NCPA - National Center for Policy Analysis


June 7, 2004

The media exerts such a strong liberal bias, particularly with respect to economic conditions, that one need only know who's in the White House to know whether it's the best or worst of times, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).

Four years ago, during his campaign to replace Bill Clinton as president, George W. Bush had the bad taste to point out the economy was slowing -- a notion mocked by the media even though the overwhelming evidence of this phenomenon from economic data and stock market reports.

Conversely, when George H.W. Bush was in the White House eight years ago, and Clinton, Gore and 90 percent of the media wanted him out, the media spoke nothing but the ills of the economy:

  • Fully 92 percent of stories written about the economy in third quarter of 1992 were negative.
  • Yet the economic activity during that period was the strongest in 3 years and the country was in its 18th month of expansion.
  • When Clinton was elected just 14 percent of stories in November were negative, as compared to 90 percent the month before.

In surveying the coverage of the political campaigns during this election year, the same pattern of media bias has emerged: despite report after economic report containing nothing but good news, story after story, or so it seems, focus squarely on the negative, says IBD.

Source: Editorial, "Data Denial," Investors Business Daily, June 3, 2004.


Browse more articles on Economic Issues