Make up your minds - Reynolds Center for Business Journalism

Jim Romenesko, the media blogger, brought to our attention*? that headline writers for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal didn?t quite agree in their headlines over their stories about the? Jan. 4 ?employment situation summary? from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Don?t blame the headline writers, though. The headlines pretty much reflected the stories. Heads spun.

The Post story reached into the metaphysical to proclaim a nonspecific hope for the construction business:? ?After five years of hemorrhaging jobs, the construction industry has become one of the bright spots of the labor market ? a hopeful sign that one of the most damaged sectors of the economy may finally be starting to heal.? First, the Post suggests that new-home construction might be credited with the resurgence ? if 30,000 added jobs is resurgence worth getting excited about. And it resorts to an anecdote at the end to support its hopefulness: ?Texas construction company says it plans to add 20 to 40 employees to its workforce of 80. But AR Daniel Construction ?works on major infrastructure projects such as water and sewer systems, a specialty that is booming in North Texas but not growing as fast in other regions, because the weak economy has held down public works spending.? It doesn?t build houses. Exactly how fast ? or slow ? is growth in infrastructure projects in the rest of the country?? Got me. How did the editor(s) resolve this seeming contradiction? He/she/they didn?t.

The Wall Street Journal wasn?t hopeful at all. It came to a nearly opposite conclusion in its story, based on the same government figures: ?The U.S. job market finished 2012 chugging along in the same low gear of the past two years, stoking nervousness over sluggish economic growth ahead as new risks from Washington loom over the coming weeks.? The ?jobs data indicated little potential for accelerated hiring in the new year.? What about that housing boom?? Jump to the 18th paragraph: ?Manufacturers added 25,000 positions, though jobs in the sector remain about 1.8 million below prerecession levels. Construction saw an uplift after [Hurricane] Sandy, with an increase of 30,000 jobs.? Sandy? What?s this ?Sandy?? I thought new-home construction was fueling this boomlet. I didn?t find ?Sandy? anywhere in the Post story. Perhaps it?s post-hurricane infrastructure projects.? The Journal doesn?t say. Anyhow, it?s nothing to get excited about: ??It certainly looks like we?ve had a permanent shock? in the wake of the housing-market bust and resulting recession, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser told a gathering of economists Friday in San Diego. Untangling the causes and results of the financial crisis could take years, he said.?

So, the ?recovery? may or may not be strengthening, depending on what you read. Or, you may decide for yourself, since neither the Post nor the Journal back up their broad conclusions.? Neither could, since they presumably are based on one month?s employment data.

Editors?

Let?s not pick on just those two. The New York Times was less certain, but found reason for optimism: ?Despite concerns about looming tax increases and government spending cuts, American employers added 155,000 jobs in December. Employees also enjoyed slightly faster wage growth and worked longer hours, which could bode well for future hiring.? Maybe, maybe not. How about construction? To the ninth paragraph: ?The job gains in December were driven by hiring in health care, food services, construction and manufacturing. The last two industries were probably helped by rebuilding after?Hurricane Sandy.?

?Probably.?

The Associated Press report ? the most widely distributed story on the employment figures ? characterized December hiring in construction as ?robust.? It was back to the hurricane, in the eighth paragraph: ?Construction firms added 30,000 jobs, the most in 15 months. In part, that increase likely reflected hiring needed to rebuild from Superstorm** Sandy. And the housing market?s gradual recovery has energized homebuilding.? A thorough search of the story yielded no information to verify either suggestion.

Bloomberg News , 17th paragraph: ?The figures may have received a boost from rebuilding efforts following superstorm Sandy ?.?

CNN Money, fifth paragraph: ?Employment increased in health care, food services and drinking places and manufacturing. Construction jobs were also up, likely as a result of rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Sandy.?

Reuters, third paragraph: ?Construction?employment rebounded strongly, gaining 30,000 jobs after sagging 10,000 in November, reflecting increased residential construction activity as the?housing market?recovery gains traction.?? No hurricane for Reuters.

Now, the sad part: ?The nation?s construction industry gained 30,000 jobs in December despite an overall increase in the industry unemployment rate, according to the Jan. 4 employment report by the U.S. Labor Department. That is the fastest pace of construction employment growth since February 2011.

?Year over year, construction employment has risen by 18,000 jobs, or 0.3 percent. The construction unemployment rate for December was 13.5 percent (not seasonally adjusted) ? up from 12.2 percent from November, but down from 16 percent the same time last year.?

That?s interesting, if true. It is.

Is this an angle the construction-obsessed business media missed? It sure looks like it. None of the news stories excerpted here made any mention of the unemployment rate in the construction industry.

Now, the fun part: It was Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group, that highlighted the unemployment angle ? in a press release. Of course, there would be no reason to believe the press release, but the numbers were right there in the government report. And, the trade group might have had some capitalist reason for emphasizing those numbers, but you can?t know that unless you ask around.

I have no doubts that the reporters reviewed the report in detail, but they either missed the relevant numbers or someone decided they weren?t important.

Editors, including copy editors ? check that, especially copy editors ? have to read the reports and documents that might or might not support the conclusions drawn by the writers and find stuff that would enhance the stories. Nobody wants to hear this: Stop allowing writers and their sources to speculate. If there is evidence to validate ?their opinions, let?s see it.

Now, the tricky part: Almost no one wants to hear how their finished stories might be better, especially from copy editors. We need the ability ?to persuade reporters and editors to see it our way.

???

* Romenesko gave a ?hat tip? to Steve Wildstrom, former technology writer for BusinessWeek. Apparently Wildstrom brought the headlines to Romenesko?s attention. And I?m bringing them to your attention. Who knows where this will end up?

** ?Superstorm.?

?

Source: http://businessjournalism.org/2013/01/14/interpreting-jobs-numbers-report-make-up-your-minds/

is snooki pregnant snooki pregnant gbc hedy lamarr jack white kowloon walled city ronda rousey vs miesha tate