I for one am getting tired of the half- to full-page critics of this administration with The Associate Press as the only news source. The “spin” is always against any positive thing this president does right.

For example, in the article by the AP ("Trump's wrong on strongest economy, if NYT column treason," The Daily News, Sept. 9) and under the sub-headline "economy," which said, “TRUMP: 'The Economy is booming like never before, jobs are at Historic Highs. — tweet Thursday.” The "facts" portion went on to state ... "That’s the best in the past four years… unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is strong but it's not at the best point ever.” Other parts of the critic were similar going back to 1953, 1997, etc.; most people don’t have that long-term memory.

My suggestion is to compare the past two or three presidential eras — or better yet — compare the past two presidents to show the true progress of this administration.

All I want is fair and balanced news. Like it or credit it or not, there is progress being made. Don’t be a part of the problem that keeps fueling the fire of “division” that grows out of partial news feeds.

Ella Chase

Texas City

Locations

(25) comments

Carlos Ponce

I remember that Fact Check presented on the GCDN by Hope Yen, Associated Press.
"The unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is strong but it’s not at the best point ever. It is near an 18-year low. The all-time low came in 1953, when unemployment fell to 2.5 percent during the Korean War."
1953 was a different era when women made up less than one-third of the work force (31%). Working women of that era were teachers, nurses, actresses, stewardesses, etc. But two-thirds of the women in the United States, like my mother, were among the unpaid workers called "housewives". God bless them! They were not considered among the unemployed of that era but also drew no salary. So when you look at the 2.5% unemployment rate for 1953 it appears lower but you really cannot compare it to 2018 when women make up 51% of the work force according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Just another AP "We'll just report what we want you to know" articles. AP writers live in a bubble where if it's not anti-Trump they won't print it.

Jim Forsythe

We have changed who we count as employed in the past. But we still go by "all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks.".
Carlos you forgot about September 2000 to December 2000 when it was 3.9.
Also the time from February 1966 until December 1969 when the rate was below 3.9
except for 3 Months .

Carlos Ponce

Jim, I was just responding to the 1953 mentioned in the letter.

Jim Forsythe

What in Hope Yen statement was not true? She could have also included the facts I stated, but she was not writing a book.
"The unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is strong but it’s not at the best point ever. It is near an 18-year low. The all-time low came in 1953, when unemployment fell to 2.5 percent during the Korean War."

When things are going OK, why try and exaggerate the facts? Trumps statements below.
MR. TRUMP: "The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!" -- tweet Monday.
MR. TRUMP: "We are breaking all Jobs and Economic Records." — tweet Saturday.
MR. TRUMP: "The Economy is booming like never before, Jobs are at Historic Highs." — tweet Thursday.
The facts.
Economic growth reached 4.2 percent at an annualized rate in the second quarter, while the unemployment rate stands at 3.9 percent. Yet GDP growth has exceeded the unemployment rate more than a dozen times since the late 1940s, such as during the economic expansions of the 1950s and the late 1990s.
So far, the economy is growing at a modest rate compared with previous economic expansions. In the late 1990s, growth topped 4 percent for four straight years, from 1997 through 2000. In the 1980s expansion, growth even reached 7.2 percent in 1984.


Carlos Ponce

"What in Hope Yen statement was not true?"
She used disparate statistics in her AP presentation. The 1953 data does not account for the un-salaried female population of that era which made up a clear majority of working age women (69%).

Jim Forsythe

The employment rate for woman was 2.7 on June 1953. Just as today, if a person stays home and take care of children and or family, they do not count as far as the numbers of the employed or unemployed.
If we went by the way you want to change it, what is the rate today, accounting for the people that stay home and takes care of family (un-salaried female)? It would not be what it is today.
The share of mothers who do not work outside the home rose to 29% in 2012, up from a modern-era low of 23% in 1999. The number of fathers who do not work outside the home has risen

You can not make up parameters to fit your fit your idea. The way the numbers are calculated has changed at different times, but when you talk about the number employed, they are what you go by.

Carlos Ponce

"The employment rate for woman was 2.7 on June 1953"
I suppose you mean the UNemployment rate.
But that involves only 31% of American working age women in 1953.
69% were un-salaried housewives.
The comparison of the two years is invalid from a statistical view.

Jim Forsythe

Yes The employment rate for woman was 2.7 on June 1953 was the Unemployment rate.
But if you are going to say the rate was higher than the official rate in 1953, than you would have to recalculate the 2018 rates to include the people that could be working. The U3 rate is a marker that is done today as it was in 1953 History is not rewritten because someone says something that does not match the facts.
What would your recalculated Unemployment rate for 1953 be?
What would your recalculated Unemployment rate for 2018 be?
You can not do one, without doing the other.


Carlos Ponce

The comparison is invalid.

Jim Forsythe

The facts are:
"The unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is strong but it’s not at the best point ever. It is near an 18-year low. The all-time low came in 1953, when unemployment fell to 2.5 percent during the Korean War."
This time period includes 1953 the rate was 2.7 also from February 1966 until December 1969 when the rate was below 3.9 except for 3 Months and September 2000 to December 2000 when it was 3.9.
These number are all included because she said ,"It is near an 18-year low" which would include all of the above, all the way back to 1953 which she included in her text..
.
The above are official numbers provided by the government. You are trying to make up numbers that do not exist.

You never answered my questions.
What would your recalculated Unemployment rate for 1953 be?
What would your recalculated Unemployment rate for 2018 be?
You can not do one, without doing the other.
The reason you did not gave the numbers because they are not fact.
If you did answer, the 3.9 of today would have to be adjusted upward to take in account the stay at home people, taking care of family.

Carlos Ponce

"You never answered my questions."
Since the comparison is not valid it would be fruitless to run conjectures.

Jim Forsythe

The facts are:
"The unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is strong but it’s not at the best point ever. It is near an 18-year low. The all-time low came in 1953, when unemployment fell to 2.5 percent during the Korean War."
This time period includes 1953 the rate was 2.7 also from February 1966 until December 1969 when the rate was below 3.9 except for 3 Months and September 2000 to December 2000 when it was 3.9.
These number are all included because she said ,"It is near an 18-year low" which would include all of the above, all the way back to 1953 which she included in her text..

Paul Hyatt

The media has become so left wing I doubt that we will ever get a fair and balanced news group again. All of the alphabet news orgs only know how to spew forth what they want you to know and at the slant that they want it to have. They no longer report the facts and let the reader discern what the story means and again I doubt that they ever will again....

Emile Pope

Facts are facts. Tweets are not facts, especially when they provide no proof to support them. To compare an unsupported tweet to actual supported positions and complain that supporting evidence takes too much space makes no sense...

Carlos Ponce

"Tweets are not facts, especially when they provide no proof to support them.
Trump's "tweet" is supported by facts from Council of Economic Advisers Chair Kevin Hassett. Here's your "proof", Emile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrPEJp0Gto4

Emile Pope

Yeah right!!! Another "unbiased" source. Might as well cite Ivanka and Don Jr...

Gary Miller

Emile! Ivanka and Don jr are always more accurate and honest than CNN, CBS, ABC or NBC.

Carlos Ponce

Just don't cite Emile!

Carlos Ponce

"Yeah right!!! Another "unbiased" source."
If you find any of the facts presented questionable, let's see your rebuttal.

Emile Pope

The author complains about not getting balanced news. She considers trump's tweets as factual without any proof. Then they complain that the media providing facts to back their claims takes up too much space. Sorry but providing proof takes room to present it. Guess when you take a tweet as evidence then anything else it considered overkill...

George Croix

YOU complaining about 'no proof to support"....
Now THAT is funny.......................

Rusty Schroeder

[lol] yep.

George Croix

A simple fact is that no news is 'fair' if it doesn't reinforce what we want to believe....
It may be accurate, certainly is often in naccurate, but unless we get what we want, it ain't 'fair'.....
Now, truth?
Well, truth is an individual 'fairness'......

George Croix

Can any news be fair and balanced when there are ZERO opposing ideologies on the editorial boards or whatever the various media sources and types call them or even among the hosts or guests?

Maybe.....somewhere....just not in The United States in 2018, for sure......

Of course, with 'social media' we don't even get biased news and feedback - it's more like utter and total anarchy dressed up to look like a news salad and fed to people who will believe anything they read off the internet....

The internet is a lot like marrying the love of your life - you get the good part, but also any crazy relatives, besides your own, for in-laws......

Carlos Ponce

This says it all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.