It doesn't seem like it would be too much to ask CNNMoney's headline e-mailers to read past the first sentence of a government announcement. But, maybe it is.
Here are the first two sentences of the Employment Situation Report from Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics released this morning:
Nonfarm payroll employment fell by 345,000 in May, about half the average monthly decline for the prior 6 months, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The unemployment rate continued to rise, increasing from 8.9 to 9.4 percent.
Ahead of the 8:30 a.m. report, according to Reuters, Dow futures were up 54 points, while S&P and NASDAQ futures were up 5 and 5.75 points, respectively (the time-stamp is 9:22, but the narrative is clearly pre-8:30).
Just after the market opened, I received this CNNMoney e-mail:
But according to this AFP report, expectations were that "employers ..... (will) have cut 520,000 jobs, down from 539,000 in April. But the unemployment rate is still expected to have jumped to 9.2 percent, its highest since 1983." Thus, today report was clearly a not-as-bad news, worse news result.
"Better-than-expected" is obviously only half true, indicating that an hour after the employment report's release, the intrepid folks responsible for generating the CNNMoney e-mails either hadn't read the BLS's second sentence, or didn't think we needed to know about it.
As to stocks "soaring," the Dow, S&P and NASDAQ went up about 88, 10, and 16 points, respectively, in the first 10-15 minutes after the opening. Except for the NASDAQ, the majority of the early gains were already built-in ahead of the employment report. As of this writing, today's indices are below where the futures were just before 8:30.
Soar, schmoar.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What double standard?
June 5, 2009 - 13:09 ET by Dave in TexasIf Bush were still in office, it would have been "... 8.9 to 9.4 %. However, some economists say the 9.4 % understates the true unemployment. And we'd like to point out that most of the job losses were for low income people. And they were also manufacturing jobs."
But when Obama's in office, it's all "Oh hey! Not as bad as some were predicting."
Dave
June 5, 2009 - 13:45 ET by NorthCoasterI had the same thoughts. what about how high unemployment was under Jimmie Carter? There was high unemployment, inflation, interest and taxes. This was reversed under Ronald Reagan. Just wait, the "Jimmie Carter II" regime is fully in control and it could be just the start of our financial woes. Just look at the reception Geitner got in China..................not good at all.
And don't forget...
June 5, 2009 - 14:52 ET by ontheright...woman and minorities hit the hardest.
Once again
June 5, 2009 - 14:06 ET by mattmHeadline under Bush: Job Growth Slows, Economists Worry.
Headline under Obama: Job Losses Slow, Economists Heartened.
"The other name for news is 'lies.'" - Publius
State Run Media
June 5, 2009 - 14:13 ET by Sergeant ROCKThat's the definition of propaganda. The state run media is executing it even better than what Josef Goebbels could have hoped for.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
but they can watch Oprah.
June 5, 2009 - 16:23 ET by sevenI am sure many of his adherants are gratefull to be fired. It is for a good cause. If they had been fired last year, they would have become bitter. This is a sweet kind of hurt.
Yes many are out the door and got 60 days pay and are not in the data yet. He has created jobs. Microsoft has moved some jobs over seas as has IBM. Multinational companies can move jobs to avoid the new taxees for healthcare. Moving beyound the reach of Geithner is also a wise strategy.
Do these unemployed people
June 6, 2009 - 00:03 ET by RR GOPDo these unemployed people really exist? Seems like all we get are numbers. If anybody from Fox News out there is watching, why aren't there the 'hard luck' stories about average Americans and what they're going through? I know damn well the MSM isn't going to do it unless they can blame it on Bush in particular and capitalism in general.
About all I've seen so far is a couple of guys that lost their car dealerships and talking heads mentioning that they've lost money in the Stock Market.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).