AP/Yahoo "News" headline: "Jobless Claims Fall for Third Straight Week."

Now the FACTS, as mainstream media reporting on this weekly announcement of the number of new unemployment claims the previous week gets worse and worse (which you would have thought impossible):

The REPORTED number of new claims for unemployment last week was 453,000. The REPORTED number of new claims for unemployment this week is 456,0000. On an apples-=to-apples basis, that means that new claims for unemployment ROSE by 3,0000. It gets worse.

The four-week average of new weekly unemployment claims--acknowledge to be a better gauge than the weekly number, although by no means necessarily the "correct" number--ROSE to 463,000 (with this number set up to decline modestly next week because the highest recent number is set to fall off the back end next week). The AVERAGE weekly number for all of DECEMBER (six months ago) was 455,000. In other words, not only did the number not "dip" this week--on an apples-to-apples basis--but the number has RISEN from six months ago This means NO IMPROVEMENT in layoffs in 6 full months (for brain challenged leftists out there: December (1), January (2), February (3), March (4), April (5), and May (6)). It gets still worse (as to the reporting).

Four weeks ago the weekly REPORTED number jumped 25,000 or so, to 471,000. Previously, it had gone down to 446,000, after a similar jump around Easter. In other words, this week's number is 10,000 WORSE than the number 5 weeks ago, even though the REPORTED "declines" for "three straight weeks" total 27,000 (14,000, 10,000 and now 3,000).

How can that be? REVISIONS. Not only is the weekly number--as distinguished from the number over time--unreliable because of subjective things like seasonal adjustments and special factors, but the weekly number is REVISED the next week. That 471,000 number was revised to 474,000. Thus, the headline the next week fell 14,000--instead of 11,000. So the number REPORTED two weeks weeks ago was 460,000. THAT number was then revised upward to 463,000 (all numbers approximate, but as reported in my previous articles every Thursday). Thus, the REPORTED decline a week ago was 10,000, to 453,000. Hold on. It gets worse (hard as it is to believe).

This week, the weekly number for last week was REVISED upward to 459,0000. That was a REVISION UPWARD of 5,000, or TWICE the supposed "decline" of 3,000 REPORTED for this week. Indeed, the revised number for last week-0-459,000--was almost the SAME as the 460,000 REPORTED two weeks ago. In other words, the REPORTED number has STAYED THE SAME for two weeks, and RISEN over the past 4 weeks (as the four-week average shows). That is why the four week average is 463,000--UP.

Summary, because it gets confusing and even I misspeak sometimes as to "two weeks ago" or "three weeks ago", or whatever. But I am the ONLY one giving you this analysis, which is NECESSARY to any real, honest reporting of thse numbers. The lat four weeks of REPORTED numbers are like this: 471,000, 460,000, 453,000, and 456,000. This was after the previous number was 446,000 (10,000 LESS than todya' reported number). The last four REVISED numbers are: 474,000, 463,000, 459,000, and ??????? (this week's number still to be revised nest week). Notice that in three weeks the numbers have been revised UPWARD a total of 12,000, and never less than 3,000 for any week. Yet, the DISHONEST AP, and probably rest of the mainstream media, have the CORRUPT GALL to say that new unemployment claims have "fallen" for three straight weeks!!!!!!

Do you think British Petroleum has lied to you? Of course you do, and you are right. Do you trust British Petroleum to tell you the truth in the future? Of course you don't, and you are right again. I have just shown you--as I have shown you week after week-0-that the despicable Associated Press has LIED to you. And if you read my previous articles over the past several weeks, I have conclusively shown you this week after week. There is absolutely NO reason for you ever to trust the DISHONEST AP, or the rest of the DISHONEST mainstream media. You simply cannot say--unless you are dishonest--that a REPORTED "decline" of 3,000 is a "third straight week" of decline, while the previous week's number has been revised UP 6,0000--making the reported number go UP 3,000. It is absurd. It is DISHONEST. It is CORRUPT.

But even this obvious dishonesty does not tell you the full dishonesty of the AP, and the mainstream media. The main point here is that the jobless claim number has NOT IMPROVED in six whole months. You could even say it has gotten WORSE--although I think that would be an AP type distortion of numbers that can't be honestly interpreted to say that. Yes, Obama has FAILED--despite "focusing like a laser beam"--to improve the job picture this ENTIRE YEAR--really since Thanksgiving.

Oh, the AP/Yahoo LIES did not stop there. The AP tried to make a big point out of the "tally of laid-off workers" making a big decline. Say what? What the Hell is the "tally of laid-off workers"? Well, the CORRUPT AP made that up as a DISHONEST way to refer to the total number of people on unemployment. Yes, "tally of laid-off workers"--in English--would refer to the CUMULATIVE total of laid-off workers, or even the weekly number of people laid off (measured by the weekly number of new unemployment claims). The total lnumber of people on unemployment is an AMBIGUOUS number, which by no means represents a "tally of laid-off workers". People may LOSE their unemployment benefits. They may EXPIRE (even though Congress keeps extending them). People may leave the country. They may simply stop looking for work. Nope. It is DISHONEST to refer to that number the way the despicable AP does. We KNOW that there was almost no "job creation" in May, outside of the Census. We KNOW that the weekly jobless claims number has NOT IMPROVED in six whole months. In that context, the total number of people on unemployment is the LEAST significant number out there. Unless weekly layoffs improve, and unless SUBSTANTIAL net jobs are created BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR, the employment picture cannot possibly improve.

British Petroleum or the Associated Press? Which is worse? Which is more DISHONEST? A very close question--as to the DISHONESTY (BP obviously causing more direct misery with the disaster itself). On balance, I give the nod for DISHONESTY to the Associated Press.