Media 'Depression'

[Tigermike 3,078]

Media 'Depression'

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Journalism: It's been said the press notice the homeless problem only when a Republican's in office. The same could be said for food stamps, which the media now are using as an economic indicator.

Scary headline in Monday's Times: "As Jobs Vanish And Prices Rise, Food Stamp Use Nears Record." Scarier headline in Britain's Independent: "USA 2008: The Great Depression."

Why didn't the Times editors just say: "Economy In Shambles — It's All Bush's Fault"? Or the Independent condemn the president for his war on the poor?

The stories, as well as similar coverage in other publications and on the newswire, were more subtle than that. But make no mistake — the message is that the Bush-Republican economy is a calamity of epic proportions. (Several of our posters have not only bought into the propaganda but have been on a crusade to spread the word.)

As the election nears, the mainstream media, unable this time to make an issue out of Iraq, are focusing on the economy on behalf of the Democrats. And they're more than a bit overwrought. To see the headlines and to read or listen uncritically to the stories, one would think the 1930s were golden years by comparison.

As usual, there's more to the story.

Take the headline "Food Stamp Use Nears Record," which is only partially accurate. True, the 28 million Americans who will use food stamps in 2008 is the highest number ever. But that raw number is a poor measure; it doesn't provide context.

What's relevant is the percentage of the population that's on food stamps. And the worst years there are 1993, 1994 and 1995.

Yes, it was during the second Camelot presidency that the largest portions of the population were using food stamps: 10.4% in 1993 and 1994, and 10% in 1995.

Even if 28 million Americans use food stamps in 2008 as projected — and eagerly reported — with 303.5 million people in the country, the rate of 9.2% would still be lower than those three Clinton years.

Any discussion of food stamps should also include eligibility rules, which have been altered through the years. At various times, it's been harder to get food stamps. One example: the years that followed the 1996 welfare reform. At other times, the standards have been relaxed, as they were with the 2002 farm bill.

Enlistment drives are another factor. (Where's the federal campaign to promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence?) Washington is currently promoting food stamps and changing the system from one of paper coupons to electronic debit cards in hopes that removing the public humiliation that comes with using food stamps will encourage more people to take part.

Natural disasters also can have an impact on the number of food stamp recipients. Floods, earthquakes, ravaging storms and wildfires can increase the number of food stamp "clients."

Despite the many reasons not to use food stamps to gauge economic health, the media still do it. They're sure that many voters will make their choices this fall based on what the press tells them.

Things will change, though, if a Democrat is elected president. Expect to start seeing glowing reports on the economy about a year from now — no matter what shape it's in.

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291942022546625