same old media bias. When will you libs stop denying it.
http://www.investors.com/ibdarchives/ArtShowP.asp?atn=171103891931731&sy=&kw=economy&ac=George H.W. Bush was in the White House, and Clinton, Gore wanted him out. So, rather than speak no ill of the economy, the media spoke of nothing but. It was, after all, about the economy, stupid. ...
. ...Or that activity in the third quarter of 1992 was the strongest in three years. Fully 92% of stories written about the economy in that stretch were negative, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
That didn't last long, however. As soon as Clinton and Gore were elected, negative coverage virtually dried up - to 14% of stories in November vs. 90% the month before. Happy days were here again.
.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/14/ip.00.htmlThe Secret Boom
"Here's a little secret," CNN's senior political analyst William Schneider said on "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics" Monday: "The nation's economy is actually doing very well." Schneider and Woodruff proceeded to have this exchange:
Schneider: Here's another reason why the good economic news may not be having much impact. It's not being reported. A study by Media Tenor, an independent media analysis institute, reveals that news coverage of President Bush's economic policy has practically vanished from the major broadcast networks since the beginning of the year. It's all been Iraq. The improving economy is a secret.
SCHNEIDER: How about when Bill Clinton ran for reelection in 1996? In May, 1996, the public's view of the economy was actually worse than it is now. But things picked up very fast. By the fall, nearly half thought times were good. Good enough for President Clinton to get comfortably reelected.
