A dispatch from Washington in the national section of today's New York Times reports on the Bush administration pressing Congress to pass an "economic recovery package." The Times reports, "Most economists are forecasting that the economy will bounce back by the middle of next year, assuming that Congress and the administration will pass some combination of tax cuts and spending increases to augment the Federal Reserve's continuing campaign of interest rate cuts."
The phrase "most economists," when found in a New York Times news article, is a pretty reliable indicator that whatever information follows should be taken with a giant slab of salt. The same reporter whose byline is atop today's dispatch was writing on February 5, 2001, in the New York Times as follows: "Many economists doubt that the tax relief can be enacted quickly enough to make much difference to the economy this year. Republican leaders in Congress say they probably cannot send a tax bill to Mr. Bush before this summer, suggesting that any changes in withholdings would take effect in late summer or early fall. History suggests that the economy is likely to be recovering by then, especially since the Federal Reserve is already cutting interest rates and is considered likely to continue doing so in coming months."
Smartertimes.com wrote back in February that "If this New York Times news reporter really has a direct line to what 'history suggests' will happen quarter-by-quarter in the U.S. economy, he ought to be off making a killing in the stock market. As it is, the Times just looks silly passing off economic guesswork as news reporting."
Sure enough, it is past late summer and past early fall and despite the Times claim of what "history suggests," the economic recovery seems nowhere to be found. Some of that might be blamed on September 11, but probably not all of it. Now the same Times reporter is telling readers that "Most economists are forecasting that the economy will bounce back by the middle of next year." Is there any good reason for a Times reader to believe that today's prediction will be any more reliable than the one the Times made in February? Doesn't the same analysis hold as the last time around? That is, if the Times reporter really has reliable information on the timing of the economic recovery, he should be off making a killing in the stock market. There's nothing wrong with the Times reporting what "most economists' or "many economists" are saying, but it would be nice if the paper reminded readers that "most economists" and "many economists" are often wrong when they try to predict what will happen in the U.S. economy a year ahead of time.
Clear Differences: Monday's New York Times editorial endorsing Mark Green for mayor said of Michael Bloomberg, "His ideas on the issues are similar to those of many Democrats in New York, including Mr. Green." A news article in the metro section of today's New York Times about yesterday's mayoral debate reports, "The debate brought out some fairly clear differences between these two men on issues." There seem to be some fairly clear differences between the Times news department and its editorial writers on this issue.
Not in the Times: No mention in today's New York Times of the fact that Mark Green's mayoral campaign is sending glossy mailings to the homes of Jewish voters in New York, blaring, "Republican Mike Bloomberg favors having children say the Lord's Prayer in New York public schools every day." The mailing also has a headline that says, "Rabbi Criticizes Republican Mike Bloomberg's Support for Having Jewish School Children Recite the Lord's Prayer." This is newsworthy in its own right but even more so given that Mr. Green has been accusing Fernando Ferrer of running a divisive campaign and had himself promised a positive campaign. It's odd that the Times doesn't consider this tactic to be worth a mention in its pages. The Green mailing also says Green will "increase pay for teachers for better performance" -- a formulation that has been somewhat controversial with the teachers' union because of the linkage between pay and performance.