Labour market data reporting

Remember my post of yesterday? Check it out:

Times & Transcript
Rising unemployment has an upside
Jody Carr, the provincial minister of post-secondary education and training, said the data illustrates that there is greater confidence in the economy.”I am also pleased that 36,000 more New Brunswickers are working than in June of 1999, and over 17,000 more since June of 2003,” he said in reference to the last two provincial elections.

Then, the last two paragraphs of the article:

Last year the provincial economy lost thousands of full-time, permanent, export-oriented manufacturing jobs, especially in the competitive wood processing sector, which were replaced largely by part-time jobs in the service sector.

Moncton’s unemployment rate is 7.8 per cent, up from 5.6 per cent a year ago.

I am surprised that Al Hogan let the last two sentences in. You lead with “Rising Unemployment has an Upside” and then you slip in at the bottom with the province lost thousands of full time manufacturing jobs – replaced by part time jobs in the service sector. And you slip in at the bottom of the article that Moncton’s unemployment rate is up over 2 percentage points. This put’s Moncton’s unemployment rate among the highest in Canada.

And it is just ‘slipped’ in a the end.

And Jody Carr, is pleased about the confidence in the economy.

Most likely, the Moncton numbers are an abberation – the Tories better hope so.

So, all you journalism students out there, what should be the essence of the story? That high unemployment has an ‘upside’ or that Moncton’s unemployment rate is now among the highest urban rates in Canada?

Ask Al.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Labour market data reporting

  1. Anonymous says:

    I’ll repeat myself, sorry, but I can’t help it. Look for more things like that to ‘crop up’ in reporting. I think the Irvings realize that the conservatives have served their purposes and it’s time to switch horses. Look for the liberals to start becoming much more moderate (like they weren’t in the past) as time goes on.

  2. scott says:


    Are you indicating that the Irving newspapers are unethically biased? Is that what you’re saying?

    No wonder you’re hiding behind a vail of anonymity.

    As a rule, I only say what I know I can back up. If something can’t be said without putting my name behind it…than it is not worth the mention.

  3. scott says:

    By the way, I meant veil.

  4. Anonymous says:

    How can you be ‘unethically biased’, that has no meaning. They are biased, that is very very clear. Are they unethical? Well, that’s for readers to decide, regular readers of this blog know full well the outright lies they tell and the issues they continually avoid. In journalism clearly ANY bias is unethical in my opinion. That is my opinion, just as the above is.

    Why exactly putting ‘scott’ on a post is considered less anonymous is beyond me, however, thats nice that you only say things you can back up, good for you.

    The only way we’ll know if it’s true or not remains to be seen. You’ll note that during all the hubbub about Lord’s salary the Irving papers made a point of saying that it was party money ‘donated and publicly accounted for’. Yet oddly enough, when I tried to get that information it wasn’t available anywhere. I guess they just have a different idea of what ‘publicly available’ means.

    But gee, I wonder what company’s name probably figures quite prominently in that ‘public account’. Again, thats just my opinion I CANT back it up, because the Irving press was LYING and we CANT find out who the donators are to the party.