Hasn't the economy always been part of a political stance? The economy is one of the top 2/3 factors that people consider when voting, hence being important for re-election. It would be in the best interest of anyone trying to run for election to strategically paint a good/bad picture of the economy. This has been the case probably going back to the 1930s if I were to guess.
It certainly impacts people's votes, but when I go to a news site I don't think in the 70s, 80s, etc you'd find people trying so very hard to say a contracting economy is just a "transition" and not a recession. My point is mostly on what the press is doing in their reporting and trying to protect the current party in power ahead of the mid-terms. I know it would be the opposite if things were reversed, with Fox denying the economic reality. I just find it pretty pathetic. What would be the harm in reporting we are in a mild recession other than it runs counter to the White House?
The press is one of the most loathed things in the country and they always seem to dig their grave even deeper.
I see what you're saying as I reflect on the current landscape of media in general. To be fair I was born in the 90s, so no real idea of what the media landscape was pre-2000s basically. The media now is obviously much different, no internet back in the 70s, news sources were seemingly more trustworthy, there was maybe less political division?
To run a counterpoint though, recessions are self-reinforcing. I think what the Fed has tried to do with all its might is to keep the picture as rosy as possible. Once it is officially out there, companies start cutting budgets, people tighten their wallets anticipating harder times, and it just kind of goes in a few cycles like this.
I also find it pathetic. However the press is open to enterprising individuals. We don’t have to keep patronizing the same lousy news outlets. Who’s got the real scoop these days?
