In reporting, context is everything -- at least, it should be everything. But when it comes to protecting Obama and his failed economic policies, the media willfully lies by omission to manufacture a reality in which Obama's policies have succeeded.
In this piece comparing Obama's "recovery" to Reagan's recovery, I've added historical context. Over at AEI, the indispensible Jim Pethokoukis delivers important context by reporting on numbers released today which the media is covering up:
The labor force participation rate fell again as potential workers stopped looking for work. … [I]f the LFP rate was where it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 10.8%. …
The share of the unemployed out of work for 27 weeks or longer increased to 40.2% from 38.1% in January.
The employment-population ratio is exactly where it was a year ago, at an almost rock-bottom 58.6%.
If Barack Obama had an "R" after his name, the media would be doing a proper job of clarifying a number of crucial economic facts, including the most important one: That the unemployment rate decreasing due to people dropping out of the labor force is terrible news, not good news.
But when it comes to protecting their idol from his failures, the media will never stop lying.