On job-loss numbers, Fox's Garrett changed the metric, falsely asserting Obama's statement was untrue
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Summary: On Special Report, Major Garrett falsely accused President-elect Obama of making an untrue assertion when Obama said that the 2.589 million jobs lost in 2008 were "the most since World War II." In fact, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there has been no greater net job decline in any calendar year since the end of World War II than occurred in 2008.
During the January 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox News senior White House correspondent Major Garrett falsely accused President-elect Barack Obama of making a false statement when Obama said in a January 11 interview on ABC's This Week that the 2.589 million jobs lost in 2008 were "the most since World War II." In fact, in raw numbers, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there has been no greater net job decline in any calendar year since the end of World War II than occurred in 2008.
During the This Week interview with host George Stephanopoulos, Obama said: "[T]he jobs numbers this week were terrible. That means we've lost 2.5 million last year. That's the most since World War II."
Garrett said of Obama's comments: "Mr. Obama says the 2.6 million jobs lost last year was the worst since 1945. Is that true? No." Garrett continued:
Last year's job losses were the fifth worst since 1945. The key statistic is percentage of workforce laid off, meaning the number of layoffs as a percentage of the entire workforce. In 1945, 6.6 percent of workers lost their jobs. Last year, 1.9 percent lost their jobs. Are things bad now? Of course they are. As bad as 1945? No. And four years -- four other years between then and now were much worse than what we've just gone through.
Rather than note that he was using a different index from Obama -- percentage loss rather than net loss -- Garrett simply accused Obama of a falsehood. In fact, data from the BLS, shown in the graph [1] below, confirm that the estimated net job loss for 2008, totaling 2.589 million jobs, was indeed the worst in absolute numbers since 1945, when 2.75 million jobs were lost:
Garrett also claimed that "four years or other years between then [1945] and now were much worse" than 2008 in terms of percentage of jobs lost. But BLS statistics show only two years during that period that fit Garrett's description. Job losses reached 3.4 percent in 1949 and 2.3 percent in 1982, as shown in the graph [2] below:
From the January 12 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
GARRETT: On the spending side, Las Vegas is seeking funds for an organized crime museum, calling it a surefire tourist attraction and job creator. Mr. Obama came close but did not rub out the mob museum.
[begin video clip]
OBAMA: The country's mayors put together here a range of projects we can do. We didn't include that.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host, ABC's This Week): But would you want to fund it or not?
OBAMA: Well, I think what we have to do is evaluate whether or not these are projects that, as I said, are going to provide long-term benefits to the economy.
[end video clip]
GARRETT: Now, some number crunching. Mr. Obama says the 2.6 million jobs lost last year was the worst since 1945. Is that true? No. Last year's job losses were the fifth worst since 1945. The key statistic is percentage of workforce laid off, meaning the number of layoffs as a percentage of the entire workforce. In 1945, 6.6 percent of workers lost their jobs. Last year, 1.9 percent lost their jobs. Are things bad now? Of course they are. As bad as 1945? No. And four years -- four other years between then and now were much worse than what we've just gone through -- Bret.
BAIER: All right, Major. Thanks.
[1] These data were obtained from the BLS database by modifying the search using the "More Formatting Options" link with the following parameters:
Data: 12 Months Net
Change
Time frame: 1945 to
2008
Time period:
December
[2] These data were obtained from the BLS database by modifying the search using the "More Formatting Options" link with the following parameters:
Data: 12 Months Percent
Change
Time frame: 1945 to
2008
Time period:
December
just to be a rascal here, are they showing positive job loss above y=0 and negative job loss below that demarcation line ???
A real journalist should be able to distinguish the word "most" (which is quantifiable), the term Barack Obama used to describe 2008 job losses, and the adjective "worst", which Garrett himself, the purported journalist, attributed to Obama.
I'm curious what Garret's (FOX's) point was? Things are OK?
Maybe he's pointing out the dangers of underpopulation. If we make as many babies as possible, it'll be hard for unemployment to keep up with that exploding healthy rate of reproduction.
They are in a full " diminish Obama " mode. they lost and have nothing to offer. Ailes ( GHW Bush 's boy ) spent enormous amounts of money to help destroy the democratic party by implicitly and explicity labeling them as liberals, therefore unpatriotic. Didn't work. All they got out of this is a capital ship named after a one term president that lied about raising taxes and did nothing of historical importance ( some may argue liberating Kuwait was a good thing but ..... ) I must say he did stop Cheney from doing a stupid thing in 1991 going into bahghdad.
They are in a full " diminish Obama " mode. they lost and have nothing to offer. Ailes ( GHW Bush 's boy ) spent enormous amounts of money to help destroy the democratic party by implicitly and explicity labeling them as liberals, therefore unpatriotic.
NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, BET, PBS, WaPO, NYT, LAT have pounded on Bush for 8 years, much of it unfair. Please don't whine about it coming back at your guy.
How did Ailes stop Cheney in 1991? Hey, next time remember to break the pills in half.
It IS balanced (if you use the right metric). They are going to balance 8 years of twisting and bending 'facts' to make the Bush Administration look good, with 4-8 years of twisting and bending to make the Obama Administration look bad.
See, on balance they ARE being fair. </snark>
There is one other thing that they didn't point out here. In 1945 the bulk of the jobs that were lost were women leaving the plants and going back to the home. So you can't count those jobs but he did.
This sounds like the typical conservative MACROeconomics spin to me. Conservatives like to get back away from a problem, "to see the big picture." That really is just a device to avoid seeing the individual hardship in the numbers. Obama is correct: 2.5 million individual workers lost their jobs in 2008. 2.5 million families were disrupted or displaced by the poor job market in 2008. There have not been 2.5 million workers put out on the sidewalk in one calendar year since WWII. Foxman Garrett is just wheedling a point to make a story, so he won't be part of 2009's statistics.
How utterly funny...mmfa hoisted with their own petard.
This raw numbers vs. percentages game is played by mmfa all the time when defending their liberal dogma.
The scorecard? Obama - correct...Garrett - partly correct...mmfa - nice job as referee with the BLS stats.
2008 was the worst year since 1945 in net job losses...and the 4th worst year in net percentage losses...not a pretty picture no matter the spin.
How utterly funny...mmfa hoisted with their own petard.
It's not that at all... Garrett misrepresented what Obama said. Obama said "most"; Garrett reported that Obama incorrectly said "worst". Personally, I appreciate knowing the proportional percentage along with the raw numbers, but there is a responsible way of informing the public of other metrics without misrepresenting what Obama said. Sean Hannity, for example, is accusing Obama of "lying" about the numbers. In reality, what Obama has said is 100% factually accurate.
Right, there's a difference between saying "that's true, but..." and explaining that the numbers cited don't necessarily make it the worst year and saying "that's not true". Making the percentage clear is a valid point to make, and he should make it the right way instead of saying that Obama said something he didn't actually say.
This raw numbers vs. percentages game is played by mmfa all the time when defending their liberal dogma
No, usually pointing out when the two are conflated or interchanged dishonestly to promote conservative dogma. Just like in this item. Good try, Wes, but no score.
Also, the fact is that FOX has displayed an annoyingly consistent tendency to paraphrase Barack Obama's words rather than quoting him correctly or simply running a tape of what he actually said. Best example is FOX's insistence that Obama has said he wants to invade/attack our ally Pakistan. As I said, FOX could have responsibly argued that Obama's statement regarding "most" job losses since 1945 wasn't the only way of looking at the situation. Instead they misquoted him and said he was untruthful. The loss of over two and a half million jobs is staggering regardless of its ratio to overall jobs. Obama was not being untruthful, as Garrett accused him...that's the point.
Obama's going to need to be side stepping bombs left and right going forward. It's amzing how well his administration's handled this sort of garbae so far.
My favorite is when some righty talker doesn't even quote. They just do their mind reading and tell you what someone on the left is really thinking. This is an example of why I, and others, call it Faux News.