Unemployment is currently at a 26-year-high of 9.7 percent and expected to continue rising. The last president to govern with such high unemployment was President Ronald Reagan.
But in 1982, when unemployment was rising similarly to the way it has in 2009 the network news media were merciless quoting attacks from Democrats, union leaders and the unemployed to attack Reagan's "sadistic" fiscal policies.
2009 was a different story, for a different president. Even though unemployment has shot up from 8.1 percent since February, network reporters looked for "hopeful signs" of an economic turnaround in their jobs report.
The Business & Media Institute just released a Special Report: Networks Flip Flop on Jobs that exposes that double-standard of unemployment coverage from 1982 and 2009 (See video below). The full report is available here, but here are some of our major findings:
Network Reports 13 Times More Negative Under Reagan than Under Obama: An overwhelming majority of stories mentioning the Reagan administration were negative 91 percent (20 out of 22) while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Additionally, Obama mentions were favorable 87 percent of the time, but there were zero positive mentions of Reagan.Story Continues Below Ad ↓Networks Connect Reagan White House to Negative Jobs Numbers Almost Twice as Often as Obama: Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time (22 out of 31), but 2009 stories mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time (14 out of 35).
Charles Gibson: 9.4% Unemployment ‘Good News' (Obama) and also ‘All' Bad (Reagan): The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and Obama. But ABC's Charles Gibson covered the identical rate very differently in 1982 than in 2009. Gibson told viewers May 7, 1982, "[T]here really isn't any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad." But by 2009, Gibson had turned into an optimist citing "good news" June 5 and "hope the economy may be finally turning the corner" Aug. 7.
—Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Is this a fair comparison?
October 1, 2009 - 09:55 ET by trak65I don't doubt the media's pro-Obama bias, but it would be better to compare roughly equivalent points in each administration's progression. Obama apologists will surely counter that the supposed good news is only in month 9 of Obama's reign, when he is still dealing with "inherited" problems. May 1982 was the 17th month of Reagan's first term. Of course we can also note we're in month 33 of the democrats' return to power in congress, a period marked by skyrocketing deficits and steadily rising unemployment (minimum wage increase, anyone?).
I think it's fair for us to say
October 1, 2009 - 10:14 ET by candanceBush spent his last year in office spending money like crazy and all willing to sign the first bailout. Several months later, it's clear that the socialist policies of government intervention have failed.
Then Obama compounded the stupidity of TARP
October 1, 2009 - 10:20 ET by BlondeWith the "stimulus".....saving, what, 5 jobs?
"Saved or Created".....democratspeak for payoffs.
The thing I found to be astounding about this is 13 times more negative for Reagan than Obama with the same unemployment numbers. That is a huge number, and shows how truly in the tank the media is for Obama. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....it's no recovery, MsM.
Finally, the current unemployment number is much higher than the "official one"....as those who have quit looking are no longer counted. The real unemployment rate is estimated to be somewhere north of 15%.
I hope he fails, too.
Bush's spending was bad
October 1, 2009 - 10:29 ET by trak65But he was aided and abetted by the democrats in congress -- or, more accurately, vice versa. Also, my understanding is that the TARP funds are not even being counted as spending and thus are not even included in deficit figures. Bush was no Reagan when it came to spending, but at least his revenue and spending policies did not result in ridiculous deficits. They were generally in the range of 1-3% of GDP -- reasonable if GDP growth is higher. He also in 2005 tried to address the massive unfunded liability of social security's promised payouts and was ridiculed....and then his own scaredy-cat party lost congress anyway in the next election.
However, unemployment was
October 1, 2009 - 11:43 ET by mattmHowever, unemployment was down from where it started when Reagan took office. Reagan inherited about 10% Unemployment and had it down around 5% by the time he left office.
So far, unemployment has gone up by about 90% (from 5% to 9%) in just 8 months in office, and it's still rising.
Yet, the media reports a slowing-down of the rise as good news.
They have no excuses. They are liars.
You Have Forgotten............
October 1, 2009 - 13:25 ET by GeneralAlYou have forgotten that Reagan inherited that mess from President James Earl Carter! 22% inflation, 14% unemployment, one dollar a gallon gas [After deregulating petroleum prices - Thank You Democrats!] Interest rates at 30% and more! The only mess The Tele-Prez Messiah inherited was created by his Communist aka Democrat pals in Congress!
Silly wabbit...
October 1, 2009 - 10:05 ET by Sonia HThat's because Obama has actually saved jobs!
Just think where we'd all be without his intervention...
on second thought.....
Sonia in Las Vegas
gotta love those nonpartisan Democrats
October 1, 2009 - 10:09 ET by candanceReagan wasn't just misguided, he was wicked. But hey, at least they didn't accuse Reagan of lying during a speech.
Am I thus racist if I call Obama wicked?
Yes candance, anyone that
October 1, 2009 - 11:39 ET by nadadhimmiYes candance, anyone that doesn't worship Obama is"racist". What other reason could there be to not worship at the feet of a proud black man? (sarc off).
Umm, umm, umm....
October 1, 2009 - 10:16 ET by neighbAs I've said so many times....The hypocrisy of the left in this country is BREATHTAKING!
And BTW, one wonders just what future date is being designated by Gibbs and the WH as the moment when the "Umm, umm, umm man" will have to finally stop blaming Bush for everything and admit that he doesn't have the leadership skills, talent or knowledge to make it better. (note for lefties on this post: sarcasm.)
compared to now and then
October 1, 2009 - 10:26 ET by jon_torlinWhat's interesting is they talk about the RATE being a 26 year high, but is that adjusted for the population numbers versus what they were 26 years ago?
The unemployment rate is 9.7% of the population today, it doesn't seem fair to compare it to what it was then, especially when you look at the numbers. I might be a bit off base and am willing to bow to the experience of others, but 9.7% of the population amounts to around 30 million people out of work versus whatever the population was back 26 years ago (I have no way of knowing where to look for this), let's say that the population back then was about 200 million people(it might be less, I don't know), so 9.7% of that is about 19 million people out of work back then.
The point is, the more populated an area, the more people will be out of work which makes it a bad situation and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to to compare it to the past like that.
I like to think I have a really good understanding of how the financial markets and economics work, but comparing apples to oranges in this case, not too clear on.
Am I off base on this?
-Jon
I think "rates" are an appropriate comparison
October 1, 2009 - 10:54 ET by trak65Consider that after Katrina, roughly 1000 out of 1 million people in New Orleans died -- a rate of 0.1 percent.
Meanwhile, the September 2009 tsunami in American Samoa killed at least 111 of the 60,000 people -- a rate of 0.2 percent.
We'll see how media reports compare for these tragedies.
to use your examples
October 1, 2009 - 11:26 ET by jon_torlinI'm not too informed about the tsunami situation with American Samoa other than what's been on the news, but I do know that the murder rate in New Orleans was very high despite its population size, enough to where it was dubbed "Murder Capitol" of the US.
That same rate used in a different city would have been a really high number of murders.
Unless you meant other kinds of deaths other than murders....
-Jon
I was talking about hurricane-related deaths
October 1, 2009 - 11:31 ET by trak65Bush got blamed for not doing enough to protect the population in advance of the disaster and for not acting quickly enough afterwards to rescue and deliver aid. Roughly 0.1 percent of the population died. Let's see how the American Samoa story gets reported.
my mistake
October 1, 2009 - 11:38 ET by jon_torlinSorry, wasn't clear on what you meant, thank you for the correction.
You have a point there, they tried to blame the tsunami on Bush more than once, which was ridiculous in itself.(didn't someone suggest a bomb was set off to make that quake back then?)
-Jon
No way a thousand people
October 1, 2009 - 11:41 ET by nadadhimmiNo way a thousand people died in Katrina. Not even close unless Van Jones is the guy doing the counting.
jon.. numbers
October 1, 2009 - 12:23 ET by Gary HallRate -
With all due respect, yes - you're not seeing that one with any clarity. It is based on a perentage of the working population. The consideration of the size of the whole population is not a part of the equation.
But some times, we could do it your way. For instance, during the Clinton years, the number of uninsured persons rose much more rapidly than did it did during the Bush years.
And on the other hand, in regards to the top 1% of the richest income earners in America we can use percentages to make the point. During the Clinton years, from 1993 to 2000, the top 1%'s income (as a % of the whole) rose from 13.79% to 20.81% (almost 21%) of all the income earned.
Enter Bush. By 2003, the top 1%'s share had dropped to 16.77%. Latest data I have does show that by 2006, it's up to 22.06%.
So under Clinton, this horrible thing increased by a large amount; while under Bush it's managed in 7 years to pop up a point.
Needless to say - another reversal - it's been falling since at least 2007 - so in the end, it probably dropped during the Bush years, while, during the Clinton years the rich of the richest got really richer. Those are the years that the Democrats celebrate, right?
It doesn't matter how often Biden and Obama lied about it, the truth is still the truth.
(;~/ gary
The unemployment rate is
October 1, 2009 - 15:23 ET by Tom PaineThe unemployment rate is the percentage of the workforce that is "officially" recognized as being out of work. So comparing the two rates is an apples to apples comparison. You are correct in saying that since the workforce has increased since the 1980’s, the same unemployment rate today represents more people out of work. The MSM will only grudgingly reporting the rate and not the number of bodies out of work. However, you will notice that when they were reporting George W Bush’s (at the time) "record" deficit they always used the gross amount rather than reporting what it was as a percentage of GDP, which represented our ability to pay it off. The Bush deficit was around 3.3% of GDP, around the average rate of the previous 40 years; Obama’s deficit is 13% of GDP and counting.
Excellent illustration
October 1, 2009 - 16:12 ET by trak65....of why "rate" is usually the best measure of any condition. And note that this year's Obama-Reid-Pelosi deficit -- a modern era record -- comes during only the 2nd period of all-Dem governing (white house, senate and house) since the 79-80 session (the other being 93-94).
This means the REAL unemployment rate is around 18% +/-
October 1, 2009 - 11:05 ET by R D HelmSome recovery.
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
Don't forget what happened.
October 1, 2009 - 16:59 ET by mvfreemanWhen the economy finally turned around the media then started labeling the 80's as the decade of greed.
But when a dem is in office (Clinton) and things are booming, it's all good.
well, duh
October 1, 2009 - 19:51 ET by Watches"Networks Connect Reagan White House to Negative Jobs Numbers Almost Twice as Often as Obama"
Which just goes to show that the media are not biased. Reagan WAS twice as connected to his bad job numbers. Is there a conservative memory bias here?
new troll
October 1, 2009 - 19:55 ET by MrShy"1 week 18 hours"
So fresh and new, it's down to the hours...
Pardon, Mr. Shy - just wanted to compliment you on
October 1, 2009 - 19:59 ET by BO STINKSyour work. I went to your website recently and recognized your face from several TV shows and movies. You are a fine actor and great comedian! Thank you for all the fun you have brought to the big and small screen!
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
Welcome to NewsBusters, troll.
October 1, 2009 - 20:01 ET by R D HelmMy name is Dave, and I am the official troll greeter here at NB.
I certainly hope your stay with us will be a pleasant one, whatever its duration.
Be sure and let me know if there is anything I can get you.
See ya round the threads.
BTW, by your post, it is clear that you were government schooled.
-Ever considered suing your parents for gross child abuse?
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
LOL RD! YOU da MAN!
October 1, 2009 - 20:08 ET by pahuber: )
Ever vigilant.
And to think I welcomed him to NB
October 1, 2009 - 21:11 ET by RukusI'm gonna go sit in the corner now. Sigh. Me stoopid... : (
Gary
If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. -- Tom Paine
Are you always this rude?
October 2, 2009 - 13:20 ET by WatchesYou probably don't even notice the irony of calling yourself the "troll greeter", since your greeting is itself a troll (and a repeat, at that).
"BTW, by your post, it is clear that you were government schooled."
What other untruths are "clear" to you?
They were just more subtle
October 1, 2009 - 21:11 ET by RR GOPThey were just more subtle back then. They couldn't attack Reagan too openly because of all of the Reagan Democrats...so they knew they had to watch it.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.