ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
In fact, the lack of headlines prompted a search of the Lexis Nexis database to compare magazine articles written about the topic of economic recovery for President Clinton in 1993 and 1994 and for President Bush in 2004 and 2005; years when the economy began to show significant improvements for both presidents.
The search turned up 320 articles for President Clinton and 260 for President Bush. The searches produced articles published by well-known news magazines, financial publications as well as trade publications.
A review of the magazines revealed that far more articles were written about President Clinton in the weekly news magazines whereas the bulk of the articles written about President Bush were found in financial and trade magazines and in right-of-center publications like The National Review and The Weekly Standard.
Most glaring was the disparity in coverage by both US News and World Report and Time Magazine.
Not only did US News and World Report and Time Magazine publish significantly more articles about Clinton, but the tone of the articles was very different, as well.
Read the whole thing for specific examples such as how Time rationalized and made glowing excuses for much higher unemployment and lower growth rates a decade ago.
Now, ask yourself "Does this consistent, blatant bias in news reporting cover other issues as well?" Ya think?
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
With Clinton they could report GOOD news onthe economy, why would they want to report BAD News under Bush...and the reason there are less articles is because the administration uses fear tactics against the media if they want to report anything bad....that is how it is, not how you interpret it.
Correction: If ANY reporter said ANYTHING negative about Hillary--she would see to it that that individual woul be getting a call from the IRS, saying that they were about to be audited. And must i mentoned Kathleen Willey's poor cat?
Last edited by ELOrocks17; 02-10-2006 at 09:34 AM..
With Clinton they could report GOOD news onthe economy, why would they want to report BAD News under Bush...and the reason there are less articles is because the administration uses fear tactics against the media if they want to report anything bad....that is how it is, not how you interpret it.
Dont be ridiculous. Bush doesnt even let anyone in unless they are a brainwashed bush backer.
Anyway,let me ask you something, because , obviously, you hate the Clintons.
As a good American, I would think that you would be concerned about our country, AS A WHOLE, not just an an individual, right?
So I ask you, considering that our country was at an economic boom under Clinton, the deficit from the previous Bush adminstration was completely turned around into a mmajor surplus, uinemployment was at its lowest, the number of people in the poverty ranks was at its lowest, we did not have 150,000 troops in a country that did not want us, and thousands of them were not being killed, or maimed for life.....
Taking all of this into account, which is reasonably accurate...the country AS A WHOLE, was doing fairly well.
But, olf coures, Bill Clinton lied about a sexual escapade in the White House and the republicans, behind Ken Starr, spent hundreds of milliions of dollars of your money, our money, just to embarrass him, tie his hands for two years, and to get himimpeached.
Sok, that could be the reason why you hate him so much... and obviously yo uhave been brainwashed by the likes of Savage, Hannity, Limbaug,h etc.
So, like so many of you, sex is more important than Americans being killed for the lies of a president.... Is that correct?
sounds about right. Don't forget, he bombed an aspirin factory full of babies just for revenge.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It probably has to do with the fact that Clinton's economy was developing new technologies (the interent and related businesses), while Bush's economy is based on deficit spending, and many people expect the benefits to be short lived (thus the increase in the price of gold). Also, by and large Bush has not really accomplished anything with the economy except help it recover from some of the damage he already caused. Overall, the Clinton economy is still the gold standard of recent decades.
It probably has to do with the fact that Clinton's economy was developing new technologies (the interent and related businesses), while Bush's economy is based on deficit spending, and many people expect the benefits to be short lived (thus the increase in the price of gold). Of course, you want a pandering media, Pissah, but unfortunately for you the legitimate media tries to stake out independent positions rather than follow the lead of political hacks like yourself.
Read the article. You've deliberately missed the point that unemployment is DOWN and growth UP, yet the non-business media obtusely and disengenuously refuses to report on those facts, in sharp contrast to their glowing articles in the Clinton years when the #s were NOT as good. I'm not criticizing Clinton who I thought did a good job on the economy despite the internet stock high tech bubble burst which began in his last quarters.
Think about what you post and you'll realize that YOU are the rabid partisan.
NEM---once again you only see the Lewinski scandal as the only bad thing Clinton did. That is only the tip of the iceberg. I could care less who he was screwing in the oval office, but the fact of the matter is, he went on television and told a boldface lie to 280 million people. You need to look beyond that trivial scandal and see what he really did TO this country. You mention in glowing terms how Clinton gave us a surplus economy--now since he didnt create money out of thin air---where do you think that surplus came from? It came at the expense of the military and the intell branch (CIA, FBI, NSA) By slashing thier budgets to bare minimum. This is not speculation--this is fact. A large portion of my income goes to paying rent on my 3 bedroom house. If i moved out of that and moved into a studio apartment on 24th st and Van Buren--i would have alot more income. Right?
Read the article. You've deliberately missed the point that unemployment is DOWN and growth UP, yet the non-business media obtusely and disengenuously refuses to report on those facts, in sharp contrast to their glowing articles in the Clinton years when the #s were NOT as good. I'm not criticizing Clinton who I thought did a good job on the economy despite the internet stock high tech bubble burst which began in his last quarters.
Think about what you post and you'll realize that YOU are the rabid partisan.
I did read the article, but my perspective is there should be more news about the increase in the poverty rate, the massive deficit spending, the increase in interest rates, and the decline in savings . I've certainly read the "good news" about the economy, and I'm glad the market is up, unemployment down, our GNP strong, and so on. The only thing the article told me that I didn't know is that CEO's are optimistic about the future, but of course that's needs to be compared with other periods to be meaningful, and the article doesn't provide that information.
That said, I don't think the economy is going badly at all, and most of what I've read has been fairly positive. Maybe you should read a good newspaper like the Globe, which reports the positive as well as the negative. I would assume that Bush is getting the same amount of coverage that someone like Reagan got. Bush is not doing an outstanding job on the economy, like Clinton did, so he's not getting as much coverage.
When Bush's economy shows significant gains than it will get more coverage, I presume. But, even today, in a great many respects, the Bush economy is worse than the Clinton one. We can celebrate that our worst fears haven't come to pass, but we can't really say that Bush has done anything more than reversed some of his early failings. "Bush Reverses Early Economic Mistakes" -- Now that's a headline I'd be okay with.
I did read the article, but my perspective is there should be more news about the increase in the poverty rate, the massive deficit spending, the increase in interest rates, and the decline in savings . Huh? Lots of press about interest rates rising (to 'normal' levels by the way) and the continued decline in savings to record lows, unfortunately. Good observation about lack of deficit news.
That said, I don't think the economy is going badly at all, and most of what I've read has been fairly positive. Maybe you should read a good newspaper like the Globe, which reports the positive as well as the negative. I would assume that Bush is getting the same amount of coverage that someone like Reagan got. Bush is not doing an outstanding job on the economy, like Clinton did, so he's not getting as much coverage. You missed the part about how unemployment, growth and productivity (except for last month's figure on productivity) are BETTER now than with Clinton
Press Coverage of the Economy
Linear Mode
