According to government data released today, the unemployment rate rose to a 26-year high
of 9.8 percent in September as 263,000 more Americans lost their jobs. The last president to govern with such high unemployment was Ronald Reagan in 1982. Back then, the TV news media often aired footage that showed union leaders, the unemployed, and Democrats characterizing Reagan's economic policies as sadistic. Yet for some reason, in 2009 most TV news outlets are giving President Barack Obama a free pass on equally bleak numbers.
The Business and Media Institute just released a special report that exposes the double-standard in unemployment coverage. Here are some of the major findings:
In 1982, an overwhelming majority (91 percent) of stories mentioning the Reagan Administration were negative, while in 2009 only 7 percent of Obama Administration mentions were negative.
Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time, but unemployment stories in 2009 mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time.
Shame On You, Charles Gibson: The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under both Reagan and Obama. But ABC's Charles Gibson covered the identical rate very differently in 1982 and 2009. Gibson told viewers on May 7, 1982, "There really isn't any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad." But this year Gibson turned into an optimist, saying on August 7, 2009, that he hoped "the economy may be finally turning the corner."
Instead of using stimulus money to immediately create jobs for millions of unemployed Americans, Obama first gave our taxpayer dollars to the so-called "too big to fail" financial firms, a decision some are calling a bad precedent. It's hard to argue with business journalist John Cassidy, who had this to say in the New Yorker magazine this week:
Since the federal government has now demonstrated that it will do whatever is necessary to prevent the collapse of the largest financial firms, their top executives will have an even greater incentive to enter perilous lines of business. If things turn out well, they will receive big bonuses and the value of their stock options will increase. If things go wrong, the taxpayer will be left to pick up some of the tab.
Compare Obama's strategy to the approach of former president Franklin Roosevelt, who used taxpayer dollars to provide nearly 8 million jobs between 1935 and 1943. FDR's program, while not perfect, employed people to build public buildings, projects, and roads. The program fed children, and redistributed food, clothing and housing. Today almost every community in America has a park, bridge or school constructed by Americans working for FDR's new deal agency, the Work Projects Administration.
Naturally President Obama has agreed that job creation is "the single most important thing we can do," but talk is cheap. Obama predicted the stimulus plan would likely create three to four million jobs, but that hasn't happened yet. Today 15.1 million people are unemployed in the United States, and the number is still growing. Some 52 percent have exhausted state jobless benefits, and some are reaching the end of the makeshift strands of emergency extensions.
But, hey, no worries -- the President and First Lady are appearing on all the TV news broadcasts this week, super-excited about trying to lure the Olympics to Chicago.
Obamanomics isn't just jobless, it's heartless.
* * *
UPDATE 10.02.09 Despite President Obama's whirlwind trip to promote his adopted city, Chicago was eliminated in the first round of International Olympic Committee consideration today.
Meanwhile, upon hearing the grim unemployment numbers, Obama said simply, "We'll just have to grind it out." (Easy for him to say, he's got a job.)
UPDATE 10.03.09 "Wanted: Leadership on Jobs" says the NYTimes editorial staff.
UPDATE 10.04.09 "It's the Unemployment, Stupid" says Robert Kuttner, co-editor of the American Prospect.
UPDATE 10.05.09 "Does Obama Get It?" asks Bob Herbert, NYTimes op/ed columnist.
UPDATE 11.1.09 "Are 650,000 jobs enough?" asks Benjamin F. Carlson at the AtlanticWire.
Follow Diane Tucker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dianetucker
Besides, I think Obama has about a year of good faith to work with. I imagine 2010 will be the reckoning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/opinion/06herbert.html?hp
When Reagan took over, inflation was very high (thanks largely to oil) but unemployment was 7%, Espousing his "trickle-down" economic policy, he decried unions and any other institution or program that benefitted workers. Instead, he proceeded to cut taxes and deregulate, all the while promising a "new dawn for America." Of course, it didn't work out that way. Unemployment climbed. He didn't inherit a disaster, but he seemed to be creating one.
Obama came into office with our economy in full collapse and on its way to Depression. His policies may be not what you or I would like, but he does seem to have staved off the worst - at least for now. As others have said, the Media likes to focus on the stock market, because it's a simple metric to talk about, and the market has been going up. From their perspective, there is reason for optimism, and value in speaking optimistically, so they do. But if unemployment continues to rise or, if what little recovery there is turns south, believe me, Obama will get a lot of heat. He may not be called "heartless" - because his policies seem clearly not intended that way (unlike Reagan's faith in the Darwinian forces of a free market). But he will be called foolish.
The sweet, innocent side of me thinks that Obama would never delay stimulus projects for political advantage, because I think he's a fundamentally good guy. The cold analytical side of me thinks he wouldn't delay because he's ambitious, he wants to have an FDR-like impact on US history, and he needs all the political capital he can get to keep pushing through health care reform, climate policy, etc. A rising tide of unemployment in the wake of his efforts to right the economy could wash those ambitions aground.
However, I agree that the media needs to stop its tendency to seize on a simple storyline (we’re on our way out of recession!) and start looking at the big picture, which includes disturbing - and tragic – plot lines (rising unemployment; continuing foreclosures despite bailout). But I don’t think it’s because they favor Obama. The MSM are surfers – they ride whatever wave comes their way. Improving markets after a precipitous collapse? We’re on our way! Mounting unemployment after a draconian shift from Great Society to Market Fundamentalism? Surf’s up!
Of course there are the massive tax cuts and changes, for instance the ones in TEFRA that stimulated an oversupply in commercial real estate which eventually manifested itself in the precursor to TARP, the S& L Crisis and bailout.
Couldn't be monetary policy, Voelker was already taking care of that before Reagan was elected, it's why we had double digit interest rates in 1980.
Reagan essentially was the guy in the right place at the right time. The oil glut that hit in the early 80's was the critical factor that gave us record low inflation in the 80s. Of course instead of being forward looking Reagan did nothing to encourage conservation or investment in alternative sources, as a result we are still captive to foreign oil.
Which policies do you contend constitute the "much of Reaganomics that were successful"?
President Bush said throw money at the problem (i.e. give it to banks). President Obama said throw money at the problem (i.e. give money to the banks). Yes, Washington needs to focus on plans that help create more jobs AND they need to think outside of "shovel-ready projects" like road and bridge building. Small business plays a crucial role in job creation and the rest of the private sector (as evil as so many of you make it out to be) plays a crucial role in job creation. Credit has not loosened (as we were told it would be) and those in the private sector with money to invest see too much risk right now. Housing will be hurting for awhile and the American car business may never be the same again. As such, the spirit of entrepreneurism and creativity need to be fostered. When the old industries are struggling, a new idea or technology can work wonders for the economy. The Internet and the broadened commercialization of the entertainment industry are just two examples of new thinking and creativity that helped generate plenty of jobs, a great deal of investment, and a large transfer of wealth.
You're going to have to get in a very long line to make the case for people with a very short attention span when it comes to piling on this president.
I dont think media partisanship - an anti-Reagan media vs a pro-Obama one - plays as big a role in this situation as you think. The news media has increasingly become a mouthpiece for the Washington and Wall Street establishments, and when Gibson says the economy is "turning the corner" it's because for Wall Street it is. Remember, for the Fed, the banks, and Lower Manhattan, the recession is technically over, despite how the rest of us are faring. And for the Charlie Gibsons of the world, that's the frame of reference.
What's good for Wall Street is good for America? Since when?
Did you catch the CBS Evening News last night? No kidding -- they ran a POSITIVE story about the latest unemployment statistics. "Employment Freeze Thaws in Some Industries." Couric and Co. found what has got to be the only business in America that is hiring 100 people. "Good news, all you 15.1 million unemployed....a hundred of you can go back to work. Whoo-hoo!"
Here's the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/02/eveningnews/main5360018.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea
Tens of millions of ordinary Americans are suffering and the media continues to blur reality just enough to give Obama political cover.
If everyone knew how bad things really are, we'd see totally different poll numbers.
Anyone who has forgotten just how servile the media was to Reagan can read Mark Hertsgaard's On Bended Knee to freshen her memory.
And that's why it pains me to say how disappointed I am with the job Obama's doing for the unemployed. Fifteen million people are terrified. Check out this post by fellow blogger Danny Schechter, editor of Mediahannel.org. Let me know what you think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-schechter/searching-for-the-crisis_b_263560.html
Please consider my 11:21 PM post above.
Obama was supposed to wave his magic wand and make 8 years of Bush neglect disappear in less than a year.
He is supposed to do this w/o dealing with Congress (but then he would be called a dictator).
He is supposed to create jobs (but then that would be nationalization)
In the meantime, he should have also stopped 2 wars, make Iran and North Korea play nice, lower gas prices, make other nations like us, find his birth certificate for the birthers, fix the mortgage crisis, stop the rain in the south and send it to the west.
Whew!
When some one finds this individual.....let THIS person run the country, just as soon as he finishes walking on water.
It's time for the hope to meet the hype.
Or the voters will "change" Washington next time we "can".
Hillary 2012
the hype is i actually believed americans woudl come together for a common good.
instead fo fighting for the status quo, which we all know is un just and is destroying families by the millions month by month