AP Plays ‘Hide the Numbers’ In Its Unemployment Claims Report
You would think that someone going to the trouble of reporting on something would at least provide the most basic of relevant numbers so that readers could understand what they’re telling us.
That isn’t the case with the 11:51 a.m. version of Uncle Sam’s report on unemployment claims by the Associated Press’s Stephen Bernard and Tim Paradis. Their report failed to specifically state what analysts predicted, and waited until a much later paragraph to tell us what their predictions are for tomorrow’s jobs report.
The first three paragraphs of that version of the story are in the graphic capture that follows:
For the record:
- According to this CNNMoney.com report, “Economists were expecting claims to drop to 455,000, according to a consensus estimate from Briefing.com.” In other words, claims were expected to go down by roughly twice as much as they actually went up.
- A much, much later paragraph in the AP pair’s report told us that expectations for tomorrow’s jobs report are for 5,000 jobs to have been added in January and for an uptick in the unemployment rate to 10.1% from its current 10%. Did the AP pair withhold these numbers because the jobs expectation is unimpressive, while the rate increase is depressive?
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
UPDATE: The AP’s 12:28 p.m. report is an improvement, as the jobs-related info has moved to a much higher paragraph, but the jobless claims expectations are still nowhere to be found:
There may be a leak at the BLS, Bloomberg is reporting there will be MAJOR adjustment to the unemployment #s:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aNSc0oQ0vb4M&pos=10
The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.
Comment by dscott — February 4, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
#1, this has been expected since BLS telegraphed its arrival back in October, but it has gone virtually unnoticed in the establishment media until late yesterday.
Three years ago, a similar revision at BLS went the other way: +981,000 jobs.
Comment by TBlumer — February 5, 2010 @ 7:09 am