A Brief Primer on the New York Times’ Economic Terminology: Today’s Lesson — What Is a ‘Manufacturing Recession’?
According to the Times, the most recent four-month period, boxed in red below, represents a “manufacturing recession”; The Times has already declared it (”For Manufacturing, a Recession Has Arrived”; link may require registration):
But the following periods boxed in orange from 1995-2000 did not:
Any questions?
___________________________
Source and Explanation: Historical Table of the Institute for Supply Management’s Monthly PMI Manufacturing Index. Readings above 50 represent expansion. Those below 50 represent contraction. According to ISM (scroll down at link), “A PMI in excess of 41.9 percent, over a period of time, generally indicates an expansion of the overall economy. Therefore, the PMI indicates that both the overall economy and the manufacturing sector are growing.”
Also: In a Proquest Library search of the Times for articles containing both “manufacturing” and “recession” from 1/1/1995 to 1/1/2001, I found no declarations that the manufacturing sector was actually in a recession — only a few saying that it might get to that point.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
___________________________
UPDATE: Here’s a link that I used at the previous post for the commonly accepted definition of “recession” — at places other than the New York Times.
UPDATE 2: Don Luskin, in his inimitable style — “How stupid (Times writer David) Leonhardt thinks we all are.”
UPDATE 3: NewsBusters commenter jdhawk — “From a financial point of view, every day is a recession at the NYT!”
___________________________
Previous Post — Exactly Why Should I Believe That the Formerly Mainstream Media Isn’t Rooting for a Bad Economy?
I can see the NYT writer must be another graduate of the Paul Klugman School of Economics.
Comment by Brian — March 1, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
#1, Indeed. The Times hasn’t just predicted five out of the last zero recessions; they’re now calling them when they don’t exist.
Of course, before Bush, the term “recession” was almost always reserved for the ENTIRE economy, not just a sector, where a contraction would usually be called a “slump.”
Comment by TBlumer — March 1, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Why do we persist in putting up with the spin and cant of the NYT, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, the network and CNN-type cable news outlets, etc.? Who are these people who seem intent on not reporting all the news that’s fit to print and twisting all the news they do print? What has happened to accountability, to honesty, to forthrightness, to the passion for accuracy?
Why do we need you, Tom, to “interpret” the meaning behind the language and the agenda behind the “reporting”? We should be able to read newspapers and news mags without super-keen antennae turned all the way to maximum suspicion. But we can’t, we mustn’t. All us folks out here in the hinterland where the tall corn grows have to rely on blogs, on Fox and on the conservative press to offset the liberal bias of the so-called “main stream media.” It shouldn’t be that way, but that’s the way it is, and like my old man always told me, “Son, you gotta play the cards you’re dealt.” Thanks for your consistent good work, Tom. You are needed and appreciated by discriminating minds.
Comment by Excelsior — March 2, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
#3, it is true that we must work harder than we should to stay informed. Thanks for the nice words.
I think perhaps we should be encouraged by the fact that so little ruckus has been raised about the Times’ just making it up about the “manufacturing recession.” It may be an indicator that very few are paying attention to it any more.
Comment by TBlumer — March 2, 2007 @ 9:10 pm