In spending the first two years of his presidency bashing big business, President Obama made it clear that chief executives were anathema. As a result of his open hostility, he earned many enemies in the boardrooms of corporate America.
However, with the presidential election now two years away, the President has done an about two-face. He wants us to believe he has shed his anti-business suit and cloaked himself in American free enterprise. Of course, no one would dare suggest that perhaps the President is motivated by the need to raise an estimated $900 million for his re-election campaign.
In his latest show of corporate love, the President named General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head up the new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. As expected, the lap-dog news media hailed the announcement as another sign of the President's pro-business agenda.
However, the media failed to report what's behind the selection of Immelt.
For starters, General Electric was one of the top donors to President Obama's election campaign in 2008. In addition, Immelt dug into his own silk-lined pockets and made generous donations from his personal funds. As a result, Immelt is one of the few executives who has Obama's elephantine ears.
In the months since Obama's election, Immelt has been the president's constant cheerleader, even supporting the toxic cap-and-trade scheme most businesses opposed. While many corporate leaders and their industries have been bludgeoned by the President's rhetoric, General Electric has honeymooned its way to an enviable position.
It also hasn't hurt that GE has used its ownership of NBC and MSNBC to slather on praise for the President. Those two networks can always be counted on to find the silver lining in the President's every dark cloud. Now that GE has relinquished control of the media division to Comcast, it will be interesting to watch if the fawning coverage continues.
Make no mistake about it, GE has benefited from its media position as well as its corporate largess.
General Electric Energy-Industrial Solutions is busy developing electric vehicle charging stations. Much of the initial testing was done on the Chevrolet Volt, which just happens to be a General Motors product. At the time this research and development was underway, the Obama Government was majority owner of GM.
After GM began full production of Volt, guess which company announced it would purchase up to 10,000 of the new electric cars? That would be General Electric. As a result of GE's commitment, the Volt is almost guaranteed to meet its sales goals which will allow the President to claim success for the government bailout of GM.
As more electric cars are purchased, GE builds more charging stations. It is a classic case of quid-pro-quid political-business behavior.
But that's only the tip of the corporate iceberg. GE is one of the world's largest manufacturers of clean energy and related technologies that have been extolled by the president. The firm makes everything from large wind turbines to solar panels. Let's not forget GE also plays a huge role in health care and defense.
And it doesn't stop there. Hardly any journalistic eyebrows were raised by the fact General Electric received $80 billion in TARP funds during the financial crisis. The mega billion dollar firm was granted the loans by taking advantage of its ownership of two tiny banks in Utah.
No one in the media has had the temerity to connect all the dots. The Amen Chorus in print and broadcast is sticking to its song sheet, which has no sour notes when it comes to President Obama.
Instead, a vigilant media should be waving the red flag, warning of potential conflicts of interest. GE's current and future profits are closely intertwined with the policies of the Obama Administration. Small wonder that President Obama and Jeffrey Immelt have practically worn out their hands scratching each other's back.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Calls for Civility Don't Apply To Abortion
More Americans die each year in the backrooms of clinics than on the battlefields. Cancer and heart disease, combined, claim fewer victims annually. Yet these deaths are never reported in the media, never mentioned by the President and never mourned in public. They are the forgotten, the unprotected, the shunned.
These victims are the millions of babies aborted each year in the United States. Your tax dollars help fund many of the clinics where the abortions are performed. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute documented the chilling facts most Americans either choose to ignore or hope to bury:
1. More than 1.2 million babies are aborted each year. That's 3,288 every day.
2. Only one percent of all abortions are performed because of rape and incest.
3. About 47 percent of all women who have abortions will have two or more.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 500,000 abortions are done each year after the eighth week of pregnancy. Sadly, 55 abortions are performed every day on women carrying a child five months or older, the department's statistics show. Not even the most ardent pro-choice advocate can claim these are "fetuses."
Today marks the 38th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion. Until that ruling in 1973, abortion was not legal in most states. The court case put the country's stamp of approval on ending the lives of millions of unborn babies.
In marking the anniversary, President Obama said in a statement that the "government should not intrude on private family matters" in supporting the court decision. His remark ranks as the height of hypocrisy, since the President's health care law inserts the government in medical decisions previously reserved for families.
While the President and his echo chamber in the news media clamor for more civility, it appears that courtesy and politeness do not extend to the treatment of unborn babies in America.
It is indeed a sad day in our country when the true test of civility--how we treat the most vulnerable among us--goes unsupported by the President, by most in his political party and by the amoral news media.
Words mean nothing. Action speaks the loudest when it comes to civility. As long as the unborn have no rights to life and liberty, calls for civility are nothing more than political double-speak.
These victims are the millions of babies aborted each year in the United States. Your tax dollars help fund many of the clinics where the abortions are performed. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute documented the chilling facts most Americans either choose to ignore or hope to bury:
1. More than 1.2 million babies are aborted each year. That's 3,288 every day.
2. Only one percent of all abortions are performed because of rape and incest.
3. About 47 percent of all women who have abortions will have two or more.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 500,000 abortions are done each year after the eighth week of pregnancy. Sadly, 55 abortions are performed every day on women carrying a child five months or older, the department's statistics show. Not even the most ardent pro-choice advocate can claim these are "fetuses."
Today marks the 38th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion. Until that ruling in 1973, abortion was not legal in most states. The court case put the country's stamp of approval on ending the lives of millions of unborn babies.
In marking the anniversary, President Obama said in a statement that the "government should not intrude on private family matters" in supporting the court decision. His remark ranks as the height of hypocrisy, since the President's health care law inserts the government in medical decisions previously reserved for families.
While the President and his echo chamber in the news media clamor for more civility, it appears that courtesy and politeness do not extend to the treatment of unborn babies in America.
It is indeed a sad day in our country when the true test of civility--how we treat the most vulnerable among us--goes unsupported by the President, by most in his political party and by the amoral news media.
Words mean nothing. Action speaks the loudest when it comes to civility. As long as the unborn have no rights to life and liberty, calls for civility are nothing more than political double-speak.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Market Braces For Tablet Mania
When Apple ushered in the iPad era in April of last year, few experts envisioned the device would energize a once moribund market for tablet computers. In recent weeks, virtually every high-tech wannabe has unveiled plans for its own copycat machine. As a matter of fact, it would surprise no one if McDonald's offered a tablet with each Happy Meal.
The iPad's eye-popping sales figures have fueled a mad dash to capture the burgeoning market for touch-screen computers. In its most recent earnings report, the Cupertino, California-based firm announced it sold 14.79 million tablets in the last nine months, exceeding even the most optimistic forecasts. iPad sales in the final quarter were 7.33 million, signaling sales strength beyond so-called early adopter cosumer segment.
Market research firm IDC estimated that Apple accounted for nearly 90 percent of all tablets sold worldwide. What is more impressive is that Apple has invaded the corporate market, selling tablets to more than 80 percent of the Fortune 100 companies, according to Apple's chief financial officer.
In its latest forecast, Forrester Research predicted that tablet sales will more than double this year. By 2015, more than one-third of American consumers will own tablet computers, according to the tech industry research firm. No wonder tech firms are salivating.
Companies such as Toshiba, Motorola, Vizio and Samsung have rolled out their own tablet models geared to take advantage of consumer demand. Research in Motion (RIM) plans a 4G version this summer, forecasting sales of four million units. Those firms could be expected to follow Apple's lead, however, they aren't the only ones desperate to leap into the table wars.
Qualcomm, the San Diego based company that is a supplier of microchips, recently announced it had purchased Atheros Communications, Inc., which makes chips for tablets. More importantly, Atheros already has a business relationship with Apple, supplying chips for iPhones. Qualcomm spent $3.2 billion and never looked back.
As the competition heats up, it will be difficult for the firms chasing Apple to catch up. The company has such a huge lead in technology and market penetration that competitors will have to slash prices to make any dent in Apple's share. As the consumer market becomes saturated, expect the next battleground to be businesses.
Even as the competition scrambles to rush tablets to market, Apple is hatching plans for an updated version of its innovative iPad. The new model likely will debut in the summer.
With so many tablets flooding the market, not every firm can be successful. RIM and Samsung appear to be the best positioned among Apple's competitors. By next year, a number of companies will be retrenching because the demand cannot sustain the expected tide of tablet products.
However, there is no doubt of the winner in the tablet market. Apple has a clear lead and it is not likely to give up its position any time soon.
The iPad's eye-popping sales figures have fueled a mad dash to capture the burgeoning market for touch-screen computers. In its most recent earnings report, the Cupertino, California-based firm announced it sold 14.79 million tablets in the last nine months, exceeding even the most optimistic forecasts. iPad sales in the final quarter were 7.33 million, signaling sales strength beyond so-called early adopter cosumer segment.
Market research firm IDC estimated that Apple accounted for nearly 90 percent of all tablets sold worldwide. What is more impressive is that Apple has invaded the corporate market, selling tablets to more than 80 percent of the Fortune 100 companies, according to Apple's chief financial officer.
In its latest forecast, Forrester Research predicted that tablet sales will more than double this year. By 2015, more than one-third of American consumers will own tablet computers, according to the tech industry research firm. No wonder tech firms are salivating.
Companies such as Toshiba, Motorola, Vizio and Samsung have rolled out their own tablet models geared to take advantage of consumer demand. Research in Motion (RIM) plans a 4G version this summer, forecasting sales of four million units. Those firms could be expected to follow Apple's lead, however, they aren't the only ones desperate to leap into the table wars.
Qualcomm, the San Diego based company that is a supplier of microchips, recently announced it had purchased Atheros Communications, Inc., which makes chips for tablets. More importantly, Atheros already has a business relationship with Apple, supplying chips for iPhones. Qualcomm spent $3.2 billion and never looked back.
As the competition heats up, it will be difficult for the firms chasing Apple to catch up. The company has such a huge lead in technology and market penetration that competitors will have to slash prices to make any dent in Apple's share. As the consumer market becomes saturated, expect the next battleground to be businesses.
Even as the competition scrambles to rush tablets to market, Apple is hatching plans for an updated version of its innovative iPad. The new model likely will debut in the summer.
With so many tablets flooding the market, not every firm can be successful. RIM and Samsung appear to be the best positioned among Apple's competitors. By next year, a number of companies will be retrenching because the demand cannot sustain the expected tide of tablet products.
However, there is no doubt of the winner in the tablet market. Apple has a clear lead and it is not likely to give up its position any time soon.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Verizon (Yawn) Gets the (Ho Hum) iPhone
After titillating the media for months, Verizon finally delivered on its highly-publicized, three-year quest to secure the iPhone for its network. The communications firm's stock soared on the news, hailed by financial and business analysts' as a sure-fire boon to its wireless segment.
However, upon closer examination, the move looks more like a dud. Verizon gets a phone that doesn't work on its new, faster 4G network. The CDMA model is not as full featured as AT&T's GSM version and it likely will be outdated by summer. So what's the big deal?
To understand the significance of this move, you have to remove Verizon from the equation. They are a bit player. This is all about Apple, a company which has built its economic prowess by demanding absolute control of its products. That's the reason Verizon lost out on the launch of the iPhone in 2007. It wasn't willing to give up control to Apple, while AT&T put its ego in cold storage and was handed an exclusive deal.
Looking at the Verizon agreement from Apple's perspective, it is another clever maneuver designed to expand its market. In its launch on June 29, 2007, the iPhone was engineered to only work on wireless networks that use GSM technology. The reason for this decision was simple: 219 countries in the world have GSM networks. It is a virtual global standard. There are currently 3 billion people served by GSM technology.
By comparison, the CDMA technology preferred by Verizon is not as widespread. It serves about 550 million customers worldwide. However, there are wireless carriers in Asia and China that use the standard. By making a CDMA phone for Verizon, Apple now has a device it can market to the rest of the world where GSM networks do not exist or provide inferior coverage. That helps explain Apple's motivation. They received free engineering help from Verizon to manufacture a smartphone for use on CDMA networks worldwide. Brilliant!
While peddling the iPhone will increase sales for Verizon, it is unlikely to produce the kind of eye-popping numbers the AT&T launch did four years ago. Undoubtedly, some AT&T customers, convinced the Verizon network will be better, will switch. But the media has overestimated the impact. The guess here is there will be no mass exodus of AT&T subscribers because the CDMA version of the iPhone has some distinct disadvantages.
For example, customers who travel to Europe and many other countries, will not be able to roam with their iPhones because of the ubiquity of GSM networks. In addition, the CDMA version will not allow users to talk and surf the Web at the same time. It means customers cannot download any Web-connected mobile application during a phone call. That is a major drawback. Add to that the expense of AT&T contract buyouts and you have significant barriers to consumer switching.
But the biggest disadvantage is the non-exclusive contract Verizon has with Apple. If it chooses, Apple can now shop its iPhone to Sprint and other CDMA carriers in the U.S. If that happens, any perceived Verizon advantage shrinks substantially.
That leaves one burning question that has not been addressed. What happens when Apple releases a revamped iPhone, as it surely will by summer? Will that model be GSM only? Will it be offered exclusively on AT&T's network? The answers to those questions will go a long way toward determining just how much Verizon will benefit from offering a CDMA version of the iPhone.
Until those questions are resolved, Verizon stockholders and potential investors would best be advised to ignore the current media hype.
However, upon closer examination, the move looks more like a dud. Verizon gets a phone that doesn't work on its new, faster 4G network. The CDMA model is not as full featured as AT&T's GSM version and it likely will be outdated by summer. So what's the big deal?
To understand the significance of this move, you have to remove Verizon from the equation. They are a bit player. This is all about Apple, a company which has built its economic prowess by demanding absolute control of its products. That's the reason Verizon lost out on the launch of the iPhone in 2007. It wasn't willing to give up control to Apple, while AT&T put its ego in cold storage and was handed an exclusive deal.
Looking at the Verizon agreement from Apple's perspective, it is another clever maneuver designed to expand its market. In its launch on June 29, 2007, the iPhone was engineered to only work on wireless networks that use GSM technology. The reason for this decision was simple: 219 countries in the world have GSM networks. It is a virtual global standard. There are currently 3 billion people served by GSM technology.
By comparison, the CDMA technology preferred by Verizon is not as widespread. It serves about 550 million customers worldwide. However, there are wireless carriers in Asia and China that use the standard. By making a CDMA phone for Verizon, Apple now has a device it can market to the rest of the world where GSM networks do not exist or provide inferior coverage. That helps explain Apple's motivation. They received free engineering help from Verizon to manufacture a smartphone for use on CDMA networks worldwide. Brilliant!
While peddling the iPhone will increase sales for Verizon, it is unlikely to produce the kind of eye-popping numbers the AT&T launch did four years ago. Undoubtedly, some AT&T customers, convinced the Verizon network will be better, will switch. But the media has overestimated the impact. The guess here is there will be no mass exodus of AT&T subscribers because the CDMA version of the iPhone has some distinct disadvantages.
For example, customers who travel to Europe and many other countries, will not be able to roam with their iPhones because of the ubiquity of GSM networks. In addition, the CDMA version will not allow users to talk and surf the Web at the same time. It means customers cannot download any Web-connected mobile application during a phone call. That is a major drawback. Add to that the expense of AT&T contract buyouts and you have significant barriers to consumer switching.
But the biggest disadvantage is the non-exclusive contract Verizon has with Apple. If it chooses, Apple can now shop its iPhone to Sprint and other CDMA carriers in the U.S. If that happens, any perceived Verizon advantage shrinks substantially.
That leaves one burning question that has not been addressed. What happens when Apple releases a revamped iPhone, as it surely will by summer? Will that model be GSM only? Will it be offered exclusively on AT&T's network? The answers to those questions will go a long way toward determining just how much Verizon will benefit from offering a CDMA version of the iPhone.
Until those questions are resolved, Verizon stockholders and potential investors would best be advised to ignore the current media hype.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Letters From O.H. Bama
Dear Speaker John Boehner:
In your new job as corral boss of those gun toting, bible thumping, tea-bagging Republicans, I have noticed a tone in your rhetoric that suggests you are not on board with my plea for harmony, peace and jasmine-scented discourse.
Every time I read my trusted source for balanced news, The New York Times, I notice comments from you and your foul-mouthed GOP cohorts about the economy, calling the current recovery "rotten", "bogus", "nonexistent" and "a figment of the president's imagination."
Those are hate-filled words my friend. When you criticize the economy, you are chastising those swooning Americans who elected me. You are poking a stick in the eyes of every man, woman, underage child and corpse who has ever voted Democratic. Let me just be clear about this. I want you to stop all use of negative adjectives when referring to me, the economy, Obama Care or any other issue. Remember, if you even waffle a little on this, the media that worships me will fry you on the altar of journalistic partisanship.
This could be our shining moment, Mr. Speaker. We could join hands and praise the economic recovery that donkey-brained Joe Biden loves to tout. To steer you toward more congenial speech, here are some potential areas of economic agreement between us that would demonstrate our man-love and bipartisanship:
1. We both want more jobs that pay good money. We should support jury duty as a way for Americans to have a high-paying job while performing a civic duty. Jury pools could be filled by all those out of work mid-level managers.
2. We could agree that cutting government travel expenses is necessary. For example, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes abroad she could actually share a room with her husband, Bill. This has the added advantage of supporting non-traditional marriages.
3. We could ask the advertising industry to begin a public service campaign in Africa to sponsor an American child. This idea comes straight from that Hollywood icon, Angelina Jolie, who recently adopted two Californians. It's time we took better care of our American children.
4. We could reach out to polygamists and encourage them to reduce their number of wives from an average of five to four. This would engage ordinary Americans in reducing their tax deductions so they could pay more money to Washington to fund my agenda. It would also address the over population problem.
5. We could advertise the job explosion in Mexico, particularly in the employment of gang members. Given our leaky border, we would just let our home-grown gang members sneak their tattooed bodies into Mexico under the cover of darkness, thus reducing future prison expenses in the U.S.
6. We could ask Google to lay off one-half of their work force, thus trimming the number of my administration's staff in Washington. Not only would this save taxpayer dollars, but it could allow Google to spend more time looking into the private information of Americans.
Listen, John, we both have a stake in this country. Mine is just bigger than yours. And I'm not bragging here.
After reading my letter, you may want to reach for that box of tissue. There's a lot of weeping going around in Washington these days, especially among out of work Democrats. I know Nancy Pelosi was moved to tears when you snatched that speaker's gavel out of her wrinkled, liver-spotted hand.
If we tone down the rhetoric and work together, the country will be more united. Americans will feel better about Washington. Heck, some may even want to voluntarily give back their Bush-era tax cuts.
Please think about what I've said, John. After all, words matter, except when they escape from my mouth.
Tulips, tranquility and teleprompters,
O.H. Bama
In your new job as corral boss of those gun toting, bible thumping, tea-bagging Republicans, I have noticed a tone in your rhetoric that suggests you are not on board with my plea for harmony, peace and jasmine-scented discourse.
Every time I read my trusted source for balanced news, The New York Times, I notice comments from you and your foul-mouthed GOP cohorts about the economy, calling the current recovery "rotten", "bogus", "nonexistent" and "a figment of the president's imagination."
Those are hate-filled words my friend. When you criticize the economy, you are chastising those swooning Americans who elected me. You are poking a stick in the eyes of every man, woman, underage child and corpse who has ever voted Democratic. Let me just be clear about this. I want you to stop all use of negative adjectives when referring to me, the economy, Obama Care or any other issue. Remember, if you even waffle a little on this, the media that worships me will fry you on the altar of journalistic partisanship.
This could be our shining moment, Mr. Speaker. We could join hands and praise the economic recovery that donkey-brained Joe Biden loves to tout. To steer you toward more congenial speech, here are some potential areas of economic agreement between us that would demonstrate our man-love and bipartisanship:
1. We both want more jobs that pay good money. We should support jury duty as a way for Americans to have a high-paying job while performing a civic duty. Jury pools could be filled by all those out of work mid-level managers.
2. We could agree that cutting government travel expenses is necessary. For example, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes abroad she could actually share a room with her husband, Bill. This has the added advantage of supporting non-traditional marriages.
3. We could ask the advertising industry to begin a public service campaign in Africa to sponsor an American child. This idea comes straight from that Hollywood icon, Angelina Jolie, who recently adopted two Californians. It's time we took better care of our American children.
4. We could reach out to polygamists and encourage them to reduce their number of wives from an average of five to four. This would engage ordinary Americans in reducing their tax deductions so they could pay more money to Washington to fund my agenda. It would also address the over population problem.
5. We could advertise the job explosion in Mexico, particularly in the employment of gang members. Given our leaky border, we would just let our home-grown gang members sneak their tattooed bodies into Mexico under the cover of darkness, thus reducing future prison expenses in the U.S.
6. We could ask Google to lay off one-half of their work force, thus trimming the number of my administration's staff in Washington. Not only would this save taxpayer dollars, but it could allow Google to spend more time looking into the private information of Americans.
Listen, John, we both have a stake in this country. Mine is just bigger than yours. And I'm not bragging here.
After reading my letter, you may want to reach for that box of tissue. There's a lot of weeping going around in Washington these days, especially among out of work Democrats. I know Nancy Pelosi was moved to tears when you snatched that speaker's gavel out of her wrinkled, liver-spotted hand.
If we tone down the rhetoric and work together, the country will be more united. Americans will feel better about Washington. Heck, some may even want to voluntarily give back their Bush-era tax cuts.
Please think about what I've said, John. After all, words matter, except when they escape from my mouth.
Tulips, tranquility and teleprompters,
O.H. Bama
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Factoids That You Can Use
Often technology far outpaces the public willingness to embrace a product. A case in point is the Picturephone, a two-way calling device unveiled by AT&T's Bell Labs in 1964 at the New York World's Fair. It captured the media's attention, but at its peak, only attracted 500 paying customers. Fast forward to the present and video calling is one of the hottest consumer services. Powered by online communications firm Skype and mobile smartphones, two-way video calls are rapidly growing. Soon video calling may also be coming to your television set this year when Skype-enabled Blu-ray players debut. By some estimates, video calling may already account for nearly 25 percent of international telecommunications traffic. Market researcher In-Stat estimates that 13.2 million people worldwide will make video calls this year, nearly quadrupling the number for 2010. By 2015, the firm predicts that 155.1 million people will place video calls. All that calling adds up to big bucks for providers. For example, In-Stat estimates that the wireless market for video calls will eclipse $1 billion by 2015. With that much money at stake, expect the biggest players in the field to amp up their marketing for video calling, while launching new devices.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Phony Unemployment Numbers
As expected, the news media practically wet its pants reporting that the unemployment rate in December fell to 9.4 percent, the lowest level in more than a year. More than 105,000 new jobs were added to non-farm payrolls, offering further proof of a rebounding economy, according to media hype.
Before you break out the confetti to celebrate the end of the recession, it pays to consider the source of the data: the government-controlled Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The mainstream media regularly reports the bureau's data as gospel without bothering to question the numbers or look for alternative corroboration. As with all other information issued by the government, the data is often manipulated to fit the administration's agenda. This is another example.
There are two nuggets of data buried in the bureau's report that escaped media attention. Most damning of all, the number of discouraged workers increased a whopping 389,000 in December, raising the total to 1.3 million.
To put it succinctly, more workers believe their prospects for hiring are practically nil. They have given up all hope of finding a job. That is a bad sign for recovery and means the pressure for Congress to extend jobless benefits will continue to increase.
The second piece of data that leaps out is the nature of the job growth. It has not been an across-the-board recovery. Only three industries recorded any rise in hiring: leisure, hospitality and health care. By the bureau's own admission, the prospects for job growth have changed little for most major industries.
For a more balanced view of the job picture, here's what the non-partisan Gallup organization found in its monthly job survey. It pegged unemployment at 9.6 percent at the end of December. Their numbers reflect rolling averages for 30-day periods, a more accurate measurement than the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Gallup also does not use seasonal adjustments as the bureau does. These adjustments usually have the effect of skewing the numbers, often inflating job data.
Most troubling of all, the Gallup data found that the true unemployment rate is closer to 19 percent. That number includes the unemployed combined with part-time workers who want full-time employment. At the same time, Gallup's Job Creation Index showed monthly hiring and firing conditions were essentially unchanged over the past three months.
Check your daily newspaper, news website or evening newscast this week. Make a note of how many balance their coverage of the unemployment data issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the non-partisan Gallup information.
My guess is that the media will take the road it always does: one-sided, unbalanced coverage designed to give the Obama Administration talking points to convince the American public that the job situation is improving.
Before you break out the confetti to celebrate the end of the recession, it pays to consider the source of the data: the government-controlled Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The mainstream media regularly reports the bureau's data as gospel without bothering to question the numbers or look for alternative corroboration. As with all other information issued by the government, the data is often manipulated to fit the administration's agenda. This is another example.
There are two nuggets of data buried in the bureau's report that escaped media attention. Most damning of all, the number of discouraged workers increased a whopping 389,000 in December, raising the total to 1.3 million.
To put it succinctly, more workers believe their prospects for hiring are practically nil. They have given up all hope of finding a job. That is a bad sign for recovery and means the pressure for Congress to extend jobless benefits will continue to increase.
The second piece of data that leaps out is the nature of the job growth. It has not been an across-the-board recovery. Only three industries recorded any rise in hiring: leisure, hospitality and health care. By the bureau's own admission, the prospects for job growth have changed little for most major industries.
For a more balanced view of the job picture, here's what the non-partisan Gallup organization found in its monthly job survey. It pegged unemployment at 9.6 percent at the end of December. Their numbers reflect rolling averages for 30-day periods, a more accurate measurement than the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Gallup also does not use seasonal adjustments as the bureau does. These adjustments usually have the effect of skewing the numbers, often inflating job data.
Most troubling of all, the Gallup data found that the true unemployment rate is closer to 19 percent. That number includes the unemployed combined with part-time workers who want full-time employment. At the same time, Gallup's Job Creation Index showed monthly hiring and firing conditions were essentially unchanged over the past three months.
Check your daily newspaper, news website or evening newscast this week. Make a note of how many balance their coverage of the unemployment data issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the non-partisan Gallup information.
My guess is that the media will take the road it always does: one-sided, unbalanced coverage designed to give the Obama Administration talking points to convince the American public that the job situation is improving.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Media's Most Under Reported Issues in 2010
Recently that paragon of journalistic empty-headiness, television anchor Katie Couric, opined that Islamaphobia was the most under reported news of 2010. Apropos of her third-place CBS evening news ratings, Ms. Couric wasn't even close to rising to the top of the list of MIA (Missing-In-Action) news coverage. For Ms. Couric's benefit, and those in the dumbed-down media, here is a modest list of news stories that flew so far under the journalistic radar, most never made a blip.
1. The country experienced its worst year of bank failures since the Great Depression as nearly 160 institutions were shuttered. Yet other than an occasional story last year about the quarterly rise in bank closing, the media ignored the story. The news just didn't fit with the media's agenda of showing that economic recovery was upon us. There was no coverage attempting to explain why banks were continuing to fail, despite billions in bailouts.
2. More than 30,000 doctors in Texas alone, joined by thousands in other states, have stopped taking patients covered by Medicare. With the enactment of Obama Care, the government reduced payments to doctors and more cuts are scheduled in the coming years. As a result, doctors are dropping Medicare patients as frequently as Lady GaGa drops the "F' bomb. Intense news coverage of this issue would have raised fears about the already unpopular Obama Care, which most in the media supported.
3. On the subject of Obama Care, more than 200 businesses have been granted waivers by the government to opt out of the health initiative. More firms are lining up each day to apply for a waiver, signaling that serious flaws exist in the health reform legislation. Of course, except in rare cases, the news has escaped the front pages of newspapers or the evening news casts. It doesn't fit with the media's view.
4. Under pressure from Republicans, the Federal Reserve was finally compelled to release documents showing the full extent of its gargantuan bailout of banks. The reports show trillions in dollars went to four big banks: Citigroup ($2.2 trillion); Merrill Lynch ($2.1 trillion); Morgan Stanley ($2 trillion) and Bank of America ($1.1 trillion.) It was scandalous that the media chose to report the details on its back pages and after a day dropped its coverage. More media digging should have followed, especially in light of the promises of transparency from the Obama Administration.
5. Freddie Mac and its sister Fannie Mae, the two taxpayer-funded mortgage behemoths, are both teetering on the precipice of bankruptcy, despite receiving $148 billion in bailout money. The property lenders' regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has estimated taxpayers could actually be on the hook for $259 billion by 2013. Both entities owned more than 240,000 foreclosed homes in December of last year. While the government pours more tax dollars into the mortgage giants, the news media has virtually ignored their impending collapse.
As you can see, Ms. Couric, there have been more important news stories than the one you suggested that have gone unreported or under reported on your lousy network and on the pages of most newspapers, which are suffering a slow death, just like your nightly newscast. Perhaps, if you and other so-called journalists paid more attention to actually covering the 'news' instead of pursuing your own agenda, you might see things differently.
By the way, Ms. Couric, have a nice evening.
1. The country experienced its worst year of bank failures since the Great Depression as nearly 160 institutions were shuttered. Yet other than an occasional story last year about the quarterly rise in bank closing, the media ignored the story. The news just didn't fit with the media's agenda of showing that economic recovery was upon us. There was no coverage attempting to explain why banks were continuing to fail, despite billions in bailouts.
2. More than 30,000 doctors in Texas alone, joined by thousands in other states, have stopped taking patients covered by Medicare. With the enactment of Obama Care, the government reduced payments to doctors and more cuts are scheduled in the coming years. As a result, doctors are dropping Medicare patients as frequently as Lady GaGa drops the "F' bomb. Intense news coverage of this issue would have raised fears about the already unpopular Obama Care, which most in the media supported.
3. On the subject of Obama Care, more than 200 businesses have been granted waivers by the government to opt out of the health initiative. More firms are lining up each day to apply for a waiver, signaling that serious flaws exist in the health reform legislation. Of course, except in rare cases, the news has escaped the front pages of newspapers or the evening news casts. It doesn't fit with the media's view.
4. Under pressure from Republicans, the Federal Reserve was finally compelled to release documents showing the full extent of its gargantuan bailout of banks. The reports show trillions in dollars went to four big banks: Citigroup ($2.2 trillion); Merrill Lynch ($2.1 trillion); Morgan Stanley ($2 trillion) and Bank of America ($1.1 trillion.) It was scandalous that the media chose to report the details on its back pages and after a day dropped its coverage. More media digging should have followed, especially in light of the promises of transparency from the Obama Administration.
5. Freddie Mac and its sister Fannie Mae, the two taxpayer-funded mortgage behemoths, are both teetering on the precipice of bankruptcy, despite receiving $148 billion in bailout money. The property lenders' regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has estimated taxpayers could actually be on the hook for $259 billion by 2013. Both entities owned more than 240,000 foreclosed homes in December of last year. While the government pours more tax dollars into the mortgage giants, the news media has virtually ignored their impending collapse.
As you can see, Ms. Couric, there have been more important news stories than the one you suggested that have gone unreported or under reported on your lousy network and on the pages of most newspapers, which are suffering a slow death, just like your nightly newscast. Perhaps, if you and other so-called journalists paid more attention to actually covering the 'news' instead of pursuing your own agenda, you might see things differently.
By the way, Ms. Couric, have a nice evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)