The Wall Street Journal has taken a look on how the media portrays the economy.

    The paradox of the year is why so many Americans tell pollsters they feel bad about an economy that's been so good, with solid job growth and corporate profits, rising wages and home prices, and a huge decline in the budget deficit. Perhaps one reason is because the media keep saying the economy stinks.


That's the conclusion of a study to be released today by the Media Research Center, which finds that so far this year 62% of the news stories on the Big Three TV networks have portrayed the U.S. economy in negative fashion. The "negative full length TV news stories on the economy outnumbered positive stories by an overwhelming ratio of 4 to 1," the MRC reports

The Media Research Center conducted this study and alleges:

    The federal deficit is shrinking, unemployment has fallen, and America has seen more than two straight years of job growth. But broadcasters have been describing the economy as “dicey,” “volatile” and “slow.” A Free Market Project analysis of economic stories on network evening news shows since President George W. Bush’s second inauguration showed negative news prevailing 62 percent of the time (71 out of 115 stories). That number was deceiving, however, because even good news often was portrayed as bad. In 40 stories classified as good economic news, journalists undermined the good news with bad 45 percent of the time.

    Good news was relegated to short reports, or briefs, 68 percent of the time, while bad news was treated with full stories. When briefs on both sides were excluded, the comparison of full-length news stories showed an overwhelming ratio: negative stories outnumbered positive ones almost 4-to-1.


A similar study last year to contrast how the media presented the economy when there is a Democratic and a Republican president in office:

    When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats. For durable goods for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and 25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no difference. Among the Associated Press and the top 10 papers, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, and New York Times tend to be the least likely to report positive news during Republican administrations, while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans. Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration.

Is anyone surprised by all these results? I think these findings are too large to be due to mere happenstance. I'm not saying that the reporters get together and say, "Hey, a Bush is president; let's convince everyone that the economy is doing terribly." But that is the template through which they view the news. They don't look at economic results as a point on a graph but as part of an overall story about where the economy is headed. And they have made up their minds that policies such as tax cuts will trash the economy. So, they're ready with the gloom and doom. As the WSJ writes:

    Media coverage of President Bush's tax cuts has been particularly slanted. During the 2003 tax-cut debate, three of every four major TV network news stories were negative. The favorite criticisms were liberal echoes that it would bust the budget and favor the rich. Earlier this year, a news story on National Public Radio announced that "as everyone knows, the primary cause of the budget deficit was the Bush tax cuts." No word yet on whom NPR is crediting with this year's revenue surge of $262 billion.

NPR doesn't need to give anyone credit. They'll just downplay the story or not even report it. It will be a brief blurb in the roundup of headlines and they'll resist the opportunity to explain how the tax cuts have helped create a increase in revenue. That will fit their pattern of talking about the shaky, greedy economy of the Reagan economy, the sinking economy of the G.H.W. Bush years, the thriving economy of the Clinton years, and the fragile economy of the G.W. Bush years.