MediaWatch: December 1992
Table of Contents:
- MediaWatch: December 1992
- Networks Select One "Year of the Woman" Over Another
- NewsBites: Clinton Tilt
- Revolving Door: Too Randy
- Post-Election Economic Numbers Embarrass Negative Media
- Post-Election Gushing
- Martin's Money
- Herbert's Hunger Hype
- Janet Cooke Award: Gumbel Consults Only Far-Left TransAfrica
Post-Election Economic Numbers Embarrass Negative Media
THE CLINTON BOOM BEGINS?
The November outbreak of good economic news came too late for President Bush. But it didn't come too late to embarrass media bigwigs for the excuses they offered for improving pre-election economic figures.
On November 25, the networks dutifully reported that the economic growth in the third quarter (July to September) had been revised upward from 2.7 percent to a strong 3.9 percent. When the 2.7 number was announced on October 27, the media had rushed to downplay it. On World News Tonight, ABC anchor Peter Jennings asserted: "That is more than economists had projected, but in many cases, less than meets the eye."
The next night, Jennings pressed his point again: "The President may complain about the news media, but the economic growth figures which he is so pleased about are not that definitive, according to a great many independent economic analysts."
The Washington Post also rushed out with economist naysayers on October 28: "But many independent economists, who had expected about a 1.5 percent growth rate, said the U.S. economy cannot keep up such a pace."
In its November 23 issue, Time Senior Writer John Greenwald concurred: "Most economists agree that the U.S. recovery is far weaker than the recent 2.7 GDP growth spurt indicates. `That was a nice number, but not sustainable,' said Lea Tyler, manager of U.S. economic forecasting for Oxford Economics."
In the December 7 issue, Time took a different tone: "Gross domestic product leaped up at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the third quarter, returning total output of goods and services to the pre-recession pace of mid-1990. Strong increases were registered by consumer spending, business investment, orders for durable goods, sales of existing houses and consumer confidence."
None of the outlets that downplayed the pre-election economic numbers admitted their errors. When consumer confidence rose in October, the Post (and others) didn't cite the growth number as a reason for new confidence. They cited the election of Bill Clinton.
The New York Times went the furthest, topping their front page November 30 with an article by reporter Sylvia Nasar. She accentuated the positive statistics from July forward and attributed the uptick to Clinton, citing anecdotal approval from a few business executives as proof of Clinton's effect. The story's headline -- "Is The Clinton Expansion Here?" -- said it all.
