Want an even clearer picture of how media are intentionally reporting economic data in a way that makes the public feel things are much worse than they are?
Consider the different adjectives the good folks at the Associated Press use to describe a 0.6 percent change depending on whether or not it's an increase or a decrease.
As reported by NewsBusters two weeks ago, when the Commerce Department announced that retail sales for February had declined by 0.6 percent, the Associated Press declared that a "plunge."
Yet, when the Gross Domestic Product grows by a similar amount, the AP reports it as "feeble" (emphasis added, h/t NB reader Matthew Noll):
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product increased at a feeble 0.6 percent annual rate in the October-to-December quarter. The reading -- unchanged from a previous estimate a month ago -- provided stark evidence of just how much the economy has weakened. In the prior quarter, the economy clocked in at a sizzling 4.9 percent growth rate.
How do these people look at themselves in the mirror each morning?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If you pointed this out to
March 27, 2008 - 09:05 ET by NewsbusterbrownIf you pointed this out to your typical liberal in the media, they probably would do a Ralph Kramden (hamana, hamana, hamana...). There could be no logical reason for their illogic.
I seriously doubt they
March 27, 2008 - 11:27 ET by ThisnThatI seriously doubt they would understand it. The typical touchy-feely liberal is also very math-adverse, and wouldn't be able to figure this one out at all.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
too feeble-minded
March 27, 2008 - 13:30 ET by needle"The typical touchy-feely liberal is also very math-adverse, and wouldn't be able to figure this one out at all."
I would suggest they are “too feeble-minded to be able to figure this one out.”
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
How do these people look at themselves in the mirror...?
March 27, 2008 - 09:13 ET by mattmNo conscience.
Not bad, I guess my wieght
March 27, 2008 - 09:16 ET by Dan The Man 2Not bad, I guess my wieght gain of 0.3 % is feeble for this month. Ill remember to tell me doctor that. And who knows I may plunge in wieght gain soon.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
But what does it really
March 27, 2008 - 09:50 ET by dscottBut what does it really represent? A 0.6% growth despite
1. -2.6% decrease in imported goods, (3.9% increase in Exported goods)
2. -4.0% decrease in fixed investments in the private sector
3. -25.2% decrease Residential investments.
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr
So, the way I see this is respectively, #1, we imported less and exported more and exports more than offset the loss, that's good news. #2, Not good news, #3 More good than bad, a substancial drop off in home building which will allow the excess housing inventory to be absorbed in a timely manner setting the stage for a floor in housing values and continued weaning of illegals from the construction industry.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
They are liberals
March 27, 2008 - 10:15 ET by 10ksnookerLiberals lie, they have to -- Liberalism is a lie. So when they look in the mirror they just do what comes natural to them.
absolutely
March 27, 2008 - 14:05 ET by mbuelLiberals have to lie to maintain their false world view.
They're probably using
March 27, 2008 - 10:16 ET by SGriffisThey're probably using fuzzy math.
BTW, I can prove that 1 = 2
A & B are two variables
1. Assign a value to A
A = 1
2. Assign the value of A to B
B = A
3. Multiply both sides by the same varibale
AB = AA or AB = A^2
4. Subtract the same value from both sides
AB - B^2 = A^2 - B^2
5. Factor both sides
B * (A-B) = (A+B) * (A-B)
6. (A-B) cancel each other out
B = (A+B)
7. Since in step 2 B is assigned the value of A
B = (B+B) or B = 2B
8. Divide both sides by B and you have
1 = 2
Fuzzy Math
March 27, 2008 - 18:56 ET by merlin61Yep, they're using the same fuzzy math that they
teach our children in our schools now. Can you
imagine the answers we'll get when they grow up?
Pop quiz
March 27, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Evil CapitalistIf X drops by 0.6%, by what % would the result need to rise to be again X?
Lack of improvement noted, still F. Class dismissed.
Excellent point over a
March 27, 2008 - 11:01 ET by dscottExcellent point over a difference in % going lower versus going higher for the same value. However, at such a small increase or decrease it's virtually the same at 0.60362% higher verus 0.6% lower, so your while your point is valid it is also inane.
Now if there was "decrease" of say 10%, that means you have to have an increase of 11.1% to get back to where you were. A more extreme example would be 50% decrease requires a 100% increase to bring you back to where you started. It's not a fixed proportion as the percentage increases.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Definition of a Recession =
March 27, 2008 - 11:37 ET by ThisnThatDefinition of a Recession = Two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
As published Tuesday in the Jacksonville Business Journal: "There's just no two ways about it, we're in a recession. This is the worst financial panic in this country since the Great Depression".
Agenda, anyone? Clearly the facts don't matter if you're a liberal. Only the agenda matters; and more important, it's the severity of the message that we need to pay attention to.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Definition of "Recession"
March 27, 2008 - 12:10 ET by Oscar GoldmanIf a Democrat occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
If a Republican occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
In liberalspeak, a 10% cut in the defense budget is "insignificant," while a 5% cut in any social program is "devastating." Any increase in "social spending" that is less than what was budgeted is considered a cut. For example, a budget that provides a 4% increase to social spending where 8% was sought is reported as a 50% cut in social spending. When the term "trim the budget" is used, is the reference to the previous fiscal year's expenditures or to this year's wish list (i.e., proposed budget)?
Any chance that those
March 27, 2008 - 12:58 ET by balboaAny chance that those numbers differ in context because of the category they come from? Is it possible that a .6 decline in retail sales is a plunge, while a growth in GDP of .6 is feeble?
balboa, your point may have
March 27, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Smartypantsbalboa, your point may have some validity; however, it would be dependent upon the people who used the words "plunge" and "feeble" in the first place. What frame of reference did they use to determine whether the change in one index was "feeble" while the change in another was a "plunge"? If your assumption holds true, there has to be some basis upon which they made the determination, other than merely choosing words to create a picture. Personally, I feel they did indeed just pick words to create a picture, because most people in media do not possess the economic acumen to truly differentiate the relative importance of different indexes, which would actually be a fairly complex calculation in and of itself. I would be floored to learn that the typical AP reporter or editor has the ability to perform, or even understand, such a calculation.
Bottom Line: It is far more likely that the AP selectively chose words to depict the economic situation as they wanted to depict it as opposed to how it actually is. This is nothing new. The media intentionally chooses specific words in many situations to paint a picture. This is why they are throwing around the word "recession" when we have not had even one month of economic decline in this country. They do not know or care what the real definition of a "recession" is; they have a message to craft and they are crafting it.
Fair enough. Without
March 27, 2008 - 15:49 ET by balboaFair enough. Without knowing the writer's economic acumen, it is hard to judge their words. You would hope that if that characterization came from someone of authority, they would have attributed it.
Well maybe some context
March 27, 2008 - 16:02 ET by dscottWell maybe some context then? Retail sales is a component of the GDP, so .6% decrease in retail sales is smaller than the whole ball of wax (GDP). In this context, a .6% decrease (retail sales) would be miniscule and a .6% increase (GDP) would be satisfactory given the decrease of one of it's components was clearly offset by other components increasing.
No bal, it's not even economic acumen, it's just a plain lack of proportion and logical cognitive thought. In other words, propaganda.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
So here's the next
March 27, 2008 - 16:06 ET by balboaSo here's the next question: What is considered a bad dip in retail sales from a business' POV, not in comparison to the larger GDP?
You are getting to my point
March 27, 2008 - 16:28 ET by SmartypantsYou are getting to my point exactly. A "bad" dip in anything is a relative perspective. It is completely judgemental, unless it is based upon some accepted historical or factual basis. For instance, we know a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. That is clearly factual and proveable. Words like "bad" or "plunge," etc. are subjective, unless there is a clear basis upon which they were employed in the first place. I do not think, in this case, there is any clear basis upon which AP chose its words. Do you? If there is, let's hear it. What mechanism did AP use to determine a "plunge"? I think it was subjective word choice.
Actually, you can have your
March 28, 2008 - 13:40 ET by dscottActually, you can have your cake and eat it too. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr
Let's say you click the appropriate boxes to choose 1990, quarterly to current. Look at Durable and Non-durable goods as a change from the previous period. You will note there are occasionally negative quarterly numbers before & during Clinton's time. Run the series again for the same time period but click annual instead of quarterly, you will notice two consecutive negative years in either Durable goods for 1990 & 91, but nothing after that to present.
Also notice the last true recession was in 1990 (IV) & 1991 (I) consecutive quarters. The idea that two negative consecutive quarters can't happen anymore is a flagrant lie to misrepresent either one negative or small growth quarter as the new standard, it can occur if there is a true slow down of the economy. What's really interesting is the negative numbers simultaneously occured in housing & imports of goods and services for both quarters. Something we should be concerned about is that the precursor to that recession was 1990 (III) quarter was the negative residential housing number in conjunction with a negative imported goods number as we had in 2000/01 (dotcom bust leading up to 911) and have now for the 2007 (IV) quarter. According to economic history imports are not the bad guy.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Methinks the Media is only
March 27, 2008 - 13:44 ET by KillgraveMethinks the Media is only fabricating an economic crisis in order to serve up an issue to the Democrats come November, since Iraq is going well enough (that they can't lie about it anymore).
And this is what really boggles my mind... how in God's green earth can liberals speak with any authority whatsoever when it comes to economics? How does one "help" the economy by taking money from a productive sector and pissing it away on an unproductive sector? How does one foster "growth" by hamstringing energy (limiting domestic coal and oil production)? How do you encourage employment by driving up the price of labor? I can go for hours on this...
And this is what really
March 27, 2008 - 14:14 ET by dscottAnd this is what really boggles my mind... how in God's green earth can liberals speak with any authority whatsoever when it comes to economics? How does one "help" the economy by taking money from a productive sector and pissing it away on an unproductive sector? How does one foster "growth" by hamstringing energy (limiting domestic coal and oil production)? How do you encourage employment by driving up the price of labor?
Welcome to the world according to liberals where up is down, small is big and black is white. <sarcasm> How many fingers am I holding up Killgrave?
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Someone do research-every election year the ecomony drops when
March 27, 2008 - 20:33 ET by PawpawNWe need someone to do some real research, as it appears to me every presidential election year when a Repub is in WH, the story is about the POOR ECOMONY. I'd like to know the history on this please.
The headline and the story!
March 27, 2008 - 20:30 ET by PawpawNRead the headline and you'd think all is terrible, the sky has fell, etc., but read the entire story and I see the words "up", "increase", "above estimated", etc. So, what is it! http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?news_id=ap-d8vlrun00&