Some interesting media analysis related to the way they report economic news.

The Politics of Bulls and Bears

I'm not being facetious here. One of the iron laws of U.S. news reporting is that the economy gets positive reviews under Democratic presidents and negative reviews under Republican presidents.

In 2004, the Virginia-based Media Research Center (MRC) produced a stark summary of the disparity.

In 1996, Bill Clinton ran for reelection as president. The U.S. economy was doing well at the time: unemployment down to 5.2%, inflation under control at 3%, and overall growth at 2.2%. And the press reported all this good news: According to the 2004 MRC study, 85% of all major economic stories on the economy in the summer of 1996 were positive.

Eight years later, George W. Bush was running for re-election as president. The U.S. economy in 2004 did much better than in 1996: The economy grew at a 3.9% pace, while unemployment and inflation roughly matched their 1996 levels (5.4% and 2.7% respectively). Yet this time, 77% of all major media economic coverage was negative. (For the full report, see www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2004/fax2004
1020.asp.) And since the 2004 election, the barrage of bad news has continued: reports of housing bubbles, warnings of an imminent collapse in the U.S. dollar, and so on.
Quick Summary:

Code:
Under Clinton (in 1996), these economic numbers are good,
and are heavily reported as such:

5.2% unemployment
3.0% inflation
2.2% growth

But under Bush (in 2004), these economic numbers are bad,
and are heavily reported as such:

5.4% unemployment ( .2% higher/worse than 1996)
2.7% inflation    ( .3% lower/better than 1996)
3.9% growth       (1.7% higher/better than 1996
Interesting.