Bias in jobs reporting?
When I opened my email this morning, I received a note from a reader who clearly saw some bias in my reporting of April's job numbers from the U.S. Labor Department on Friday. Here's his email:
When I opened my email this morning, I received a note from a reader who clearly saw some bias in my reporting of April's job numbers from the U.S. Labor Department on Friday.
Here's his email:
So, his email did make me think and I think that I will stop quoting from the White House for the next few months. It's kind of rote to put in something from the White House each month. I've basically been including a comment either from President Obama or one of his economic officials all along. Rote isn't good. There should be a specific reason to include any comment.
On the other hand, job growth (or the lack of it) is a big political issue, so I'll need to address it in a future report. But I think I'll wait until closer to the election before I grab quotes from the president or his organization, and Mitt Romney, his crew or the GOP. (Now here's hoping I remember this when the report comes around again in June!)
As to the rest of his comment, I'm going to explain why I don't think my reporting is biased and it has to do with the sheer number of statistics in the report, which runs between 30 and 40 pages. There are so many statistics, all ripe for analysis and explanation. This time, I chose to explain the concept of "seasonally adjusted," because weather seems to have been a factor in the job scenario lately. Many, many times in the past, I've written about the issue my reader mentioned in his email: How unemployment rate is partly a function of whether people are encouraged enough about their prospects to join the labor force.
Anyway, thanks for writing. I appreciate the input.