Blog 255: A Warning, A Commentary

A Warning for Everyone. In my last three blogs I have highlighted problems the Trump administration is attacking. The three problems with which I agree are immigration, the national debt and some particular forms of DEI. I agree with these problems. My struggle is with the means by which they are being attacked.

One reason I am concerned about means is a warning by Helmut Thielicke, a German theologian who died in 1986. I read the warning in my daily devotional. Obviously, the warning was written before 1986 and the devotional was written in 2009. They are both long before Donald Trump was on the political scene.

Thielicke suggests warning signs about which we need to be careful. It was not written in response to our current political situation. He is writing because of what he lived!

He wrote the statement years ago as a warning to everyone for all times. Whether or not you believe the warning applies now is your decision, but I think it is a good warning for everyone to know.

“The worship of success is generally the form of idol worship which the devil cultivates most assiduously. We could observe in the first years after 1933 the almost suggestive compulsion that emanates from great success and how, under the influence of those successes, men, even Christians, stopped asking in whose name and at what price.”

We should never stop asking in whose name. Is it only serving a few or many? What are the costs or means to achieve the success. Are they fair?

He was referring to the early infatuation with Hitler’s successes. Germany was so beat down after WWI, the people, even the church, turned a blind eye to the methods because of successes. The ends were all that mattered. The means were overlooked. Whether or not that is happening now, the warning remains good lesson from history.

In writing this warning in the present context, I recalled being warned by friends and others that Biden was creating chaos because that was a page from Obama’s playbook to stop capitalism and become a socialist/communist society. I think we see evidence in our current situation that chaos does not always lead to socialism/communism.

Commentary. Mo Brooks is a conservative Republican, who served for several years in the House of Representatives representing the Fifth District in Alabama. He was a featured speaker on the January 6, Stop the Steal podium. I was not a fan.

Thus, I was very cautious to read a commentary he wrote because I assumed he is a very one-sided person. But I did read it and I was surprised and deeply pleased to read a commentary from him that shows media bias on both sides of the aisle and how to overcome it. I recommend the read. We need more people thinking in the way he wrote and especially the section I highlighted at the end of the commentary..

Media strategy to fool voters: Skew the jobs reports

By Mo Brooks

Once upon a time the federal government compiled and released economic data; the media disseminated it; and businesses and the public reasonably relied on it.

Those days are long gone.

Now days, political forces warp and distort almost all economic data in hopes of affecting voters in the next election.

Media reporting on the recent U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics February jobs report, mirrors these media biases.

Fox News, which profits from bigger conservative, pro-Trump and Republican audiences, slants the February jobs report favorably to Trump and Republicans to cultivate and grow more conservative viewership. Fox’s headline states “Trump sees ‘manufacturing boom’ in first full jobs report of second term.”

Without any analytical thought, Fox News parrots Trump’s claim that, “our administration is presiding over a brand-new domestic manufacturing boom after a major collapse under Biden.”

Really? After a little over one month of President Trump, based on a one-month report reflecting 10,000 new, net manufacturing jobs created, America enjoys a “manufacturing boom”? Who knew? That’s GREAT!

To be clear, 10,000 new manufacturing jobs is a microscopic fraction – 0.006% – of America’s 163.3 million jobs. While it is better to have these new jobs than not, 0.006% growth in an economic sector is nowhere near a “boom”. Fox News could have reported this context information but did not.

Left-wing, anti-Republican and anti-Trump media give opposite slants. USA Today’s headline is a depressing: “Stocks falter over February jobs report. Stock market losses? DOGE caused it? That’s bad.

Politico’s headline is equally a downer: “ ‘Detox’: Fading outlook on Trump’s economy clouds first jobs report. America needs “detox” to cure an alleged “fading” economic outlook? That’s bad.

ABC News’ headline states: US hiring falls short of expectations in first full month of Trump term. Hiring falls short? It’s related to Trump? That’s bad.

So, who should the public believe on matters relating to the economy, politics and elections? That’s easy. None of the media.

So how does the public get accurate information? That’s also easy. Blow past media biases and go to the actual source. Look at the raw data without seeing it through the bias of tinted lenses.

For employment data, examine the actual Bureau of Labor Statistics February jobs report. That’s easy to do. And it’s short.

If you do, you will discern the media is good at letting you know something happened but not so good (at least in political matters) at reliably sharing the accurate and whole truth of what happened.

Economic reports are worded as favorably as possible for the incumbent administration (after all, the administration writes them!). Media supporting the president echoes the favorable slant. Media opposing the president projects an unfavorable slant.

These media biases are motivated both by a desire to affect future elections and a desire to cultivate and capture audience blocks which concur with the biases conveyed. Stated differently, money and profits motivate media to slant news reports to attract those viewers who concur with the slant. The math is simple: a larger audience equals larger profits.

So, what does the February jobs report actually say? Is it good or bad? Here is the raw data (with my own insight added– but decide for yourself):

The economy LOST 588,000 jobs month to month but GAINED 2.2 million jobs in the past year. The one-month job loss is bad. The one-year job gain is good.
Total nonfarm month-to-month employment gained 151,000. 34,000 of those new jobs were in “goods producing”. That is good.
The unemployment rate worsened by 0.1 percentage points month-to-month but improved 0.2 percentage points year-to-year. The changes are conflicting and minor.
The labor participation rate (percentage of adult, able-bodied Americans who work for a living and support those who don’t) fell 0.2 percentage points month-to-month and over the past year. That is bad. It means relatively fewer workers are forced to carry a heavier load.
Average weekly earnings went up $3.41 month-to-month (.28% increase) and went up $40.49 year-to-year (3.4% increase). Since Year-to-year inflation (February 2024 to February 2025) was 3%, workers enjoyed a modest, net, real dollar (after inflation adjustment) year-to-year .4% increase in purchasing power. (IF the government’s 3% inflation data is accurate, data that my own shopping experiences force me to question). That’s mediocre.

So, what is the takeaway from how the media presents the February jobs report?

Too often, media eye-catching headlines and article contents don’t portray a fair picture of economic data.

If you want to be an informed voter, pay attention to the news from a variety of media sources. When they all agree, you are probably getting a fair portrayal. When media biases give conflicting impressions, go to the source, think about the data, and decide for yourself where the truth lies.

If all Americans make themselves better-informed voters, we collectively will elect much better elected officials, and America will be a much better place with a much brighter future.

https://reader.mobilepressregister.com/0312-mo-brooks-oped/content.html

This and That

As a follow-up to the Brooks commentary, I present two factual observations for you to draw your own conclusions: