Mary Rosh, er, John Lott In The News...

[MrBenchley]

Worth noting that the gun loonies' favorite crackpot, racist pseudoscientist John Lott is in the news again. With a yobbo named Kevin Hassett (most well known for publishing a book in 2000 claiming the Dow was about to skyrocket to 36,000), he's produced a study purporting to show that the media is biased in favor of liberals.

For example, Mary argues, the headlines during the Clinton Administration about unemployment were positive, while during the reign of Pop and Junior the headlines were negative. Can anyone guess from the following chart why this might be so for a reason other than bias?

[Romulus]

1. err, you forgot the link (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

3. To what? Do you really need

a link to the AEI or Faux Noise pretending this crap is real and that Lott isn't a crackpot?

[Romulus]

5. it's your thread, so your rules

But if you call it "_____in the news," people generally look for a link to some NEWS story.

But if this is intended to be flame-bait or something, then I could see why links weren't included.

[MrBenchley]

6. Rom, if you want to wallow in right wing propaganda....

Both Newsmax or World Nut Daily is banging the drum on this. You can wade through that cesspool if you like.

[snippy]

2. This study is seriously flawed.

Aside from the fact that the study was conducted by self-procalimed liars, they cherry picked their data by selecting a limited time period which covered only two complete economic cycles, and parts of two others. That this was done deliberately is evidenced by the fact that only a portion of Poppy Bush's term was included in the study according to the article in the New York Times.

Economic news and headlines reflect the economic trend as much or more than the actual economic data. So does the public perception of the economy. And both economic news and the public perception of the economy are lagging indicators. So by choosing the portion of Poppy Bush's term which followed his recession guarantees that the news and headlines would be more negative. Had the study included the time preceeding Poppy's recession there would have been more positive news included for Poppy.

The biased flaws in the study also are demonstrated by comparing the average unemployment rate and the news coverage thereof during Clinton's presidency to that during Bush the Lesser's presidency. Aside from the fact that news coverage over an 11 year period of unemployment rates is completely unrelated to the actual unemployment rate at any particular point in time during that period, the study ignores what the unemployment rate says about the economy.

The most significant thing about the unemployment rate as it relates to the economy is the direction of the trend of unemployment. When the economy is strong and growing the unemployment rate trends downward. That is what happened under Clinton. When the economy first begins to recover from a recession the unemployment rate will go up initially because of discouraged workers returning to the labor force and when the economy is weak and either contracting or growing very slowly the unemployment rate goes up or is unchanged. That is what happened under both Bushes.

Of course this study may also have ignored the vitally important eBay selling portion of our economy which vice president Go-Fuck-Yourself recently referred to. I have no idea what to make of that. I only wonder whether Bush has asked the important question: "Is our eBay sellers earning?"

[MrBenchley]

4. Amazing, isn't it?

"this study may also have ignored the vitally important eBay selling portion of our economy which vice president Go-Fuck-Yourself recently referred to"
I'm sure it did....(snicker)