|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Suppose, for instance, that the Bureau of Labor Statistics announces that the unemployment rate has risen to 6.3 percent from 6.1 percent.
In their article, the economists imagine two different takes on the story. One hypothetical version, with the headline "Recession Fears Grow," notes that 200,000 people have lost their jobs in the past quarter. It quotes a gloomy John Kenneth Galbraith comparing the president to Herbert Hoover and is illustrated with a photograph of a long line of people waiting for unemployment benefits.
The other, called "Turnaround in Sight," emphasizes the small magnitude of the increase - just 0.2 percent. It quotes the stock analyst Abby Joseph Cohen as saying the "softness in the labor market bodes well for corporate profitability," accompanied by a photo of a smiling Ms. Cohen.
"Each of these stories could easily have been written by a major U.S. newspaper," write Professors Mullainathan and Shleifer. "Neither story says anything false, yet they give radically different impressions."
But all the information is out there. Indeed, a wide-ranging reader would learn more from the two differently biased reports than from the raw unemployment figures.
- Virginia Postrel, "Another View of News Bias, as Selling Point," new york times may 19, 2005
posted May 19, 2005 in politics, print. 20042001