The story is built on the false premise that precision is possible with the jobs created/saved estimate based on responses from a very large number of individuals. Since it lists only tegregious examples of overcounts, failing to give examples of undercounts, the report doesn't have much credibility. It doesn't acknowledge that, even if it's 20,000 above the actual total, that makes the estimate 97% accurate. The story strikes me as more of a slanted opinion piece than straight reporting.

Interesting report about how many jobs were created by the Obama administration's stimulus program. This story seems factual and definitely shows enterprise on the part of the reporters. But it also lacks context by making a mountain out of a molehill and failing to report on what has been accomplished by the 97% of stimulus funds for which no errors were reported. Overall, this is a reasonable work of journalism that holds truth to power by focusing on facts, not just opinions.

I wish the WSJ had explained how they conducted their investigation, which is clearly an important one. The story is an important one, and it's well-reported in this piece.

I would feel better about this article if it came from another source. Recently the Wall Street Journal has been less than even handed on politically related stories.

The analysis presented in this report is qualified as per the premise. But when most of the bailout money gone to big businesses, it worked poorly on creating jobs, and homeowners. After all, Wall Street Journal has a stake in finding weaknesses what the White House is doing, and they've smartly succeeded.

The main problem with this piece is the headline, which isn't the responsibility of the article's author. As soon as we read the first line of the article, and then do a simple calculation, we find that the headline is referring to (shudder) a possible 3.1% overstatement of the jobs being credited to federal stimulus money. At least that information is made apparent at the beginning of the piece. For its part, the article shows quite clearly that at least some of the overestimation ... More »