Fair and Balanced

[thefinalsql]

Which story is better reporting?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/02/news....htm?hpt=hp_t1

It's too early to bust out the champagne though. The unemployment rate fell for two reasons: yes, more Americans got jobs, but at the same time, even more people gave up on their job searches altogether.

Vs

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nce-march-200/

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 120,000 jobs last month. With that, the unemployment rate dropped to the lowest level in more than two and a half years. But a key reason for the sharp drop was that about 315,000 people had stopped looking for work -- for the Labor Department's purposes, they were not counted as unemployed.

In either case I think to be qualified as unemployed you have to file for unemployment is a stupid criteria and does not paint an accurate picture of our dire straits.

[matclone]

I wouldn't say either reporting is obviously better than the other? What's your view?

There are plenty of measures for what you call dire straits, including Labor Dept measures (I'm sure you could find them at their web site). The specific measure your cite, which does not include people who have given up looking, or who aren't interested, is a standard one, and has been used for a long, long time. Not sure why you're complaining about it.

[Corrie]

Unemployment numbers have always been skewed hugely this way. It has even more of an affect on the numbers when in a recession and large numbers of people simply give up on actively looking for work because it's been so long.

Saying that jobs were ADDED becuase more people got entirely out of the employment pool than became unemployed is a pretty fucked up way of looking at things, but I've seen worse from Fox.

[Oldster]

I quit watching CNN 15 years ago when they reported how much more dangerous an 'assault rifle' was than a standard bolt action in the same caliber.

I kid you not, it was an anti-gun police chief that conspired in the lie. 2 cinder blocks were placed out on the range. The caliber was the Russian 7.62x39.

With the assault rifle in SEMI automatic mode (you have to pull the trigger for each round) he shot the block which of course broke, then broke each smaller piece with following shots.

With the bolt action rifle, same caliber, he proceeded to shoot and miss the block each and EVERY time showing how much safer the bolt action was than the semi auto rifle. CNN and the anti-gun police chief conspired in this obviously public disinformation of those absolutely retarded enough to not understand what just happened. Dumbfounded I waited to hear the punchline of the joke which did not come. It was reported as factual and was replayed over and over during the day.

I have not watched CNN since and question the intelligence of anyone who does.

[thefinalsql]

I wouldn't say either reporting is obviously better than the other? What's your view?

There are plenty of measures for what you call dire straits, including Labor Dept measures (I'm sure you could find them at their web site). The specific measure your cite, which does not include people who have given up looking, or who aren't interested, is a standard one, and has been used for a long, long time. Not sure why you're complaining about it.

Well for one, Fox News reported how many people quit looking. CNN did not.

[Caje]

Unemployment numbers have always been skewed hugely this way. It has even more of an affect on the numbers when in a recession and large numbers of people simply give up on actively looking for work because it's been so long.

Saying that jobs were ADDED because more people got entirely out of the employment pool than became unemployed is a pretty fucked up way of looking at things, but I've seen worse from Fox.

Just looking at the quoted part the Fox article isn't saying jobs were added because unemployment went down. It is saying 120,000 jobs were added BUT the reason unemployment mostly fell was because 315,000 people stopped looking for jobs.

[Rusty9]

I cant say either of them is very good. However, I did read the commentary on the one from cnn and it was kind of funny that people were complaining about how they and their friends couldnt find work for the last two years and that the only thing they were being offered was jobs in the 20-30k range. Sorry to tell those people but if you haven't been working for two years its because you didnt properly valuate your services and are now a non-skilled worker, tuff titty. They need to suck it up get back in the workforce as menial workers and continue their search for better employment and quit being a drain on the economy and bitching about how its everyone elses fault. Besides employers dont want to hire some bum who has been out of work for two years and is still asking the going rate for the industry as they were probably laid off for a reason, there services weren't worth the dollar they were getting paid. Everyone I know who wants to be working is. Some of these people aren't making the dollars they would be like to be making but they tighten up their spending and make do while pursuing better positions.

[Robert Beckett]

Well for one, Fox News reported how many people quit looking. CNN did not.

Including a raw number without context doesn't necessarily equal good reporting.

By my crude calculations, around 300,000 Americans turned 65 in November of 2011. Are they counted in the 487,000 who left the labor force, or not? It makes a big difference, but the Fox News story doesn't say. It just says that this 487,000 was "a key reason" for unemployment rate drop, without comparing November's 487K to other months, or explaining how many of the 487K are retirees. It might be that 487K is actually an improvement compared to recent months, but without context, we don't know. Maybe it wasn't a big change, and that's why CNN didn't report it.

So maybe Fox News included this noncontextualized detail out of journalistic integrity. Or then again, maybe the reporter saw the factoid "487,000 people left the labor force" and thought that including a big 6-digit figure and arbitrarily describing it as a "key reason" for the drop would be damning for Obama.

[matclone]

Including a raw number without context doesn't necessarily equal good reporting.

By my crude calculations, around 300,000 Americans turned 65 in November of 2011. Are they counted in the 487,000 who left the labor force, or not? It makes a big difference, but the Fox News story doesn't say. It just says that this 487,000 was "a key reason" for unemployment rate drop, without comparing November's 487K to other months, or explaining how many of the 487K are retirees. It might be that 487K is actually an improvement compared to recent months, but without context, we don't know. Maybe it wasn't a big change, and that's why CNN didn't report it.

So maybe Fox News included this noncontextualized detail out of journalistic integrity. Or then again, maybe the reporter saw the factoid "487,000 people left the labor force" and thought that including a big 6-digit figure and arbitrarily describing it as a "key reason" for the drop would be damning for Obama.

Excellent analysis, Robert. I've long thought Fox News (and to some extent other cable channels including CNN) follow the KISS principle in reporting news. Keep it simple and stupid. I remember, years ago, in the face some unpleasant labor statistic, watching Neil Cavuto ask Vice President Cheney if the lost jobs were "burger flippers".

[Oran]

Isn't deciding which is the better reporting in your examples similar to deciding who's the tallest midget?