Preface - I'm really not trying to make this a political argument about one admin versus another ( and therefore keep it OUT of the Soap Box). This started when ladelfina ref this article, and it appeared to me that she dismissed it as biased simply by the title and source. So let's see if the content is biased. It may well be, I'm actually more interested in the thought process of detecting bas than I am the result - the journey versus the destination, if you will.
OK, my bias grade, item by item, for Section #1:
#1 - Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.
The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's.
1a:
U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000 Grade B probably true, but when I see words like 'faster' and 'most', it does not give me the specificity to be able to check it, and it gives me the impression that the author is trying to put the statement in a favorable light, rather than just present the fact. Is 'faster' significant, or a 3rd decimal point? Which countries? What is 'most', 50.1%? None of that makes it wrong, or even 'spin', it might just be an attempt at easy readability, but it always makes me wonder.
1b:
The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). Grade A. I couldn't get to the IMF data, but other data supported this number. Any error in 2008 forecasts would be unlikely to affect it by one significant digit.
1c:
President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. Grade B I started with an 'A', but I'm assuming he is using GDP as a proxy for 'economy' and I won't accept that single measurement is enough to tell a story. But, many people use GDP as a measure of 'the economy' so I won't dismiss it either.
1d:
This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period. Grade B. I don't care for self-selected data (3 specific countries), but again, it may be a matter of readability. Naming specific countries may resonate more with a reader than dry statistics?
admission - I got lazy, I did not take the time to fact check each of the GDP numbers for each country listed. Based on the veracity of other numbers, I skipped it in favor of breakfast . If anyone can point out errors there, I'll update my grade).
1e:
... GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's. Grade C. Maybe I'm just dense, but this one leaves me with 'duh?'. The numbers appear correct (
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/flsgdp.txt ), but without comparing these to earlier numbers, it's a bit odd. OK, so as a snapshot, it tells a positive story, but it does not show a trend. Hmmm, I took the time to compare US/Germany 2005 to US/Germany 2000, and 2005 *was* better ( GDP/capita was only 32% larger for US in 2000). So, maybe just some shorthand/editing? Plus, they jumped from GDP to GDP per capita w/o an explanation. Not really a problem in and of itself, but enough for me to rate 'questionable'. I may be grading a bit tough on this one item, it's not that I know the facts to be wrong, but the presentation of them and their relevancy leaves me questioning it overall. After all, it is an article geared to the public, not an economic Master's Thesis. But I still have standards.
Overall Grade #1: B ....... (B,A,B,B,C)
I know that ladelfina listed the flaws in GDP. I agree that it is flawed, any measurement is. If the article used GDP as the sole measurement, I'd put more weight on that issue. But since GDP is commonly used as one measure of the economy, let's continue, shall we?
Anyone strongly disagree with my bias assessment of the
content?
-ERD50
A = largely factual;
B = mostly true, some spin & distortion, maybe cherry picking;
C = Questionable on facts;
D = mostly false, major spin & distortion;
F = mostly lies.