Another reminder that the MSM is in the tank for Obama, as if you didn't know that

Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute headlined this "All is well because Obama is in charge," which elucidates a point that the New York Times carefully endeavors to obscure:

A study to be released Monday of financial news coverage this year found that government, Wall Street and a small handful of story lines got the bulk of the attention while much less was paid to the economic troubles of ordinary people. . . .
Reviewing almost 10,000 reports from Feb. 1 to Aug. 31 in newspapers, on news Web sites, on the radio and on network broadcast and cable television, Pew found that almost 40 percent of economic news reports dealt with the trials of the banking and auto industries, and the federal stimulus bill passed in February. . . .
Unemployment and the housing crisis accounted for 12 percent. And, the study said, “stories that tried to explicitly examine the broader impact of the economic downturn on the lives of ordinary Americans filled 5 percent of the economic coverage." . . .
In February and March, the economy was the subject of nearly half of all news coverage, driven mostly by the stimulus bill and the uses of bank bailout money. After those fights died down, financial news coverage fell by more than half.
Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Pew project, said it was easier for the national news media to cover Washington “than to fan out around the country and measure the impact on real lives.”
“There’s plenty of reason to understand why a lot of this is a Washington and New York story,” he said. “But we’re talking about something that affected almost every American in some way.”

All of which is to say, with unemployment at 9.8 percent and no prospect of it going down in the next six months, the MSM have been ignoring this turd in the punchbowl and pretending that recovery is just around the corner.

What has actually been happening in the economy, of course, is that the way the TARP bailout was structured, it pumped massive liquidity into Wall Street. This inevitably led to a rise in stock prices -- a "sucker's rally" -- that I believe is the main reason we haven't seen a consumer price increase as a result of the Fed's insanely inflationary monetary policy. Relatively little of that extra currency is going to Main Street. Instead, it's been siphoned off into the financial sector and we're seeing an inflationary stock bubble.

Because the MSM desperately wants to believe in the unicorns-and-rainbows magic of Obamanomics, they've highlighted the stock market rally and twisted the headlines about other economic news -- "We only lost 200,000 jobs last month? Great!" -- in an attempt to manufacture consumer confidence.

Alas, consumer confidence isn't magic, either. At some point, the fundmentals actually matter and, as I have occasionally had cause to remind you, the fundamentals still suck.