Welcome to PatsFans.com

Press Coverage of the Economy

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsWickedPissah, Feb 10, 2006.

  1. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,114
    Likes Received:
    384
    Ratings:
    +867 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020906F


    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?
  2. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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 a moderator: Feb 10, 2006
  3. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Also---any time Hillary would speak in public--she would hire goons and put them in the crowds to silence any hecklers in the audience.
  4. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,114
    Likes Received:
    384
    Ratings:
    +867 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    Classic example of rampant BDS
  5. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    sounds about right. Don't forget, he bombed an aspirin factory full of babies just for revenge.:D
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,771
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    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.
  7. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,114
    Likes Received:
    384
    Ratings:
    +867 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    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.
  8. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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?
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,771
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    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.
  10. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,114
    Likes Received:
    384
    Ratings:
    +867 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    10 characters for the forum gods
  11. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well NEM--i have my own proof:

    http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27263028.shtml

    Excerpt:

    Clinton's well-known dislike for the military led to his intentional neglect of his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. During the Clinton Administration, in less than three years, deployments for humanitarian missions increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million.

    The decrease in armed forces was called "reinvention" of government. While telling Americans that Clinton was making deep cuts in the federal bureaucracy, the media failed to inform Americans exactly what part of that "bureaucracy" was being cut. It was the military who suffered the cuts in order to make Clinton a hero.

    Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts. The statistics for America's defense during the Clinton years reveal the true feelings of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to a mere 50. There were reductions in tanks, armored vehicles, rocket launchers, special forces units, etc., etc., etc.

    In addition, President Clinton loosened America's ban on the export of supercomputers and other high-technology products to Communist China; this allowed Beijing to improve the accuracy of its intercontinental missiles. A prime American beneficiary of this Clinton policy was Loral Space & Communications chairman Bernard Schwartz, the single largest contributor to the Clinton campaign and to the Democrat Party.

    In 1996 it was discovered that Chinese spies had stolen nuclear design secrets from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the most damaging security breach in American history -- giving China the ability to produce and deliver nuclear warheads via submarines, mobile missiles, and long-range missiles. A 1998 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee concluded that foreign campaign contributions Clinton had received "were facilitated by individuals with extensive ties to China"
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,771
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Pissah, it's been known since the 30s that deficit spending and war are great ways to boost the economy. What's unclear are the consequences. Like I said, some things are going well, and I think I'm aware of those things. Where things are going well, I have issues. If Bush can end the war and get the deficit back under control and the economy still does well, then he's accomplished something. Until then, his economic accomplishments are on the backs of future generations and dead soldiers.
  13. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,114
    Likes Received:
    384
    Ratings:
    +867 / 8 / -10

    Disable Jersey

    I acknowlege that Keynsian economics advocates deficit spending to boot the economy. You may be implying that Bush is running the war to boost the economy which I vehemently dispute. If you're not, fair enough.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2006

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>