Eurocrats of the EU are trying to tout, seem largely unfounded (and it's a similar picture here, the media paints your economy as a giant with weak legs, about to collapse - only thing I can say is that it can't be describes as "left wing bias" anywhere near as much as a "doom-mongerer" bias, we're very closely tied to the US from an economic perspective, so they reckon a recession in Washington will affect Dublin badly).

glyn · 10-15-2007, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crooks

Impressive performance from the US economy - the recession fears that everyone in the world, especially Eurocrats of the EU are trying to tout, seem largely unfounded (and it's a similar picture here, the media paints your economy as a giant with weak legs, about to collapse - only thing I can say is that it can't be describes as "left wing bias" anywhere near as much as a "doom-mongerer" bias, we're very closely tied to the US from an economic perspective, so they reckon a recession in Washington will affect Dublin badly).

Since the end of WW2 people have known that if the US catches a cold everyone else will sneeze!

dave lukins · 10-15-2007, 12:07 PM

gesundheit

crooks · 10-15-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Since the end of WW2 people have known that if the US catches a cold everyone else will sneeze!

Is it not the other way around

?

Dreadnought · 10-15-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

The New York Times is the New National Enquirer, and anybody that reads it to get their 'news' is a dam' fool.

Blues, Im shocked at you. You cant print that. Its lies I tell all lies. Every single problem that appears is Bush's fault.

Give em hell "W".

Feanor · 10-15-2007, 16:09 PM

Good news isn't news. It's assumed that the president should be doing a good job of running the country. Look at it this way, you're not going to put in an article about how a kid DIDN'T get cancer and has a happy life. You're going to put in an article about how a kid did get cancer and struggles with his life.

gunnut · 10-15-2007, 16:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Good news isn't news. It's assumed that the president should be doing a good job of running the country. Look at it this way, you're not going to put in an article about how a kid DIDN'T get cancer and has a happy life. You're going to put in an article about how a kid did get cancer and struggles with his life.

That's a good point. Good news don't sell.

However, we merely ask the NYT to be more fair in their coverage. If they make everything looks bad for Bush, they damned well better have done that when Clinton was in office.

But they don't.

The economy is about as good now, maybe better, as it was in Clinton years. But everyone remembers the "good ol' days" when Clinton was in office and money was everywhere. People believe the perception and the atmosphere in the media. If the media is negative, they get negative. If the media is positive, they get more positive.

HistoricalDavid · 10-15-2007, 16:33 PM

I suppose it's pretty embarrassing for me that I've only found out about this now. I'm no Shek but I do know my budget deficit from my elbow, or my current account deficit, or my trade deficit. Suppose even charismatic stallions like me fall prey to the evil media once in a while.

Economic comparison between now and the Clinton years is difficult if not impossible due to the WoT's extra expenditures, September 11th, the existing 2000-1 slump, demand-driven oil prices, lack of a peace dividend etc. I can't really think of any external advantages Bush had over Clinton, apart from his budget surplus, to compare with the disadvantages.

I suppose Greenspan's 1% interest rate splurge from 2001-2004 could count as both a blessing in cheap credit and a hindrance now in the mortgage affair. I think Shek is required in such situations.

Desdemona · 10-17-2007, 11:43 AM

Today, mortgage applications for loans to purchase homes rose a seasonally adjusted 2.1%. Mortgage applications rose 0.7% last week, survey shows - MarketWatch

Economic good news will not make headlines in the NYT or on CNN. Some "news" organizations will continue to Bush Bash and refute good economic indicator statistics; but that is not what sells newspapers or increases ad revenue on TV.

Ownership and having an executive position in the media influences what we see ultimately see and read in the news.

Who owns the NYT? Jew Watch - Leaders - Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Owner of New York Times

Yep, I am generally stereotyping Jewish media moguls as being confirmed Democratic contributors. There are so many it is hard not to.

Since I am new to the WAB, let me publicly claim, that I personally don't really care what your religion is unless your an Islamic whack job who wants to kill people so don't be like that a@@ Donny Duetch and say I offended anyone over religion. The point being, that a lot of democratic campaign contributors are the people who are running what I call, An American Media Campaign to discredit Bush and get you to vote along the Democratic Party line.

Who runs ABC? FOX? CNN? VIACOM? Even Hugh Hefner of Playboy fame is a democratic contributor to both Obama and Clinton's presidential campaigns. So is Larry Flint, owner of Hustler even with all his issues of free speech- a democratic contributor. Even in the land of porn there is no escape. Barry Diller-media mogul and Democrat. David Westin -ABC news President and Democrat. Peter Chernin-Pres. of News Corp and soon The Dow Jones Co., and The Wall Street Journal.

And the list goes on. For a more popular media people and their political contributions to both parties:NEWSMEAT Hall of Fame ► Political Donations of Media Stars and Executives

The media sells us more than just commercials.

HistoricalDavid · 10-18-2007, 16:41 PM

So long as we are traversing that ad hominem route, Iago wannabe, you might not want to quote a site named "Jew Watch". A cursory glance at their front page will show them as a stupid anti-Semitic site of the most banal sort.

**ZFBoxcar** · 10-18-2007, 17:02 PM

Desdemona, be a little more careful. You can certainly make the case that many media moguls are liberals/Democrats, but why does some of them being Jewish matter? And as David said, Jew Watch is a vile, hateful, site which I hope to never see used again on WAB.

HistoricalDavid · 10-18-2007, 18:57 PM

ImageShack - Hosting :: angrymelissaff7.jpg

Desdemona · 10-20-2007, 10:00 AM

I think that Israel holds a place with American media, that's all I am saying and reinforcing that there is a US corporate/military/government connection with Israel. Israel is an important factor in the ongoing power struggle in the Mid-East and the world. If I could site predominate American media ownership from Italy, China, Russia, etc., I would have.

I believe our drive-by media has the power to present selective facts and headlines, no matter the ownership. And it does as referred to in the original post to this thread.

I thought I made it clear that although I am a Christian, I have NO ANIMOSITY toward the Jewish people or Israel. I've toured the Holocaust Museum, I've worked with great enthusiasm for Jewish people, and I love my Jewish Jesus. I have planted (or at least sent the money to plant) olive trees at the Mount of Olives in Israel. My college roommate was Jewish. I've found Jewish men to be quite romantic as boyfriends. Okay already? I AM NOT PREJUDICE AGAINST JEWISH PEOPLE.

The link that caused alarm was the 2ND most popular from Google. It used Hoover's Company Profiles as its citation so I felt there was authenticity in using it.

**ZFBoxcar** · 10-20-2007, 10:50 AM

Okay, fine, you are not an anti-Semite, I believe you (although the site you used is). But now I am just confused, because right-wingers are if anything more prone to supporting Israel, so why would Jewish media moguls (who I doubt have as much influence as you suggest) be more prone to supporting liberals if they were really just thinking of how to best help Israel...

Jews are statistically far more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. It stands to reason that this trend would exist among Jews in the media as well. Although I really think it is nonsense to suggest that Jews are overwhelmingly responsible for the media's slant But anyways, I don't see what the Israel connection would have to do with this, since Israel's best friends in the US are the Christian Right.

10-15-2007, 09:15 AM	#2 (permalink)
crooks Green, White 'n Orange *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-17-06 Location: Blarney, County Cork, Ireland Posts: 1,291 Country:	Impressive performance from the US economy - the recession fears that everyone in the world, especially Eurocrats of the EU are trying to tout, seem largely unfounded (and it's a similar picture here, the media paints your economy as a giant with weak legs, about to collapse - only thing I can say is that it can't be describes as "left wing bias" anywhere near as much as a "doom-mongerer" bias, we're very closely tied to the US from an economic perspective, so they reckon a recession in Washington will affect Dublin badly). __________________ 'Liberty - it is newly strung and shall be heard.' - Motto of the United Irishmen.

10-15-2007, 16:33 PM	#9 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 2,008 Country:	I suppose it's pretty embarrassing for me that I've only found out about this now. I'm no Shek but I do know my budget deficit from my elbow, or my current account deficit, or my trade deficit. Suppose even charismatic stallions like me fall prey to the evil media once in a while. Economic comparison between now and the Clinton years is difficult if not impossible due to the WoT's extra expenditures, September 11th, the existing 2000-1 slump, demand-driven oil prices, lack of a peace dividend etc. I can't really think of any external advantages Bush had over Clinton, apart from his budget surplus, to compare with the disadvantages. I suppose Greenspan's 1% interest rate splurge from 2001-2004 could count as both a blessing in cheap credit and a hindrance now in the mortgage affair. I think Shek is required in such situations. __________________ HD Ready? Last edited by HistoricalDavid : 10-15-2007 at 16:41 PM.

10-17-2007, 11:43 AM	#10 (permalink)
Desdemona Patron Join Date: 10-08-07 Location: God Bless Ohio, USA Posts: 202 Country:	American Media against Bush Today, mortgage applications for loans to purchase homes rose a seasonally adjusted 2.1%. Mortgage applications rose 0.7% last week, survey shows - MarketWatch Economic good news will not make headlines in the NYT or on CNN. Some "news" organizations will continue to Bush Bash and refute good economic indicator statistics; but that is not what sells newspapers or increases ad revenue on TV. Ownership and having an executive position in the media influences what we see ultimately see and read in the news. Who owns the NYT? Jew Watch - Leaders - Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Owner of New York Times Yep, I am generally stereotyping Jewish media moguls as being confirmed Democratic contributors. There are so many it is hard not to. Since I am new to the WAB, let me publicly claim, that I personally don't really care what your religion is unless your an Islamic whack job who wants to kill people so don't be like that a@@ Donny Duetch and say I offended anyone over religion. The point being, that a lot of democratic campaign contributors are the people who are running what I call, An American Media Campaign to discredit Bush and get you to vote along the Democratic Party line. Who runs ABC? FOX? CNN? VIACOM? Even Hugh Hefner of Playboy fame is a democratic contributor to both Obama and Clinton's presidential campaigns. So is Larry Flint, owner of Hustler even with all his issues of free speech- a democratic contributor. Even in the land of porn there is no escape. Barry Diller-media mogul and Democrat. David Westin -ABC news President and Democrat. Peter Chernin-Pres. of News Corp and soon The Dow Jones Co., and The Wall Street Journal. And the list goes on. For a more popular media people and their political contributions to both parties:NEWSMEAT Hall of Fame ► Political Donations of Media Stars and Executives The media sells us more than just commercials. __________________ "We are the people our parents warned us about." Jimmy Buffet

10-20-2007, 10:00 AM	#14 (permalink)
Desdemona Patron Join Date: 10-08-07 Location: God Bless Ohio, USA Posts: 202 Country:	American Media Ownership I think that Israel holds a place with American media, that's all I am saying and reinforcing that there is a US corporate/military/government connection with Israel. Israel is an important factor in the ongoing power struggle in the Mid-East and the world. If I could site predominate American media ownership from Italy, China, Russia, etc., I would have. I believe our drive-by media has the power to present selective facts and headlines, no matter the ownership. And it does as referred to in the original post to this thread. I thought I made it clear that although I am a Christian, I have NO ANIMOSITY toward the Jewish people or Israel. I've toured the Holocaust Museum, I've worked with great enthusiasm for Jewish people, and I love my Jewish Jesus. I have planted (or at least sent the money to plant) olive trees at the Mount of Olives in Israel. My college roommate was Jewish. I've found Jewish men to be quite romantic as boyfriends. Okay already? I AM NOT PREJUDICE AGAINST JEWISH PEOPLE. The link that caused alarm was the 2ND most popular from Google. It used Hoover's Company Profiles as its citation so I felt there was authenticity in using it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-15-2007, 12:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
dave lukins *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-04-07 Location: cheshire uk Posts: 4,750 Country:	gesundheit

10-15-2007, 16:09 PM	#7 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Good news isn't news. It's assumed that the president should be doing a good job of running the country. Look at it this way, you're not going to put in an article about how a kid DIDN'T get cancer and has a happy life. You're going to put in an article about how a kid did get cancer and struggles with his life.

10-18-2007, 16:41 PM	#11 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 2,008 Country:	So long as we are traversing that ad hominem route, Iago wannabe, you might not want to quote a site named "Jew Watch". A cursory glance at their front page will show them as a stupid anti-Semitic site of the most banal sort.

10-18-2007, 17:02 PM	#12 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,125 Country:	Desdemona, be a little more careful. You can certainly make the case that many media moguls are liberals/Democrats, but why does some of them being Jewish matter? And as David said, Jew Watch is a vile, hateful, site which I hope to never see used again on WAB.

10-18-2007, 18:57 PM	#13 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 2,008 Country:	ImageShack - Hosting :: angrymelissaff7.jpg

10-20-2007, 10:50 AM	#15 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,125 Country:	Okay, fine, you are not an anti-Semite, I believe you (although the site you used is). But now I am just confused, because right-wingers are if anything more prone to supporting Israel, so why would Jewish media moguls (who I doubt have as much influence as you suggest) be more prone to supporting liberals if they were really just thinking of how to best help Israel... Jews are statistically far more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. It stands to reason that this trend would exist among Jews in the media as well. Although I really think it is nonsense to suggest that Jews are overwhelmingly responsible for the media's slant But anyways, I don't see what the Israel connection would have to do with this, since Israel's best friends in the US are the Christian Right.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?	Bluesman	The War in Iraq	1059	07-15-2008 23:50 PM
Bush Orders Domestic Spying.	Bulgaroctonus	Political Discussions	191	02-23-2008 12:08 PM
Russia on the march - again	Ray	The Western Alliance	312	02-14-2008 19:18 PM
Kerry Slams U.S. Foreign Policy	Enzo Ferrari	Political Discussions	252	02-08-2007 05:34 AM
Bush Sees a Rare Chance to Win Wisconsin	Gio	Political Discussions	0	10-09-2004 01:01 AM