Not only did the media shape the gloriously warm vison of the Clinton -- let's just do economy here, OK -- they used it, and continue to use this power, to try to get Gore, then Kerry and now either of the D's candidates elected. Conversely, they play the opposite up, to hurt Bush. It's simply about R's vs D's. Here's but two examples of how they lie to the voters -- Mathews, I suggest is representative of the entire MSM take: 

Back in Aug of 2000, when the DOW was off it's high by 1,100 points, the Nasdaq was down 58% from it's highs, unemployment claims were soaring, CA was in the midst of the Enron blamed energy crisis, the manufacturing index had been in a steep plummet and was nearing the low point in the cycle (continued down until April 2001); here's ABC's Charlie Gibson pushing the campaign of Al Gore because the [collapsing]economy is so strong:

"The Dow has tripled, we've gone from deficit to surplus,' and that this will give Al Gore a chance to talk about the economy, a new chance to talk about the economy." Aug 3rd, 2000.

What? The economy was dying in the moment - eveyone knew that.

This next bit is interesting. Chris Matthews .."excellent economic numbers right through 2000 ?? What is he referring to, and Gore actually weakly attempted to corrected him...  and stated the facts on when things tanked, about the first time this fact was ever heard in the national media. And then, nothing Gore stated made sense. 

Dec. 11th, 2002 Hardball excerpt-

MATTHEWS: Just as an observer again, I thought your campaign last time, it should have been very positive. It should almost be a bragging tour of America because we had excellent economic numbers and right through 2000, everybody was in the market and making money. The middle class was saving. The work working people were having jobs. Hispanics, highest unemployment, lowest unemployment, lowest black unemployment, lowest women’s unemployment, all the good numbers and yet your campaign had sort of a complaining character to it..

GORE: It’s an interesting analysis. You know, the markets started down, the economy started down in March of 2000, [oh really??] and in spite of all the good news [there was no good news in late 2000], still I felt we could do better, and I think most Americans like to look to the future with optimism and hope and they want all campaigns to be about how we can get a better future, and so I don’t know. I’m interested in what you say, but I think to focus on how to make for a better future is probably smarter and better in the best interest of the American people rather than simply patting ourselves on the back for what’s come before.

bla ..bla..bla. Wow, warmly welcomed positive talk in the midst of an economic crash, which the MSM ignored then, and has redefined as something that Bush created [magically before he became president] - think the media has an interest in President Bush's positive outlook and confidence in the economy?

Yes, consumer confidence is based on labor markets, wages, interest rates, savings rates, the stock market, the housing market, etc. But where do most people get their information about those various factors? The media! When the media constantly harp on the things that aren't so hot, viewers and readers start to get the idea that everything's bad.

A major problem is a lack of context. For example, the media have recently reported "the sharpest decline in home sales since the Great Depression." The obvious implication is that because the numbers look similar we must be headed for another depression. But they fail to inform viewers that we've recently experienced several record high years for sales. A "sharp" drop from a record high isn't quite as bad as a "sharp" drop from a record low, is it?

As another example, the media tend to report when the CCI shows a drop in consumer confidence. But when it goes up -- or, as in July 2007 when it was at a six-year high -- they apparently see no need to mention it. 

(Both examples come from analysis by the Business & Media Institute. There are many more examples available at our Web site.)

How average Americans participate in the economy is shaped by their feelings about the economy. Those feelings are shaped by what they know about the various parts of the economy you've mentioned, and many more. And most people get information on those parts of the economy from media that tend to focus only on negative news and fail to provide appropriate context.

Yes, there are indicators suggesting the economy "isn't so strong." But there are also indicators suggesting that it's not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. And that's exactly the problem -- the media isn't telling people about the good indicators because it's too busy focusing on hyperbolizing the bad.