Why does the non-financial media report on the economy as if it were a mixed bag?

Question

Unemployment is 4.7%. It's up from 4.6% - that 0.1% being the entire impact of the "housing crash." There have been layoffs and work reduction for about a hundred thousand folks in cyclical industries - folks who during a five year boom made more than double what anyone with their skillset usually makes (home mortgage lenders are salesmen, they pull a credit bureau and if your FICO score is above the number the underwriters' gave them and your current rate is above the rate their employer is offering, they get paid just for calling you and filling out the forms - people made six figures doing that for a living for several years in a row, that's great but you're supposed to put half of that away).

Other than auto and airlines - which have done poorly for decades so if you went into those trades you knew the risks - everyone else is working. Everyone else's incomes are rising. The stock market is doing well and interest rates are down again. CPI is 2.5%. PPI is zero.

When I was growing up in the 1970s and early 1980s, one could only dream of CPI under 6, and 5% was considered "full employment" - the best you could do.

I'm not saying Barron's and the WSJ are as optimistic as Larry Kudlow or the IBD, but any negativity in the main financial news outlets focuses on specific asset classes - - - i.e., whether the sub-prime woes will truly spill over into the higher-quality credit markets (I work for a bank, and this really hasn't happened yet). Some outlets think Bernanke dropped rates too quickly and too much - and I agree there, I think gold is going to $800 and not coming back.

But the the complaints are put in the context of a fundamentally sound economy - it's like complaints on WEEI about Dice-K's shaky outing last night.

Is it that the non-financial media have no clue what they're talking about (i.e., many of them still seem to think there's a Phillips Curve) or is it political bias?

I.e., if Gore or Kerry had won and unemployment were 5% and CPI 2.8%, would the New York Times and Boston Globe and CNN be talking about the robust economy?

Answer 1

The left wing liberal loonies in the main stream media only report bad news, and only if it can be used to bash President Bush.
Don't remind them that unemployment is at 4.6%. They will accuse Mr. Bush of not doing his job.

Answer 2

If you want economic news you must go to experts.

I have diabetes, when I want or need information I contact my doctor, not my plumber or three guys sharing an I.Q. at the local convenience store.

Most of the people you are referring to have no idea why tax revenues go up when taxes are reduced.

Just wait for another year. Hillary will be Pres and the news will be great. But when it happens run the numbers, they will be worse than now. When Bill was in the White House he had a great economy but it was based on the Dot Com bubble that anyone with any sense could see coming. The same is true of the interest only loans on houses and what is happening now. Only a blind man could have possibly missed where we were headed.

Answer 3

You're right & wrong. 4.7% is good but your not thinking about the jobs people are getting. I have several relatives & friends who have lost manufacturing jobs, & have had to get what they can. Most have found decent jobs but some are stuck working 2 or 3 jobs. America was the envy of the world in several areas such as manufacturing, engineering, & technolgy. thanks to tax breaks we are losing our edge in those & several other areas. they are all going overseas. At this rate the only place most Americans will find work in 20 years will be at Wal-Mart & fast-food restuarants.

Answer 4

That’s Hillary’s talking point.
For me is Neal Kavuto