AP Waters Down Impact of Romer's 'Stimulus Has Had Biggest Impact' Remark, Ignores Other Howlers

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

APabsolutelyPathetic0109It would appear that the Apparatchik Press -- er, the Associated Press -- thinks that part of its job is to soften the impact of embarrassing admissions made by Obama administration members.

Take the wire service's Thursday afternoon AP report by Jim Kuhnhenn on Council of Economic Advisers' chair Christine Romer's observations about the stimulus package. Romer said (in AP's words) that "the government's economic stimulus spending has already had its biggest impact," and will (in Romer's words) "likely be contributing little to further growth by the middle of next year."

As you'll see shortly, AP's headline doesn't reflect what Romer said. Additionally, Kuhnhenn allowed Romer to mischaracterize the economy's performance in the second quarter without challenging it, and saved the big news -- yet another administration official admitting that unemployment will stay near double digit through the end of next year -- for his eighth paragraph.

Here's a graphic capture of Kuhnhenn's first eight paragraphs, posted for fair use and discussion purposes:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

APonRomerRemarks102209

There's a self-evident difference between what Romer said ("contributing little to economic growth") and what AP's headline communicates ("Impact of stimulus will level off next year"). The headline is perhaps deliberately vague; readers who don't go to the content will have no idea whether the "leveled-off" impact next year will still be significant. Obviously, it won't. "Little stimulus impact expected next year" would have communicated the reality quite nicely.

As to Romer's contention that the stimulus "expanded the economy in the second and third quarters of this year," a widely cited official government report refutes half of that assertion.

For the stimulus to have "expanded the economy," there first has to be a recorded economic expansion. The trouble is that the Bureau of Economic Analysis tells us that the economy contracted during the second quarter by 0.7%. Though it still would have been dubious, if Romer had wanted to claim that the contraction would have been worse without the stimulus, that would have at least been coherent. Most analysts seem to believe that the economy will show expansion during the third quarter, but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't during the second.

Romer's prediction that the unemployment rate will stay so high for so long may be the most specific and gloomy prediction that has come from an administration spokesperson about persistent unemployment. I submit that its relevance to readers would have justified its placement well above the eighth paragraph. I daresay that in a Republican administration an unemployment prediction such as Romer's would have been part or all of the story's headline.

Finally, let's get to Romer's continuation of the administration's tired claims about jobs "created or saved." As I showed in early December 2008 (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I could not find a single instance during the presidential campaign where candidate Obama promised in any possible variation of the phrase to "create or save" jobs. He always said that his policies would "create" them. The phraseology magically and dishonestly transformed into "create or save" within weeks of the election and has been employed with almost no challenge from the establishment media in the ten or so months that have since transpired. As I noted in that December post, "Old Media’s failure to note this shift is journalistic malpractice that would never occur during a Republican presidency." That malpractice continues.

The laughable imprecision of Romer's "created or saved" claim ("600,000 and 1.5 million"; are you kidding me?) virtually proves how utterly foolish and unprovable the administration's assertions have been all along. The establishment press's adoption and continued parroting of those "created and saved" assertions demonstrates how generally valid a characterization of them as apparatchiks really is.

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


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

9.6%??? Really???

That's the one true statement in the whole thing that unemployment will remain high.  Only difference is it's actually closer to double that when you factor in a lot of variables.

Hell, I'm expecting it to break 10% next month on the national level.

Romer's a mixed bag, she's not a congressionally confirmed position but she's not as apparently as sneaky and devious as the other czars out there.  What gets me angry about her is how she puts on this "air" of how what she says is to be taken as the "truth" even though she full well knows she's lying her advi-sorry butt off.  Heck, anyone talking with her knows she's lying, and she knows that they might know and she does it anyway!

What a screwed up country this has become.

-Jon

Ah, for the good old days!!!

Personally, I long for the days when AP would say that the economy ONLY added 500,000 jobs and then a week later admit that it was somewhat more than expected.  Ah, the good old days of George Bush being underestimated and the economy doing well.

Notice how the AP downplays this story.  They're going to have to carry water for Obama for the next 3 plus years and this is just more proof.  If this was George Bush they'd be all over him.  Oh wait, this was George Bush, with the opposite result, and it was never good enough for AP.   What a difference a Dem makes.  

Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.  

pb

 Isn't it interesting how the tables have turned in just a few months? Now the estimates of the economy are initially overestimated and barely reported when they actual numbers are worse.

New Norm

More disturbing, I've heard talk of accepting a higher unemployment figure of 8-9% as a kind of new 'normal'. In other words, we can't fix it so we are going to declare that it's no longer a problem. A Republican could never get away with such an outrage.

Slick,

I heard the same "analysis" on one of the alphabet networks.  8% (or pick a favorite number) unemployment is the new normal.  And, like was said, I'm looking for 10% next month.  But it isn't "our" fault, it's Bush's fault.  But, if we "lead the world" in green jobs, everything will wonderful, unicorns will fly and we'll have rainbows every day.  One slight problem, unless the government mandates things, the green jobs turn out to be seasonal jobs.  United  Solar Ovonic in Greenvile, MI. was supposed to be the be-all end-all for jobs around here, unfortunately their web site says "there are currently no job openings at this time".  So, guess the Feds will have to force companies to go solar, or wind powered, or the jobs will be just the same as snow plowing or lawn mowing. 

"...the government's

"...the government's economic stimulus spending has already had its biggest impact."

Really?  And that impact is huge aint it?  9.7% unemployement.  I think her comment, implying that the best from it has already happened, is simply a way of saying now it's time to do another one.

http://media.photobu...