Can Washington Post Reporters Count?

[NOTE: This post was UPDATED Sept. 10]

In a Washington Post article today, “Obama jobs plan: Economists give good reviews but say more needed on mortgage debt,” Zachary Goldfarb reports that “President Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan got generally good reviews from economists,” although he notes that “several” noted the “glaring omission” of mortgage debt relief. “Many economists agreed,” he noted, that if passed the plan would “stimulate spending and reduce the unemployment rate.”

Really? How “many” economists, and who are they? Several enthusiast supporters of the president’s plan — and one who is “even more enthusiastic about the plan” than others, Mark Zandi — were quoted, but how many were interviewed? Were any critics interviewed? None was quoted; does that mean no economists are critical? Not many? Does Goldfarb’s assertion that the president’s plan (has he actually seen it?) “got generally good reviews from economists” really mean, as it implies, that all or even most economists gave it generally good reviews?

In the absence of any information about which economists, and how many of them, are the basis for Goldfarb’s assertions, his article reads more like a handout from the Democratic National Committee than a news report. He, his editor (if he had one), and the Washington Post should be embarrassed about this piece.

UPDATE [10 Sept.]

For an impressive contrast, take a look at this article, “Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur,” by reporter Motoko Rich that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times.

Although the concern of the article is the response of employers to the president’s proposals, note how what he says about economists is markedly at odds with Goldfarb’s puff piece in the Washington Post: “Administration officials and some economists, of course, say they believe the president’s plan, if adopted, could help increase demand more broadly.” [Emphasis added]

Like Goldfarb in the Post, Rich uses the term “many” freely,
as in:

The dismal state of the economy is the main reason many companies are reluctant to hire workers, and few executives are saying that President Obama’s jobs plan — while welcome — will change their minds any time soon.

and:

… many employers dismissed the notion that any particular tax break or incentive would be persuasive. Instead, they said they tended to hire more workers or expand when the economy improved.

Unlike Goldfarb, however, Rich actually interviewed and quoted many employers and found that even employers who could use the promised incentives confirmed the skepticism about their worth. “To the extent these measures could be used,” he found, “many employers said they would most likely support people whom companies were planning to hire anyway.” Rich’s use of “many,” however, was followed by specific examples, as here:

Chesapeake Energy, one of the biggest explorers of oil and gas in shale fields across the country, for example, said it had 800 positions open, and had already received tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed.

But Michael Kehs, vice president for strategic affairs and public relations, said in an e-mail that the credit “does not drive our hiring.”

For others, the math just does not add up. Roger Tung, the chief executive of Concert Pharmaceuticals, said the company, a privately held biotechnology firm with 45 employees, would save $150,000 a year from the proposed corporate payroll tax deductions.

But that is still not enough to cover the cost of hiring even one additional employee at the Lexington, Mass., company, Mr. Tung said, once benefits and other expenses besides salary are included. He can hire, he said, only when investors become confident again and the company can raise more money.

Reading reporting that actually reports is as refreshing as it is rare.