This visual actually aired, without a hint of irony or shame, on Fox News today, as if it presented accurate, legitimate information to its audience. Media Matters' Zachary Pleat called it "dishonest," but really, that's being overly generous. I'm more inclined to say Fox News is deliberately deceiving its viewers, assuming they won't know the difference.
via Media Matters
There are two main elements to this. The first is the notion that the "real" unemployment rate nearly doubled on President Obama's watch. To arrive at this figure, Fox News began with the standard U-3 unemployment rate from January 2009, and then compared it to August 2012 U-6 unemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full-time and those who've given up.
The only reason to equate a U-3 rate and a U-6 rate at the same time -- a classic apples to oranges comparison -- is to wildly mislead people. It's about as honest as saying a team that scored two touchdowns loses to a team that scored three field goals, because three is greater than two, and when you weren't looking, we decided to count by how many times each team scores.
The truth, for anyone who's interested, isn't hard to find. In February 2009, Obama's first full month in office, the U.S. economy lost 726,000 jobs and the standard unemployment rate was 8.2%. In August 2012, the U.S. economy added about 100,000 jobs and unemployment fell to 8.1%. Republicans can argue that's not good enough, and they can argue they would have done better, but if they don't want to be laughed at, they shouldn't try silly stunts like Fox News'.
The second is the jobless rate among "government workers" -- Fox wants its viewers to think hard-working folks in the private sector are struggling, while those public-sector workers have it easy. Reality, however, gets in the way of the narrative -- since the economy bottomed out, America's private sector has added 4.6 million jobs, while the nation's public sector has shed 571,000 jobs. Since the start of the recession, we've lost more jobs in government than any other sector of the economy. The public sector hasn't had it better than everyone else; the public sector has had it worse than everyone else
After the graphic aired, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham asked, "Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?" What a good question.
Update: "Fox & Friends" will reportedly air a correction tomorrow.
Leave a Comment:
Like I said at the beginning of this post, TRMS Blog Author & Media Matters, the two twin towers of truth.
Simply pathetic.
In recent months, we have heard much talk from the Republicans about protecting the “job creators”. Let’s suppose you have a business that made five hundred million dollars in profits last year. You have many options for investing your money. You can buy stocks or bonds or gold. You can put it in a mutual fund or send it to your bank account in the Caymans. Or you can invest it in your business. Your decision will be based on which investment will yield the biggest return.
The only reason you would invest your profits back into your business would be to increase the profitability of that business. There are many ways you could do this. You could invest in new equipment to produce your product or service more efficiently. You could buy advertising to attract more customers. If your business is publicly traded, you could buy back some of your stock to increase the dividend per share. Or you could hire more people to take care of an expected increase in the number of customers. Of course, if you do not expect an increase in the number of customers, there is no need to hire more people.
If your business is to attract more customers, you must be selling a product or service that people believe they want and need. They must also have confidence in your company and your product or service. And they must have the money to purchase your product or service or a way to borrow it. If any of these factors are absent, the customer will not buy. Businesses across the country provide products and services that people want and need. Many have spent years building the reputation of their company and its goods so that customers can buy with confidence. That means the only reason people are not buying is because they do not have any money or any way to acquire it.
So if our politicians are so interested in helping the “job creators”, they need to tell us how they are going to put more money in the pockets of consumers so they will have the means to buy the goods and services they want and need from companies they trust. Until they can do this, all their talk about helping “job creators” is just so much smoke and mirrors to conceal their support of those who pour money into their campaign coffers.
So the next time you hear a politician talk about “job creators”, ask them how they will create more consumers so the “job creators” will want and need to hire more people. If they can’t answer that question, they don’t deserve your vote.
I used to switch from Fox to MSNBC toCNN and then watch Washington Journal onC-Span. I have dropped Fox out of the rotation because they are so dishonest. If you Ever hear anything on Fox better fact check it cause its probably a lie. Republicans cant tell the truth if they wanted.
Ironically, Republicans talk about reducing government overhead and when the President cuts federal jobs, (which is what they preach) they use that in a comparison against the overall unemployment and against him.
To be honest with you we really need to put our government workers that work in the House and Senate on unemployment, they need a reality check and need to know how the real world is in America.
Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (2011-2012)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.
Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400
A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.
Benefits Paid to Members of Congress
You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that's a myth.
Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, they were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.
Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.
Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System(FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System(CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.
As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.
The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
Before we had TV, the circus would come to town to entertain people and to cheat them out of money. P.T. Barnum said "their's a sucker born every minute". Fox News is the new circus.
Unfortunately, the culture of integrity in journalism has gradually eroded over time as companies like Fox News have demostrated that you can gain followers and in fact gain power over information even if you are not accurate. From the top of the organization right down to nobodies like this guy, the problem is going to continue until sheep wake up.
Fox Undercover