Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:30:51 AM
I am always amazed at how the media can spin any item of news to be either good or bad depending on their whims. I covered this topic in an
earlier essay, but some new figures have reminded me of this.
Recently, it
has been reported that the disparity in life spans between the richest and poorest is increasing. What this headline fails to note is that the underlying numbers show everyone is living longer, the poor just less than the rich. In 1980-1982 the poor lived to 73 and the rich to 75.8. In 1998-2000 the poor lived to 74.7 and the rich to 79.2. But rather than reporting a general increase in life expectancy, the NYT decided to spin this as an increase in the disparity between rich and poor.
Why?
I know some will call me paranoid, but I have to think at least part of this is because of the current office holder in the White House.
There is a precedent. Does everyone not recall all the stories during the Reagan era about the widening gap between rich and poor? Of course, at that time, the press completely ignored the increasing prosperity, and how both rich and poor were better off, all they saw was the growing gap. But, a decade later, when the dot com bubble again raised incomes, there was also an increasing disparity between rich and poor, yet the press chose to focus on the increasing wealth rather than the income gap.
Likewise, when Clinton hit 5% unemployment it was am triumph, for Bush it is a crisis. The same for economic growth numbers, job creation numbers, and on and on. It seems the headlines do not correlate with the numbers, but with the office holder*.
Does anyone think this is any different?
Had these numbers come out during an Obama or Clinton presidency, does anyone doubt the NYT headline would read "Lifespans Increasing"?
-----------------------------------------
* I will grant that negative spins tend to be favored as doom and gloom sells better. Still, there does seem to be political bias at work. While the media favors negative spins, they more often spike their bad news during Democrat administrations. Take this story as an example. We know how it runs during a Republican administration. As "lifespans increase" may not sell papers, they may think they have the choice of negative spin or spiking it. During a Democratic presidency, odds are good it would be spiked rather than run with the negative headline.