Proof: NYTimes Grades Obama on a Curve
James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal did yeoman's work showing us a perfect example of the bias of the New York Times. Taranto highlighted the way the "paper of record" ripped Bush's Gross National Product report while putting a happy face on Obama's report, which was even worse.
In his October 30 Best of the Web column, Taranto dug up a 1992 Times report that called George H. W. Bush's GDP of 2.7 percent a "Gross National Letdown."
In 1992, the Times carped that the 2.7 percent GDP was not encouraging and scolded President Bush for having a smile about his report, even though it was twice the previous report's growth rate. Naturally, the Times wanted a stimulus package big enough to "matter" for further growth.
In all, the Times felt George H. W. Bush was more or less a failure and its down-in-the-mouth editorial was suitably hectoring of the elder Bush. Taranto noted that this year's Times editorial was far more upbeat for a far worse GDP report.
This year, the Times felt that Obama's 2.3 percent GDP was a "Slow but Steady Improvement." Suddenly all the head shaking and tsk tsking was gone from the paper's editorial, and it was all hope and change.
Why, this momentous 2.3 percent growth means that "Mr. Obama has the stronger argument" for this re-election campaign. The paper also felt that this great occasion is "some cause for optimism."
At the Times, Obama's anemic 2.3 percent was a cause for celebration, whereas H.W. Bush's 2.7 percent was a sad, sad, day. Not much bias there, eh?