About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox's Scott misled on Bush's "job gains" while suggesting media unfairly saying "this is the Bush economy"

July 12, 2009 6:48 pm ET

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.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Jon Scott misleadingly asserted that "there were month after month after month of job gains in the Bush administration. And yet ... this is the Bush economy as portrayed in the media." However, in the final year of the Bush administration, the economy lost more than 4 million jobs, and the unemployment rate rose nearly three percentage points.

13 Comments

On the July 11 edition of Fox News' Fox News Watch, host Jon Scott misleadingly asserted that "there were month after month after month of job gains in the Bush administration. And yet, you know, these days, this is the Bush economy as portrayed in the media." However, over the final year of George W. Bush's presidency, the economy lost more than 4 million jobs, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In addition, the unemployment rate rose from 4.9 percent in January 2008 to 7.6 percent in January 2009, and the employment-population ratio dropped from 62.9 percent in January 2008 to 60.5 percent in January 2009.

Media Matters for America has previously documented other media figures misrepresenting employment numbers under the Bush administration or suggesting that President Obama is to blame for job losses that occurred under Bush or within weeks of Obama taking office.

From the July 11 edition of Fox News' Fox News Watch:

SCOTT: What about what the vice president said there, though. When he says -- when he says, gosh, we just didn't understand how bad this economy was. They had promised to keep unemployment under what, eight, 8.5 percent.

OFF-CAMERA VOICE: Yeah.

JAMES PINKERTON (Fox News contributor): They said it would peak at eight -- eight.

SCOTT: Peak at eight. OK, so why aren't they taking more heat in the media and the press?

ANDREA TANTAROS (Fox News political contributor): Well, because the media, I mean, they're scripting media questions, they're cozy with the media. We know this. I mean, what's the saying? Facts are stubborn things, though. They actually have to report that the numbers and the jobs just aren't being created. When it comes to Joe Biden, I mean, Republicans don't need to run against -- put up a message against Obama, his own vice president is doing a great job.

I think the double standard here, though, is Bush made tons of gaffes, and they were covered through and through. Joe Biden gets barely any coverage.

SCOTT: Let me throw this question at you, because you're representing the liberal side here, but, you know, there were month after month after month of job gains in the Bush administration. And yet, you know, these days, this is the Bush economy as portrayed in the media.

KIRSTEN POWERS (Fox News political analyst): Really? Cause I feel like it's the Obama economy. I feel like it's been --

SCOTT: Do you think it is now?

POWERS: I think that people -- yeah, I think the sentiment is that this belongs to Obama. Yes, he inherited a bad situation. But, you know --

SCOTT: Joe Biden was trying to turn it into the Bush economy.

OFF-CAMERA VOICE: Obama wouldn't agree.

POWERS: Well, I'm sure -- I'm sure they're going to continue to try to do that, but I don't think anybody is really buying that anymore.

— L.Y.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by harley (July 12, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
      3  
      Amazing how the reich-wing teabaggers have such short memories. At this point 8 years ago under herr dubyah it was "Clinton's economy". Hypocrites.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj2970 (July 13, 2009 12:20 am ET)
        3  
        You have them pegged. they simply have no ability to hold their own responsible. they always have to lay the guilt trip on someone else. Of course, that is why they get in these messes all the time. I mean, electing someone like GW twice. EEEEKS!!!!!!!!!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (July 13, 2009 11:20 am ET)
          5  
          In all fairness, Bush jr. was appointed the first time, not elected. :)
          Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (July 12, 2009 8:57 pm ET)
      2  
      One must go back farther than Pres Bush to see the economic collapse. The continuing loss of manufacturing jobs in this country since beginning of the global economy has made it clear that a new model for a successful economy must be used. Unless jobs that pay well can be restored , then the middle class will not so slowly disappear. I really hear very little discussion of how a recovery can occur without manufacturing jobs that pay well.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 13, 2009 9:36 am ET)
        1  
        The end result of supply-side economics (the dominant, though now waning, economic theory in practice since 1980) can only ever be that wages will not keep up with inflation and the cost of living.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (July 12, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
      1  
      Idiots like this are just politicizing what is agonizing pain for millions of Americans.

      There is not a switch that says as of Jan 21, 2009, all problems in the economy caused by the failures of the past 8 years policies are now suddenly erased and replaced by someone else.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Tooncewhakka (July 12, 2009 9:55 pm ET)
         
      The real danger is in letting our guard down and allowing the Republicans to re-brand the devastating Bush Economy as anything other than what it is - the result of 8 years of applied Republican policies and lack of oversight. If they are too embarassed to claim it too 'effin bad. The GOP can't throw this prom-night baby out in the trash no matter how hard they try, and try they will.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (July 12, 2009 10:30 pm ET)
      4  
      Under Reagan, unemployment peaked in 1983 - more than two years into his presidency - yet, to this day, Republicans call it Carter's economy. And Reagan had a top marginal tax rate of 50% to help him pay for his "recovery". Just a lot of "misremembering" by the Republican party and its mouthpieces - yet again.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (July 12, 2009 11:09 pm ET)
        2  
        Great points, R&R. I often wonder why those specifics about Reagan are not repeated more often by those on the left ...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (July 13, 2009 6:22 am ET)
      2  
      The right wing crackpots are sort of like a person that goes to Las Vegas for a couple of weeks and boasts that they won a couple of grand at the craps table one day.

      What they always seem to forget is all the other money they lost on the other days
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tinka (July 13, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
      2  
      The months and months of Bush's new jobs would include all the soldiers that enlisted to fight Bush's illegal WAR!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (July 13, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
           
        One thing that the Republicans who froth at the mouth over Clinton never want to talk about is the net gained/lost job numbers in Clinton's administration as opposed to Shrub's.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.