Kevin Drum's Strangely Incomplete List

Kevin Drum wonders: why has the media has been kinder to Obama than to Reagan in covering unemployment?  Really, I think he is serious:

Does the Media Care About Unemployment?

His puzzlement was prompted by Brad Delong noting the contrast between the desperate mood in Washington in 1983 when unemployment was around 10%, versus the seeming calm today.  That prompted this from Kevin:

But it's true — or at least, it's my impression that it's true — that the media focused way more on economic hard luck stories in the early 80s than they do now. I have a strong memory of being practically bombarded with this stuff back then. Today, though, not so much. It's not that coverage of unemployment is absent, just that it strikes me as much less urgent than it was in the early 80s.

I don't know why. Maybe Brad's reasons are the right ones. Maybe it's just been crowded out by other financial news like bank bailouts and subprime ghost towns. Maybe the social safety net is more effective now than it was 30 years ago. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that today's stubbornly high numbers are concentrated among the long-term unemployed, as shown in the chart on the right. Maybe the rise of two-earner families has reduced the pain of unemployment somewhat. Maybe nobody really believes any longer that the government can do anything about this, so it's not worth reporting on. I don't know. But like Brad, it strikes me as quite odd.

Wow.  There is not a righty in the world that can't suggest a reason for the media's posture.  In fact, even before the election it was a truism that the tone of the press coverage of the economy would change to smiley faces the day Obama was sworn in.

Kevin is puzzled as to why the media back in 1983 (pre-Fox, pre-Rush) felt comfortable bashing Reagan, that stupid heartless conservative cowboy.  Yet today, the media is giving a pass to Obama, determined not to give aid and comfort to the racist tea-baggers who question his economic policies.  Gosh, I wonder what's going on.  Couldn't be media bias, since in LibWorld that doesn't exist - they are owned by evil corporations, some supported the invasion of Iraq, and anyway, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, neener, neener, neener.

Just to add to the laughs, check this out from today's NY Times, and try to imagine it being written in 1983:

In a Job Market Realignment, Some Left Behind
By CATHERINE RAMPELL

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Many of the jobs lost during the recession are not coming back.

Period.

For the last two years, the weak economy has provided an opportunity for employers to do what they would have done anyway: dismiss millions of people — like file clerks, ticket agents and autoworkers — who were displaced by technological advances and international trade.

The phasing out of these positions might have been accomplished through less painful means like attrition, buyouts or more incremental layoffs. But because of the recession, winter came early.

Yeah, so get over it, jobless has-beens!  Next we get a description of creative destruction that any Reagan-era Republican would have welcomed:

This “creative destruction” in the job market can benefit the economy.

Pruning relatively less-efficient employees like clerks and travel agents, whose work can be done more cheaply by computers or workers abroad, makes American businesses more efficient. Year over year, productivity growth was at its highest level in over 50 years last quarter, pushing corporate profits to record highs and helping the economy grow.

But a huge group of people are being left out of the party.

Millions of workers who have already been unemployed for months, if not years, will most likely remain that way even as the overall job market continues to improve, economists say. The occupations they worked in, and the skills they currently possess, are never coming back in style. And the demand for new types of skills moves a lot more quickly than workers — especially older and less mobile workers — are able to retrain and gain those skills.

There is no easy policy solution for helping the people left behind. The usual unemployment measures — like jobless benefits and food stamps — can serve as temporary palliatives, but they cannot make workers’ skills relevant again.

"There is no easy policy solution", so don't even think about pestering Obama.

The Times approaches thin ice here:

Ms. Norton says she cannot find any government programs to help her strengthen the “thin bootstraps” she intends to pull herself up by. Because of the Wal-Mart job, she has been ineligible for unemployment benefits, and she says she made too much money to qualify for food stamps or Medicaid last year.

“If you’re not a minority, or not handicapped, or not a young parent, or not a veteran, or not in some other certain category, your hope of finding help and any hope of finding work out there is basically nil,” Ms. Norton says. “I know. I’ve looked.”

"Not a minority"?  Well, she said it, but I'll deplore the implicit racism on their behalf.  Also the sexism, orientationalism, and any other evil '-ism' in this woman's heart.

Here is all of their coverage of Team Obama's response:

The White House has publicly challenged the idea that structural unemployment is a big problem, with Christina D. Romer, the Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman, instead emphasizing that stronger economic growth is what’s needed. Still, the administration has allocated dollars for retraining in both the 2009 stimulus package and other legislation, largely for clean technology jobs.

Yeah, that coverage is sort of like the Reagan era.

FOR PEDANTS:  Reagan signed tax increases in 1983; that was when "deficits as far as the eye could see" were going to ruin the American economy.  Believe it or not, some of the usual suspects in the economic field have been able to rationalize the Obama approach.  Well, time is a useful teacher.

DARE I OFFER A GUESS?  Presidents usually get too much credit and too much blame for the economy, but that is compounded by a media that prefers to credit Democrats and blame Republicans.  The press coverage of the Bush 41 jobless recovery helped Clinton get elected, at which point the jobless recovery disappeared from the news (job growth was only slightly improved from 1992 to 1993; adjust the dates on this BLS chart.)

And Clinton gets all the credit for the late 90's boom, even though Gingrich and Co. forced a commitment to deficit reduction that might have otherwise been lacking.  

As to the current debacle, the run-amuck at Fannie and Freddie was a bipartisan mess, but my 20/20 hindsight tells me that Bush/Greenspan/Bernanke could have done more with the regulatory tools at their disposal.

Comments

[Is Maurice Strong advising the Chinese, or they him. Of his rights.]

There's gotta be a Laffer Curve for employment, too.
================

[Janet]

Does the Media Care About Unemployment?

No. They don't care about high gas prices either. They don't care about civilians that die in Afghanistan or Iraq. They no longer blame the President if a natural disaster occurs....
When Democrats are in power, the list of talking points totally changes.

This double standard also exists for individual Democrats vs. Republicans. Affairs, cheating on taxes, conflict-of-interest with family employment, not correctly listing perks received in the Senate, drunk or drugged up while serving in Congress, ....

[nathan hale]

Why compare 1983 with 2002, when clearly 1982 is an able enough benchmark. Then again Moyers, Brokaw, Jennings, were hammering the point home then

[hit and run]

Ms. Norton says she cannot find any government programs to help her strengthen the “thin bootstraps” she intends to pull herself up by. Because of the Wal-Mart job, she has been ineligible for unemployment benefits, and she says she made too much money to qualify for food stamps or Medicaid last year.

I deplore the rich capitalist selfish pig bastards whining about being ">http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgetingk/article/109517/how-rich-are-you?mod=bb-budgeting>"poor".

You're richer than you think.

At least according to Poke, a London-based creative company that specializes in interactive media. Their Web site, The Global Rich List generates a wealth ranking for its users based on their annual income.

For example, if you make $52,000 a year (the median American household income for 2009), you are the 58,252,719 richest person in the world (or in the top 0.97 percentile of all moneymakers).

Someone who makes half of that ($26,000 a year) is still in the top 10%, ranked 569,942,529 on the Global Rich List.

Suck it up,greedy fat cats.

"I do think at some point you've made enough money."
--Barack Obama

Who can argue that once you reach the top 10% of earners worldwide,that you haven't reached Obama's "point"?

And why is Obama going around promising tax breaks for the rich?1?!!?1?!

They told me that if I voted for John McCain ... yada,yada,yada.

[nathan hale]

graphing that chart, it's curious that the largest pattern doesn't even line up, with the interval in question, around 3% of the work force, and that leaves out U6, which they always used to count

[Pofarmer]

The larger question would be, why read Kevin Drum? I gave up on him and Washington Monthly years ago. Nobody can be that stupid and it not be on purpose.

[Pofarmer]

I wonder, how much of the increase in Q1 consumer spending was driven by larger than normal tax refunds?

[JM Hanes]

Too bad DeLong and Drum apparently don't accept trackbacks!

[Ranger]

Hmmm... Did he simply miss Chris "tingle up my leg" saying he inteded to halp make this presdiency succesful? Did he not thing Chris was speaking for the entire MSM when he said it?

5% unemployment under a Republican president is social armagedon.

10% unemployment under a Democrat president is a golden opportunity for social renewal. A chance for people to take a break from the hectic work world, spend some quality time with the kids, go to a museum on a Tuesday afternoon. We never had it so good.

[JM Hanes]

hit! I've bookmarked that site.

[JM Hanes]

It's funny, but I always get a captcha window when I attempt to post short comments. You'd think they'd want to discourage me when I go on and on and on.

[Ranger]

Too bad DeLong and Drum apparently don't accept trackbacks!

Posted by: JM Hanes | May 13, 2010 at 09:11 AM

That's a far too dangerous thing for a lefty blog community to accept. Trackbacks might lead someone to read something outside their own sphere of ideological tolorance and damage their carefully constructed and protected world view.

[Clarice]

Look at the bright side...since Obama took office the homeless have *disappeared

(*from media coverage).

[nathan hale]

One might even call it a sign of 'epistemic closure' not I of course, 'that wouldn't be prudent"

[Captain Hate]

Hmmm... Did he simply miss Chris "tingle up my leg" saying he inteded to halp make this presdiency succesful? Did he not thing Chris was speaking for the entire MSM when he said it?

Or last year's White House correspondence dinner when Bammer said "you all voted for me" and there wasn't any evidence of uneasiness at that revelation of how they didn't represent almost half the country.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 13 at Raz.

[NK]

I entered the full time work force in August 1982-- in NYC. While looking for work I read everything available at the time; NYT, Time, Newsweek, US News, the Economist and watched 60 Minutes. The media all taught me Reagan was a moron and 1984 could not come soon enough. Right. The US economy at that time was saved and flourished because government policy under Reagan went the right way, demographics baby boomers entering their highest earning phase, were a net positve, the Fed under Volker was sound. Today? everything is going in the WRONG direction. Will Americans prevail despite Barry O, the Dem leadership, the Fed? We'll all find out. back to 1982, I've forgotten which Reagan biography, but it relayed the story of how in Spring 1982 with high unemployment, lingering inflation and neverending media bashing, Reagan told his senior staff he was sorry that they had hitched their wagons to a fallen star, he assumed one term. Reagan caved on certain things, 1983 tax increases, papering over the Social security Ponzi scheme with the Greenspan commission, but he kept his principles and the country was better for it. Today? Barry, Nancy Harry, oi vey.

[JM Hanes]

Dang, DoT! My little opening challenge of the day is to check out Obama's approval numbers before you post them. Lately, I always seem to think of it before 9:30, and then lose track of the time.

[Danube of Thought]

It's the first thing I check every day, JMH.

[KMarx]

Simple - just as with homelessness, unemployment is only a bludgeon when Republicans are in power.

A liberal was actually telling me that the high unemployment (4%) during the Bush years caused crime to go up in Baltimore. He is as delusional as he is stupid.

[Clarice]

For all the many MO fans here:
http://hillbuzz.org/the-golden-age-of-hope-and-change/

[bunkerbuster]

Check the NY Times archives. You'll find virtually the opposite of what Drum and so man others assert. Back in 1983, with unemployment soaring, the mainstream media were packed with stories about how great Reaganomics was, despite soaring unemployment.
But I dearly love this thread anyway, because of the way it so tellingly slinks past the real money point. Indeed, in 1983, every conservative pundit -- plenty of whom were featured in the mainstream media -- was perfectly happy to say 10 percent unemployment was simply the cost of doing business in a capitalist economy.
Now that a Democrat's president, they can't wait to reverse themselves and say that 10 percent unemployment is failure personified.
Again, check the NYT archive. Or Wapo, or LA Times. You'll find the same thing: all in Reagan's thrall, all playing DOWN unemployment as just the way it's gotta be in capitalism. This myth that the mainstream media, in general, didn't like Reagan is no more credible than Judith Miller's views on Dick Cheney's WMD research or those columnists the GOP paid to shill for Bush policies in their syndicated screeds.
Unemployment is obviously a huge problem and one that no doubt will decide the fate of the Obama administration.
To conservatives who newly find "hard luck stories" to be of concern, I say, welcome to the real world.

[Rob Crawford]

Back in 1983, with unemployment soaring, the mainstream media were packed with stories about how great Reaganomics was, despite soaring unemployment.

How old are you?

[ignatz]

Unemployment peaked in Dec 1982 and declined throughout 1983. Inflation went from over 10% in 1981 to slightly over 3% in 1983. GDP growth went from negative in 1981 and most of '82 into nearly 10% growth in 1983.
Considering all that, I have no doubt the press was forced into the occasional reluctant positive statement. But the main thrust of the reporting throughout the decade was a constant barrage of alleged greed and rampant homelessness and horror at deficits and debt which were fractions of Obama's.

[Rick Ballard]

"how much of the increase in Q1 consumer spending was driven by larger than normal tax refunds?"

Pofarmer,

Not nearly as much as was driven by "strategic default". The increase in tax refunds from Sep-Mar 09 totaled about $19 billion, Easter in March rather than April accounted for more than that. It also accounts for a good portion of the drop in April retail sales.

I understand the premise of this post but no conservative ever expects actual fact based reporting from Democrat propaganda organs. If actual journalism existed in the US then someone would be writing articles about Zero's Clown Posse dumping more money into the huge government indoctrination centers (with enrollment declining due to demographics) than into physical infrastructure. The Education Department has spent more than $140 billion YTD while Highway Administration is just over $22 billion.

The Bozo/Ayers administration is obviously shooting for the best indoctrinated group of unemployables in history.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Rob-

Don't ask pertinent questions. It's rude.

[nathan hale]

Well his transport apparatchik, Lahood, did say something about how roads would not be
preferred. At ground level, in K-12 education
the ax continues to fall, however, despite the stimulus

[Melinda Romanoff]

Rick-

I seem to recall that Cons. Spdg didn't uptick until Apr., All the GDP pop of 4Q '09, & 1Q '10 were inventory driven.

[gk1]

At some point the medias coverage of the economy will have to mirror reality. Its funny they don't seem to harp on the prospects of a V shaped recession very much. Why do we all suspect that would be otherwise had McCain won?

[Melinda Romanoff]

nh-

Skimmed off.

[jag]

"the mainstream media were packed with stories about how great Reaganomics was"

Just a complete lie. Reagan was battered continuously for virtually EVERY move or statement he made.

He was a "cowboy", a stupid actor, married to a clotheshorse with no clue. I was an independent at the time with no idea what conservative or liberal really meant. All I knew was that, after the feckless and sanctimonious Jimmy Carter (who was "brilliant" by ALL MSM accounts) I'd give anyone else a chance.

Reagan's biggest boost to America was in the unabashed confidence he exuded AND articulated as to our ability to weather the economic storm. He fought the media's constant belittling of "supply side" economics by consistently pointing out the logic of less government, lower tax rates and allowing Americans to be as free as possible to be productive.

Now we have a president who can't even muster a whit of enthusiasm for capitalism. Given his resume, that's easy to understand.

We'll weather this storm, eventually. However, the void in leadership on both sides, those with a core understanding of economic freedom, is really, really, frightening.

[Pofarmer]

Had been meaning to mention this. On the Housing market. Locally, in our local 100K college town. Realtor said in Feb they sold 57 Houses. In March they sold 17. And, in April they sold 2. Seems to be the general trend. Also, was told that around St. Louis, building lots that had been 100K lots are for sale right now for 10K. One of the largest developers in the area is apparently in Bankruptcy.

[Rick Ballard]

Mel,

The vast majority of the uptick was in March, April was down (see link above). This year's green shoots are withering as fast as last year's.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Thanks, Rick, another misremembered data point, Lord knows they are few and far between.

Po-

Good data point, nothing like a tax credit to skew the actual marketplace.

[Louie]

Gov Christe giving a great display on how to handle the press in NJ.

LUN

[tea anyone]

louie,

that was outstanding, we need more people like Christe and fast.

[Koblog]

The big difference between 1983 and now is ninety-nine weeks (three freakin' YEARS) of federal unemployment benefits, paid for by an ever-rising deficit and public debt.

There are hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who really aren't that hard up while on Unemployment.

Remember, it's FUNemployment. Party on.

If unemployment were curtailed, you'd see sad stories left and right, followed immediately by howls of "those evil Republicans want my family to STARVE!"

[dk70]

Jobless Recovery: Where have I heard that phrase before?

[sherlock]

Well that's one hockey-stick curve that won't get to the front page of many newspapers!

[Danube of Thought]

Simple - just as with homelessness, unemployment is only a bludgeon when Republicans are in power.

And let us not forget that recurring favorite, the "widening gap between rich and poor."

[Danube of Thought]

I'm standing by for a bibliography of 1982-83 articles from the NYTimes, WaPo, Time and Newsweek about how wonderful Reaganomics was.

(Cue the music from Jeopardy.)

[Danube of Thought]

Indeed, in 1983, every conservative pundit -- plenty of whom were featured in the mainstream media -- was perfectly happy to say 10 percent unemployment was simply the cost of doing business in a capitalist economy.

And the citations to various examples are soon to follow, right?

[Barry Soetoro (D-King Of The World!)]

Racist!

OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012′
(the terrorist-Uighur-ACORN-media choice)
-It’s never too early to campaign-

[jgreene]

Is anyone ever again going to vote for a Socialist Marxist Democrat? Damn right they will in the "hood", on the college campus and in the elitist enclaves hither and yon.

America is going to "kick ass" in November 2010, 2012 and beyond. Oh, the Lame Stream Media is disappearing.. their only salvation is Obama and a "bailout" for the propoganda machine.

[Occam's Beard]

Back in 1983, with unemployment soaring, the mainstream media were packed with stories about how great Reaganomics was, despite soaring unemployment.

Can I come live on your planet? It sounds much nicer than this one.

[mbabbitt]

Simple: the NR factor (Not Republican).

[Paul Hogue]

Kevin Drum personifies the Peter Principle as applied to blogging.

Sheesh...

[boris]

Kinda cold there ... bb's planet orbits Uranus.

[Danube of Thought]

Volokh's site reports on a brand-new Obamacare lawsuit that includes a constitutional privacy attack on various medical disclosure requirements.

Just filed in the Northern District of Ohio. (HT Jacob Sullum, of Reason.) Lead attorney is Jonathan Emord, formerly a Vice-President at Cato, and head of a firm with extensive experience in litigation against the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies on medical issues. The complaint is here.

In the complaint, the material about the interstate commerce power and the tax power is fairly standard. What makes the lawsuit significance is a well-developed argument (subject, of course, to the caveat that a complaint is not a brief) on medical privacy issues. Primarily, that the compelled disclosure to insurance corporations and insurance agents of private medical information (as well as urine or DNA samples and so on) is a violation of Fifth Amendment liberty, and of the constitutional right of privacy. Further, coercing individuals to associate with insurance companies and insurance agencies is a violation of the right of association, a right derivative of the First Amendment, but, as developed in later case law, not at all limited to classic First Amendment associations such as political or expressive organizations.

[JorgXMcKie]

"There is no easy policy solution" Well, it would be more precise to say that there are no apparently easy solutions that could be sold to a skeptical public.

At some point, even the idiot blatherings of the Obamaphiles are readily seen to be crap.

And housing prices are still declining in [The People's Republic of] Ann Arbor, Michigan, so the housing crisis can't be over yet.

As near as I can tell, Obama's only real response to the possibility of a double dip recession is to shove even more federal tax [or borrow] dollars into the paychecks of state employees. At some point I'm reasonably sure even the Obama-struck who aren't government employees will notice and be unhappy. Of course, it might be too late by then.

[Boatbuilder]

Bunky--can you even name one "conservative pundit" who wrote for the NYT, WaPO, or the LA Times in 1983? (One who didn't wear a bowtie, that is?)

I certainly recall Anthony Lewis and Mary McGrory endlessly shilling for Reagan--in a parallel universe!

[JorgXMcKie]

Oh, and I used to think I personally knew blubberbutt because I heard every single one of his talking points very nearly every day. Then I realized that I was hearing them from several different Lefties nearly day, so now I figure s/he's just some kind of quotebot run up by Soros.

Oh, and that "growing disparity" between rich and poor really cracks me up. As I have pointed out to students, first, it doesn't count government subsidies as income, so Medicare, Section 8, TANF, etc might as well not even exist.

Second, if I won the lottery [fat chance, they make you buy a ticket, and I'm not that dense] and won 100M after taxes, then built a bunker and filled it with everything I'd need for the next 50 years, then baled the remaining money in large bundles of 50 dollar bills and put them in the basement, the next year I'd be counted as "poor" because I would have no 'income'. Kiddies [students], there is a difference between income and wealth.

Third, I would much, much, much be 'poor' in a country where poor meant having a lifestyle like a millionaire while there were multi-trillionaires in the society [I.e. gross disparity between 'rich' and 'poor' -- even more than in the US today, that live in a country with very little disparity where the median lifestyle is grinding poverty [NK, maybe?]

[Jane]

Hey guys! Thanks for the heads up on the CIA agents daddy, I'm sure they thought we were them. Imagine a name like "Jane Payne". How badly did her parents hater her?

We are off to a monastery for dinner and tomorrow we are back in Porto where the pope is appearing. For some reason he too has been following us.

[Captain Hate]

Bunky

Boatbuilder, there's another poster by that nic who gets justifiably irked when confused with the troll that you, and others, were ridiculing.

[nathan hale]

well it is a touch too illiterative, but among a certain class of wasp, still around
in the CIA, it probably isn't out of the question, thanks a lot Dana

[Army of Davids]

One thing I haven't seen anywhere except the WSJ is the dramatic increases in teen unemployment during the 3 hikes in the minimum wage that have come out since Pelosi and Reid took control of congress.

It has been the worst for black teen males.

Liberals hurt most the ones they claim to help.

[Clarice]

Frankly those CIA names seem phony to me..

[daddy]

Clarice,

How come "You heard that too?" is grounds for a Special Prosecutor, but listing them publicly in Harper's Mag is obviously no big deal?

Is the difference simply because they weren't published at Dick Cheney's behest?

[jt007]

Forget about comparing today's press coverage of unemployment with 1983, take a look at the press coverage from 2004. The idiots in the press told us that the American people were really hurting despite a misery index that was the lowest ever recorded and we had unemployment below 6%.

The only thing that I find pathetic is that there are still people who watch Katie Couric, listen to NPR and read the New York Times and they think they are getting unbiased news.

[max]

Heck, just look at how the press treated Bush II when unemployment hit 6% to see how tough the press could be on unemployment in the past. We sure have changed a lot as a nation and as a society in the past 16 months, so much that was terrible news back in 2008 is not significant now.

[EBJ]

All you need to know about the press treatment of Reagan: trickle down. It's still a joke in MSM circles, despite the fact that, ummm, it actually works.

[Rob Crawford]

And the citations to various examples are soon to follow, right?

That's the best joke I've heard all day!

[mariner]

I don't understand why Drum feels he needs to go back to the 1980s.

I seem to remember that just a couple of years ago, when unemployment ticked up by 0.1% Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) treated it as the end of the economic world.

[Clarice]

daddy, I assume the names are public records in some warrant, aren't they? I repeat though the names seem phony..were they *OMG!* traveling under fake passports?

Were they ever in Dubai?

[Unemployed]

I just stopped by here looking for a job.

Nothin'? That figures.

[jimmyk]

All you need to know about the press treatment of Reagan: trickle down.

And "Star Wars."

[bunkerbuster]

Citations?
Bring'em on!
But there has to be something at stake. Apparently, it's fine with most of you to sputter cascading assertions about how uniformly anti-Reagan the mainstream media, sans a single example. But let someone take another view and suddenly we're all in need of hard evidence.
Let's consider the "mainstream media" the LA Times, NY Times and Washington Post. I can show examples of each from the 1982-1985 period, when unemployment was soaring, putting a positive spin on Reagan and/or Reaganomics. But when I do that, what will the response be? Oh, not enough? Oh, we didn't actually mean that? Or, look over there, Obama once got a greeting card from a card-carrying Fabian? Or if you prefer, let's compare coverage today with then, head to head. For every article you cite crediting Obama with helping the economy, I'll show two crediting Reagan and/or his policies.
But I'm not going to take my time unless something's at stake. The assertion that the media were anti-Reagan -- relative to the way other presidents are covered -- is pure myth. If any one of who who's so convinced are ready to take this on, step right up.
The loser has to give up their nic and post under "Semi Literate" for the next 90 days.
(There is a reason Reagan fans FEEL so aggrieved. While papers treated the president more than fairly, he was pilloried in the pop culture media, and it stung. Saturday Night Live made fun of big-smiling, down-home Jimmy Carter too, and certainly Gerald Ford before him, but it just didn't get the laughs its portrayals of Reagan as a scripted dim-wit did. Like the SNL classic that spins that 360 by parodying Reagan as a secret foreign policy wonk.)
And the idea that the MSM had no conservative columnists is ludicrous. George Will in Wapo/Newsweek and syndication, right there next to Charles Krauthammer. Cal Thomas, Robert Novak, the list goes on, but wingnuts have this idea that their hero was somehow uniformly maligned. Classic paranoia.

[boris]

Follow the Yellow Brick Road bb, surely the Wizard of Oz can get you a brain. lol

[SamA]

Actually, there was just today an article similar to the NYT article from 1983 you cite.

" Millions of jobs that were cut won't likely return" -AP (LUN, or headlines at Yahoo Finance)

[Danube of Thought]

And the idea that the MSM had no conservative columnists is ludicrous.

I have not seen that idea advanced here or anywhere else. In addition to Will and Novak, other syndicated conservative columnists abound, not least Wm. F. Buckley. They regularly appeared in MSM publications. They did not reflect the strongly-held editorial views of those publications. Those views are widely understood and acknowledged by those who hold them.

Sensible people (including, in this instance, Kevin Drum) are alert to distinguish between the syndicated columnists published in various MSM outlets and the editorial boards of those outlets, as well as the editorializing that routinely insinuates itself into the "news" pages. Howell Raines readily acknowledged this news-page editorializing in the NY Times.

[Danube of Thought]

While papers treated the president more than fairly

Simple falsehood. I read the NY Times and the WaPo daily, and Time and Newsweek weekly, throughout his presidency.

Who the hell do you think you are fooling?

[bgates]

the 1982-1985 period, when unemployment was soaring

Every measure of unemployment listed in the chart at the top of the page shrank from mid 1983 to 1988. That cite for that chart is calculatedrisk.com, which doesn't have a particularly noticeable partisan slant, and it apparently appears in either Drum's or DeLong's post.

Thus, I accept your wager. For every article I can find from the LAT, NYT, or WaPo crediting Obama with helping the economy, you have to post two from the period 1982 through 1985 which puts a positive spin on Reagan or Reaganomics while describing the unemployment rate as "soaring". I'm sure we can agree that "positive spin" would preclude describing a shrinking problem as a worsening problem, so you can really only use articles from 1982 through mid 83. Good luck.

[Danube of Thought]

I'll show two crediting Reagan and/or his policies.

If you're going forward as far as 1985, small wonder: by then it was undeniable. By then the world realized that Ronald Reagan had inaugurated what would become the greatest economic boom in human history, and much of the world sought to emulate his policies.

Drum's subject matter--and that of this thread--was 1983.

[bunkerbuster]

Dot: you have not "seen the idea advanced"?
Boatbuilder asserts: ``Bunky--can you even name one "conservative pundit" who wrote for the NYT, WaPO, or the LA Times in 1983? (One who didn't wear a bowtie, that is?)
Don't worry, you get to keep your nic, such as it is...

[Pofarmer]

I seem to remember that just a couple of years ago, when unemployment ticked up by 0.1% Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) treated it as the end of the economic world.

Ah hell, I can remember unemployment going DOWN a couple tenths of a percent and the line was "not meeting analyst's expectations."

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Anyone see a hockey stick on that graph? Hmmmmm.

[Danube of Thought]

For interested parties in the reality-based community, here are the BLS unemployment numbers for the years 1982-85:

1982 9.7%
1983 9.6%
1984 7.5%
1985 7.2%

You will find no person in the Obama White House claiming that unemployment will have dropped to 7.5% by 2012. That is because they know it is not going to happen, and cannot happen, under the scheme of regulation, taxation and income distribution they are seeking to implement.

[qrstuv]

I had a co-worker who joined our company a couple of years ago who was happy to find a job "in this economy". Unemployment then was around 5 percent, but he shook his head over how bad things were.

Now he shakes his head over tea partiers.

[qrstuv]

We get propaganda in our elevators at work. I saw this headline a day or two ago: "Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950"

This comes apparently from a USA Today article.

In other words, tax receipts at lowest level since 1950.

But we don't want to say it that way because Democrats are running the show.

[bgates]

"It's great that the stock market has bounced back," Obama said during a three-hour stop in western New York, a region already in decline long before the economic downturn. "But if you're still looking for a job, it's still a recession. ["already in decline" = "not his fault" = "spinning".] Citing last week's economic reports showing job growth in the U.S. for the fourth straight month, the president argued that his steps to rescue the economy are working. No mention that a large fraction of that job number comes from the inevitable and temporary census jobs = spin. There's also no dissenting point of view in the article besides one sentence about a billboard put up by "Two New York state residents" who aren't even named.

Let's see two from you.

[Danube of Thought]

Is it unfair to point out that the New York Times has endorsed every single Democratic presidential candidate since 1960? That's right, they even wanted a second term for Jimmy Carter.

Check it out here.

[EBJ]

But the MSM did love Reagan's use of the term "Evil Empire" to describe the Soviet Union. Just as they ate up W's "Axis of Evil" in the last decade. You had to keep your head low in the press room for fear of getting hit with a Pom Pom back then. Obama might be inspiring leg tingles in the press room these days but Reagan was inspiring visible tingles of the entire body, also known as uncontrollable, violent shaking. They could barely contain their love, bless them.

[fred]

Fixed news is a rino station and I haven't heard them bemoning unemployyment. The wall street journal is the same and news corp is a huge company. Your not gonna find true conservatives with a company that big it screams political correctness.

[nathan hale]

Yeah I remember Anthony Lewis cheering on that, oh wait, I think it was atotally different reaction, let me find it. Fox in a imperfect vehicle, Stuart Varney often provides good analysis, the member of "Bulls
and Bears" are all over the lot

[nathan hale]

These two quotes are illustrative, out of many;

"What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening to Cambodia now?" -March 17, 1975
(Before Year Zero)

Reagan used “sectarian religiosity to sell a political program”…the “evil empire” speech was “primitive”…“a mirror image of crude Soviet rhetoric”… “What is the world to think when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology?” -March 10, 1983
[edit] Books

[Melinda Romanoff]

nh-

I particularly liked the "stupid" and "uneducated" tags they routinely threw at Reagan.

Sound familiar?

[Clarice]

I'm working on an article about the legal challenges to Obamacare and believe there are now 20 or 21 states challenging it and two private suits.

If anyone has information about any more such suits, pls let me know. Thanks.

[nathan hale]

Or this letter to the editor, by esteemed reporter Harrison Salisbury, in the LUN,of course, the words of RAymond Bonnersupporting the Duarte govt

[nathan hale]

You betcha, Melinda,

[kcom]

1983 R ... 2010 D.

Hmm.....what a mystery.

[bgates]

Not to mention how good life is for the funemployed.

[nathan hale]

This example from Hugh Sidey, around that period, in the LUN

[Janet]

I heard this on Dennis Miller today...LUN
an old video of Jerry Seinfeld on CNN's Larry King.
Seriously, the MSM has been stupid for a long time. What do they really know about....most things? Absolutely nothing.
This video is mainly funny, but if they can't even get pop culture right...why in the world would we CARE about their thoughts on energy production, health care, manufacturing, job growth,...?

[Clarice]

I can't understand Larry King's continued employment. Does he have something big on a CNN chieftain?

[Janet]

Good Lord bgates. From your linked article - "It may not have entered our daily lexicon yet, but a small army of social media junkies with a sudden overabundance of time is busy Tweeting: "Funemployment road trip to Portland....."

I just don't believe the writer can name even a few people who do this, much less "a small army". D#^n liars.
Axelrod probably put the definition in the Urban dictionary and then contacted Kimi to write the article.

[nathan hale]

They've been coasting on their reputation for
the better part of the last 20 years, when they were the only game in town

[Danube of Thought]

A syndicated columnist whose column is carried by a particular newspaper, at its election, cannot be said to "write for" that newspaper--he writes for the syndicate. Everyone here, except perhaps yourself, is aware of the practice of print outlets of every editorial persuasion carrying the syndicated columns of commentators holding different views. That practice has been common across the political spectrum for at least a half century to my personal knowledge.

In the meantime, I continue to await your evidence of "soaring" unemploent from 1983-1985, or even evidence that it was soaring in 1983.

And I continue to await the citations to the columnists who were happy to declare that 10% unemployment is simply a cost of doing business under capitalism. It is well known to be a cost of the European welfare state model, which is happily being adopted by today's Democratic party.

[bgates]

Janet, that article was from last year; the author may still have had that catchy "Army of One" slogan on his mind.

[bunkerbuster]

Dot: unemployment, by your own stats -- was nearly 10 percent in 82 and 83. How is that not soaring? the long-term average is somewhere near 5 percent. It's nearly double that!
And on citations. You first.

[Melinda Romanoff]

DoT-

You're not getting it. Bbbler is in charge of definitions, not us mere "wingers".

Watch out! He's armed with a labeler! And I think he means business!