White House Tally Appears to Overstate Stimulus Jobs

Wall Street Journal by Louise Radnofsky, Maurice Tamman | Nov. 4, 2009 (News Report)

The number of jobs the Obama administration credits to federal stimulus money could be overstated by at least 20,000 of the 640,000 claimed, a Wall Street Journal analysis found.

Recipients of the government grants and contracts appear to have made mistakes when estimating the number of jobs that have been saved or created, according to the Journal's review. Some recipients said they were confused by forms that asked how they spent the money. Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins

See All Reviews »

View | |

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Review

Lrwsd_thumb
3.4
 by Lynn R. Willis - Nov. 4, 2009

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 is the result of employers' confusion about how to report their use of the funds than it is due to misreporting by the White House. This is good information to have, and the piece is well put together and written. If only the headline writer had read the piece before dashing off the headline.

Let's see, who is it that owns the Wall Street Journal? Would that by any chance be the same person who owns Fox News? 'Nuff said.

(20 answers)

Lynn's Rating

Overall
3.4

Average
from 20 answers
Quality
3.5
Facts
4.0
Fairness
3.0
Information
5.0
Insight
3.0
Sourcing
3.0
Style
3.0
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
4.0
Context
3.0
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
2.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
3.0
Popularity
3.0
Recommendation
3.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »