Life is difficult when you’re a cranky libertarian.
President Obama’s latest stimulus scam was just rejected by the Senate, so I went online to read about this rare bit of good news.
But my cheerful mood was undermined by a reprehensible bit of bias by the folks at Reuters. Read the first paragraph of the story.
The Senate defeated President Barack Obama’s job-creation package on Tuesday in a sign that Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring before the 2012 elections.
Two things jumped out at me. First, Reuters called Obama’s plan a “job-creation package.” An honest and fair news organization would have written something such as “…the President’s proposal, which the White House asserts will create jobs.”
I may have forgiven that first bit of bias. After all, reporters do face pressure to be concise and “job-creation package” certainly satisfies that criteria. Moreover, it’s not as if I was expecting them to choose “stimulus scam” as an option, even though it is equally concise.
But then the story says “Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring,” which clearly implies that approving Obama’s proposal would create jobs.
But if that was the case, then the 2009 so-called stimulus should have created jobs. Yet as these four charts illustrate, it was a total flop. Heck, it was worse than that. It led to job losses by increasing the burden of government.
Shame on Reuters.
[…] P.P.S. Media bias is also an important issue (see here, here, here, here, and here). […]
[…] bias, most often from the Washington Post or New York Times, but also from other outlets (Reuters, Time, ABC, the Associated Press, […]
[…] to comment when I come across egregious examples on issues such as poverty, guns, Greece, jobs, taxes, and […]
[…] In previous posts, I’ve discussed this slanted AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, this example of implicit bias by USA Today, and a Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] In previous posts, I’ve discussed this slanted AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, this example of implicit bias by USA Today, and a Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] On rare occasions, when I get really irked, I complain about media bias. Examples include this AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, this example of implicit bias by USA Today, and a Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] A Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus […]
[…] A Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus […]
[…] In previous posts, I’ve discussed this slanted AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, this example of implicit bias by USA Today, and a Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] In previous posts, I’ve discussed this slanted AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, this example of implicit bias by USA Today, and a Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] I don’t think it’s a case of media bias or inaccuracy, as we saw with the AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, or the Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] On rare occasions, when I get really irked, I complain about media bias. Examples include this AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, this example of implicit bias by USA Today, and a Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] And if they don’t, I ask them to explain one-sided reports such as the AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, this implicit USA Today bias, or the Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] you want real-world examples of media bias, click here, here, here, here and here. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] I don’t think it’s a case of media bias or inaccuracy, as we saw with the AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, or the Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] I don’t think it’s a case of media bias or inaccuracy, as we saw with the AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, or the Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus. […]
[…] why I groused about a Reuters report that presumed Obama’s spending plans created […]
[…] why I groused about a Reuters report that presumed Obama’s spending plans created […]
[…] why I groused about a Reuters report that presumed Obama’s spending plans created […]
[…] this isn’t a post about media bias, even though I sometimes can’t resist pointing out sloppy or dishonest journalism. Let’s get back to the main point. Giving the IMF more resources would be like giving the […]
And then Congress approves the trade bills in a bipartisan fashion tonight, proving that it’s not “too paralyzed” to do something that the President is calling for, it just doesn’t agree with him on everything.
[…] the Senate’s rejection of President Obama’s “jobs bill,” Dan Mitchell calls bias on Reuters: …my cheerful mood was undermined by a reprehensible bit of bias by the folks at Reuters. […]