5 ms·

Purposeful deception by whom and for what purpose?

anon291 2y ago
By the current administration to get re-elected? I mean.. I'm not saying that's what's going on, but the motivation seems obvious to me.
- marinmania 2y ago
  What would be the point of releasing good numbers a year before the election and then forcing yourself to release worse numbers just a couple months before the election?
  - bandyaboot 2y ago
    This observation should be really obvious. The people who think this is nefarious believe they are thinking critically. What they fail to realize is that they are skipping the part where they critically examine their own thought process.
- itishappy 2y ago
  With a retraction by the Labor Department sent out a few months ahead of the election?
  - mc32 2y ago
    One non-boogeywoman scenario is that they were hoping the numbers would reverse and look good --so they bet things would get better, but they didn't. It's a chance people will take, sometimes.
    - bandyaboot 2y ago
      If they were willing to cook the numbers a year ago, they would certainly be willing to cook the revision numbers right before an election.
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    Well a simple (cynical) take is that the current administration is no longer up for re-election, they’ve been replaced by a new candidate and so now it’s okay to blame the current administration.
    - bandyaboot 2y ago
      Equally simple is the observation that the new candidate is also a member of the current administration.
      - Dig1t 2y ago
        I don’t disagree, but there are also plenty of articles on many news sites which are simultaneously trying to distance Kamala from Biden.
    - anon291 2y ago
      Harris is literally the VP and takes an active role in advising and perhaps even running the current administration. Yes, she's not president, but one would hope the second-in-command would be taking on some responsibility in the administration. Thus, she very much shares this administration's success and failures.
- kyawzazaw 2y ago
  how would releasing this new info be helpful? or are you saying this latest release is not by the current administration but the previous inaccurate release is?
  - anon291 2y ago
    I'm saying the Biden administration is ultimately honest of their own accord, but they rush to publish numbers and the media rushes to publicize the original numbers, in such a way as to make people overestimate jobs created. I've talked with people who will still cite old jobs numbers as reasons that Harris should be re-elected.
- jasonlotito 2y ago
  The article doesn't suggest doing this would have helped the current administration at all. Considering this was always going to get corrected around this time, quite the opposite. Any objective look at this is going to suggest it doesn't help the current administration get elected. So if we are considering conspiracy theories...
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  "By the current administration to get re-elected" how? Without more specifics, this is a statement you could write about literally anything the current administration is doing or not doing, so it has no explanatory power at all.
- emmp 2y ago
  Surely revising the numbers downward close to election when people are paying most attention to them is exactly the opposite thing you would want to do to get re-elected? I'd argue the motivation for malfeasance only makes sense the opposite -- BLS does not want the administration reelected and thus is releasing worse numbers close to the election.
  - anon291 2y ago
    The scandal of never having released the numbers and a future administration finding out and publicizing it is way worse than just admitting it up front and hoping no one cares. Mark my words, when it comes to media pundits, they'll still use the old numbers from the original publications, and everyone will just go along. That's how these things work.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

By the current administration to get re-elected? I mean.. I'm not saying that's what's going on, but the motivation seems obvious to me.

marinmania 2y ago
What would be the point of releasing good numbers a year before the election and then forcing yourself to release worse numbers just a couple months before the election?
- bandyaboot 2y ago
  This observation should be really obvious. The people who think this is nefarious believe they are thinking critically. What they fail to realize is that they are skipping the part where they critically examine their own thought process.
itishappy 2y ago
With a retraction by the Labor Department sent out a few months ahead of the election?
- mc32 2y ago
  One non-boogeywoman scenario is that they were hoping the numbers would reverse and look good --so they bet things would get better, but they didn't. It's a chance people will take, sometimes.
  - bandyaboot 2y ago
    If they were willing to cook the numbers a year ago, they would certainly be willing to cook the revision numbers right before an election.
- Dig1t 2y ago
  Well a simple (cynical) take is that the current administration is no longer up for re-election, they’ve been replaced by a new candidate and so now it’s okay to blame the current administration.
  - bandyaboot 2y ago
    Equally simple is the observation that the new candidate is also a member of the current administration.
    - Dig1t 2y ago
      I don’t disagree, but there are also plenty of articles on many news sites which are simultaneously trying to distance Kamala from Biden.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Harris is literally the VP and takes an active role in advising and perhaps even running the current administration. Yes, she's not president, but one would hope the second-in-command would be taking on some responsibility in the administration. Thus, she very much shares this administration's success and failures.
kyawzazaw 2y ago
how would releasing this new info be helpful? or are you saying this latest release is not by the current administration but the previous inaccurate release is?
- anon291 2y ago
  I'm saying the Biden administration is ultimately honest of their own accord, but they rush to publish numbers and the media rushes to publicize the original numbers, in such a way as to make people overestimate jobs created. I've talked with people who will still cite old jobs numbers as reasons that Harris should be re-elected.
jasonlotito 2y ago
The article doesn't suggest doing this would have helped the current administration at all. Considering this was always going to get corrected around this time, quite the opposite. Any objective look at this is going to suggest it doesn't help the current administration get elected. So if we are considering conspiracy theories...
TeMPOraL 2y ago
"By the current administration to get re-elected" how? Without more specifics, this is a statement you could write about literally anything the current administration is doing or not doing, so it has no explanatory power at all.
emmp 2y ago
Surely revising the numbers downward close to election when people are paying most attention to them is exactly the opposite thing you would want to do to get re-elected? I'd argue the motivation for malfeasance only makes sense the opposite -- BLS does not want the administration reelected and thus is releasing worse numbers close to the election.
- anon291 2y ago
  The scandal of never having released the numbers and a future administration finding out and publicizing it is way worse than just admitting it up front and hoping no one cares. Mark my words, when it comes to media pundits, they'll still use the old numbers from the original publications, and everyone will just go along. That's how these things work.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]