In February of this year, new unemplyment claims were initially REPORTED to be 348,000: TWICE (two separate weeks). The number of nw unemployment claims for the prevouis week is reported every Thursday. Again, two separate times, in or about February, this weekly number wsa reorted to be 348,000.
Okay. TODAY, the lLabor Depepartment reported new jobless claims for last week to be 350,000: 2,000 MORFE than the number TWICE reported in February. This is yet another case of this blog being RIGHT, as this blog pointed all of this out AT THE TIME (February, when this kind of thing happened the first time). So HOW could even our DISHONEST/INCOMPETENT media say that 350,000 is the "lowest number of new jobless claims in four years?" Easy. I have already given you the answer. Our media is INCOMPETENT/DISHONEST (including the unfair and unbalanced network). On an apples-to-a00les basis, the number of new unemplyment claims wAS reproted TWICE (in or about February) to be 348,000. But that number was REVISED TWICE (to at least 351,000--the "official" "lowest number in four years"). What our dishonest media--certainly the unfair and unbalanced network--have done is compare an UNREVISED number (the 350,000 reprted today) with a REVISED NUMBER (the 353,0000 EXPECTED to be reported next week, in a REVISION of the 350,000 reported today). That is EXACTLY what happened in February, when TWICE the 348,000 number initially reported was REVISED to 351,000. The media actualy did the same thing in February (maybe extending into early March), which waw LIE: . The media acted, then as now, like the 38,o000 earlier report had nNEVER HAPPENED, and tried to compare the UNREVISED NUMBER with the previous REVISED NUMBER (even though the initialy reported number was the SAME, or HIGHER). Thus, the media headline in Feburuary (maybe, again, exending into early March) TWICE was that new unemployment claims were "improving' since we had "improved" to the "llowest level in four years". The Media reported this despite the FACT that this LYING headline ignored the FACT that the headline number was the SAME as the number repoteed weeks earlier. TWICE the media had headlines that we had reached the "lowest level of unemplyment claims in four years", and TWICE it turned out to be a LIE. yep. TWICE, the number wsa again rfEVISED to 3510,000, or higher, the next week. One time, the intially reported number was the SAME 348,000. The other time it was 350,000, the SAME number intially reported today, which will be REVISED next week (very probably to above 351,000).
Thus, THREE TIMES the media has used the SAME headline based on tghe SAME LIE (comparing an unrevised number with revised numbers). The fundamental LIE here, of couse, is reporting the weekly number like it is a CONCRETE number, when it is subject to REVISON the nextg week. The lie goes beyond thatm owever, as the media never seems to really report that the number is SEASONALLY ADJUSTED in a MAJOR, and FALLIBLE, way. But that is the LIE I will talk about in the next article. This is the obvioiusl LIE of constantly saying that 350,000 (or as low as 348,000) represents the "lowest numbe in four years", when that number ws first REPORTED in early February (and when the intially repoprted number is almost ALWAYS revsided yupward).
Notice that the media has set itself up for the SAME HEADLINE, based on the SAME NUMBER, for a FOURTH TIME. Yep. The EXPECTGED revision of this week's number next week is to 353,000. For example, last week's initailly reported number was 374,000, REVISED hhis week to 376,000 (1,000 less than expected). What happens next week if the reported number is 350,000, while this week's number is revised to 353,000? Right. The headline AGAIN will be: "lowest number in four years".--an obvious LIE. It is no less a LIE because you have to go back tgo February to see when the media first started this LIE.
As stated in the previous article, to which this is a follow-up from a slightly different pont of view (not so much focused on the unfair and unbalanced network)., SOME of the media actuallyl got it somewhat right this week because of tghe OBVIOUS "seasonal adjustment" glitch, and obvius aberratino of this weekly number (maybe also involving the 4th of July holiday). However, this has gotten me sTEAMING MAD--foaming at the mouth mad. How can people keep utting out the SAME LIE, and setting up the SAME LIE AGAIN, and have ANY SHAME or AnY CREDIBILITY? They can't.
"But, Skip, waht difference does it really make that todlay's number may be revised next week to ,000 above the "lowest number in four years", rather tan 1,000 above it. It is reallyl the same number--well within the margin of error--as you, yourself have pointed out.'
EXACTLY. That is why this makes me so ANGRY. That is why it is SO BAD. It would actualy be a LIE , ad was a LIE, to say that the 35p,000 was the "lowest number in four years", when we had supposedly reached that same level CONSISTENTLY in February of this eyar. Taht is what makes these "journalists" so DISHOENST. They should ALL jsut fall on their swords. They are not fit to live. The ONLY reason to say something StUPID like "lowest nummber in four years'--when it BOTGH compares applews and oranges and ignores that we were at the same LEVEL in February--is because it SOUNDS DRAMATIC. In other words, the modern "journalists" is UNINTERESTE IN THE FACTS, or in reality. Al the "modern journalist" is interested in is "dramatic statements" and RATINGS. That is why Gallyup says that only 21% of the peole have "confidence" in TV news: a level close to that of Congress and the worst since Gallup started makng this survey.
Jus how STuPID oare modern "journalists": they keep repeating the same outrageous "journalistic" atrocities that have cause d them to LOSE ALL RESPECT AND ALMOST ALL AUDIENCE (the most DESERVED "puhishment" in the history of man). These peole DESERVE what they are getting, as they are in a DEATH SPIRAL.
Yes. I still plan an article tomorrow actually analyzing today's jobless claims number, in a correct manner. That is what you expect of me, and I plan to try to give it to you. I admit I was sidetracked by outright FURY today. The unfair and unbalanced network has pushed ALL OF MY BUTTONS today, and showed that they are NO BETTER than the mainstream media (shown it again, I should say). As I statd, the Yahoo "News" mainstream media headlinestory was actually much BETTER than the unfair and unbalanced network, and (unlike other conservatives) I refuse to COVER for the disgraceful peole. I have nothing but CONTGEMLPT for them, and for trhe nettwork as a whole-not, again, because of any ONE particlular story, but because of a general DISINTEREST in FACTS in faovr of "dramatics" and RATINGS. These peole are LAZY, and they are BAD. As with CNN , I DAER anyohe to defend the unfair and unbalanced network on this blog.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). We should probably start a bettng pool How many times do you ting that the media, or any major part of them, will repeat the SAME HEADLINE based on a reprt of 350,000 new jobless claims I thin kthe number is only limited by the number of times we manage to hit the 350,000 (or down to 348,000) number before we hit a lower nubmber. I don't think the number is limited by the SHAME or STANDARDS of the media. They have NO SHAME, and they have NO STANDARDS. They are willing to repeat the same hewdline week after week, as they already do in failing to acknowledge that the "concrete" number they "report" is ALWEAYS revised the nextg week (with only very rare exceptions), and ALWAYS UPWARD (again with only very rare exceptins). If you are willing to repeat this LIE (ignoring the coming revision, and reporting a number consistently LOWER than the final number), then you are obivusly willing to repeat the headline about "lowest number in four years" for 52 stragith weeks (if it comes to that). Do you reallize that--even if lunlikely--it is POSSIBLE for the media to use this sAME headlne for 52 straight weeks, with a REPORTED number of 350,000 every single one of those 52 weeks? And peole wonder why I am such a pessimist. As for you people at the unfair and unbalanced network: BITE ME. I have NO RESPECT FOR YOU.