It comes from Scott Sumner (although that’s not what he’s talking about in the post):
What actually happened even was worse than my worst nightmare. We aren’t even recovering at 5%, a number that would now seem pretty good. In the 4th quarter of 2011 NGDP grew a measly 3.9%, a number which would normally be viewed as substandard, even if we weren’t in recession, even if we weren’t trying to recover. Ed Dolan recently suggested that trend growth has fallen to 2.3%, implying a 4.3% path for NGDP—but we’re even below that. And how did the press treat this disgraceful number? They called it “strong.” It represented “good news.” The economy finally seems to be showing some strength.
The emphasis is mine.
Why is low growth being treated as though it were robust? I think it’s because the media don’t want to be too hard on the president who, for all his shortcomings, would be better than any Republican.
Mr. Dooley (Finley Peter Dunne) once said:
Th newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward
Whatever became of that press? Did it never exist? The press we’ve got tosses softballs to allies and tears out the throats of enemies. Instead of a Fourth Estate we’ve got dittoheads of the Left.
If the sitting president were a Republican, does anyone doubt that the press would savage him (or her) for the current state of affairs in the country and in the world? Fair or not? I like a press that has the same relationship to those in power that a mongoose has to a cobra. I don’t expect the press to be impartial but I do expect it to speak truth to power even if very softly.
It is impossible for a Chicagoan to believe that single party government solves all problems. It will merely move the field of battle and render the problems that exist even more intractable by putting them comfortably out of sight. A Democratic president and a Republican Congress worked well under Clinton (until it impeached him, that is) but that was a very different Democratic president and an even more different Republican Congress.