»» Columnists

Should We Really Care How Many Times The Word ‘Jobs’ Was Used In Wednesday’s GOP Debate?

by James Crugnale | 9:51 am, February 24th, 2012

» 23 comments

When you watch as much cable news as me, after a while you start noticing little patterns in news reporting — on Thursday, the prevailing narrative on MSNBC was the number of times the candidates uttered the word “jobs” at the previous night’s debate in Mesa, Arizona. This “factoid” was brought up no less than four times on four separate shows:

ALEX WAGNER: At last night’s debate in Arizona, a state hit hard by the recession and the morning crisis, the candidates said the word “jobs” six times, and birth control mentioned eight times! (Now with Alex Wagner, 12:12pm)

JIMMY WILLIAMS: The word jobs was uttered six times! By four men! Over an hour and a half period. Six times! If the number one problem in the country is people don’t have job, what’s the unemployment rate in Ohio? I don’t know, but I bet it’s pretty damn high. and they said “jobs” six times? Your uterus or my gay civil rights has nothing to do with jobs. Can they talk about jobs as opposed to your uterus or my gay civil rights? (The Dylan Ratigan Show, 4:21pm)

AL SHARPTON: For months now, the president has been talking from coast to coast about the thing Americans care most about — jobs. But funny enough, that word doesn’t seem to be in the GOP vocabulary. The four candidates in last night’s debate only said the word ten times between them. Willard only said it twice. Rick Santorum didn’t utter the word at all, but let’s face it. The Republican candidates and their crowds seem to get more riled up by other things. (PoliticsNation, 6:00pm)

ALEX WAGNER: The word jobs was mentioned six times, the word birth control was mentioned eight times! (The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, 10:07pm)

Only six times! Or ten, according to Al Sharpton. They hardly talked about jobs!

Really?

The media loves to play these gotcha games but, in particular, it is a gross oversimplification here to say that because the candidates didn’t use the term jobs verbatim it meant the Republican candidates didn’t actually discuss employment issues.

For instance, take a look at this passage from Newt Gingrich — he briefly mentions he helped bring down unemployment:

And at another point in the debate, Romney discussed his business expertise, which — he would argue — could lead to more jobs:

But wait, — they mentioned the Olympics 10 times!

In fairness to Governor Romney, the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City was a significant economic success for the state of Utah and produced a considerable amount of jobs:

Employment: 35,000 job years of employment.
Since some people may be employed for a decade or more, while others will be employed for just a few months, it is difficult to characterize the number of jobs created. The measure of jobs used here is derived from the sum of jobs created in annual terms from 1996 through 2003. Olympic related jobs start in 1996 with less than 100, but increase steadily, reaching a yearly peak of 12,590 in 2001, and a monthly peak of 25,070 in February 2002. The sum of employment in all of these years is equivalent to 35,000 jobs lasting one year.

As you continue to analyze Wednesday’s GOP debate transcript, it becomes clear that it is a gross oversimplification to say because the candidates didn’t use the term jobs verbatim meant the Republican candidates didn’t actually discuss economic solutions.

But I thought all they wanted to talk about was birth control? It turns out, most of the birth control talk was from Ron Paul, who mentioned it six times, and by Romney twice. But it wasn’t scattered throughout the debate, in fact, Paul mentions it five times in one passage:

If there’s a clear case for a subject that took attention off of jobs — focus your eyes on the frequency of the use of earmarks, which was referenced 28 times between the candidates and astoundingly, Arlen Specter was mentioned 11 times!

So, the next time an MSNBC talking head brings up this, “they only mentioned jobs x times,” meme — consider the fact that you can talk about creating jobs without mentioning the word “jobs.” Also, Arlen Specter was more of a distracting element than birth control.

And, of course, there is always the matter of that pesky moderator who is asking the questions that they are answering.

alex wagner, GOP debate, Jimmy Williams, Jobs, msnbc, word count

Anonymous

This is the one of the problems of living in the Too Much Information Age, with at least four cable news channels, each looking to fill 24 hours a day. There’s just way too much pressure to fill that time with meaningless fluff like this. And they ALL do it, every day.

(Although it is interesting that for all the whining that there was too much talk about birth control, that’s a phrase that barely registered.)
Anonymous

This shows where the Republicans priorities are. Win back American by defeating Obama and take over Congress. Impose conservative ideology and invade Iran for the sake of earmarks.
http://gregingleright.weebly.com/ Greg

They need to weave a narrative that will embed them with a favorable net demographic. The FOX empire will fall as their demographic ceases to philosophize and begins to fertilize. I think they frame well. The day is designed efficiently.
Ben

Well…They didn’t really talk about jobs,or solutions to create more jobs during that debate,did they?
I think that’s the point msnbc is making,but hey,that’s just me.

On the plus side,James didn’t base his research on one single tweet this time…so that’s good.
Anonymous

To be fair, analysis of frequency, especially when it comes to abstractions like words, never really tells us too much.
http://profile.yahoo.com/PMCIREXU5PX26WQB6W4P26LHNM Gary

Proving once again that if you are careful as you slice and dice data — both applying the cable shows and Mr Crugnale– you can substantiate any point that fits your predilection to keep you securely in your own comfort zone.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1572984371 Cindy Nowicki

It’s the “moderator” that asks the questions, NOT the candidates! How can candidates answer questions that are NOT asked?

Our citizens would be better served, if candidates would sit at a roundtable and discuss in detail, their views, ideas, etc. on all things concerning the economy, jobs, foreign policy, etc.

Let the audience ask the pertinent questions that face the US today. No time limits, or ridiculous questions from biased moderators WITH an agenda!

The ONLY thing a moderator should do, is make sure the discussion doesn’t get out of hand.
Anonymous

Did you read this article? At all? Your comment, true or not, is completely irrelevant to the actual subject of the article.

Back to relevant things, I agree with exGOPman. Another case of information and statistics overload that although makes a pretty graphic, tells us absolutely nothing of substance.
Anonymous

It wasn’t completely irrelevant. It was in accordance to their word cloud.
Anonymous

I put this blame of less talk of jobs squarely on King’s shoulders. This was the most important debate of the primary season and King’s questions were the same old – as were the audience questions.

While I like the debates – I’m glad they are over. Because all we kept getting was the same fluff – over and over again.

There has to be a better way when it gets down to 4 candidates.
Anonymous

Sharpton is an idiot, he won’t have a show soon. He can get in line with Matthews to give obama hand jobs while Obama is on vacation. They answered kings questions. Yeah Obama is doing a great job, 18% unemployement or underemployement. Debt and gas prices are rising, people don’t know how to pay their bills. Hmmm, sign me up for some more of this please. We are heading in a very dangerous direction while the media and everyone else just wants to keep pushing their own projects instead of what is good for this country. I want someone who can lower the debt and get people back to work. Obama wants to keep borrowing money from china to pay for entitlements. Eventually the money will run out, but Obama and the others are living in a dream world where the printing press just keeps printing money. Any business would be out of business if they spent like the U.S. Families can’t get that type credit, why should a country? And those idiots wonder why our credit rating got downgraded. Did they graduate in basket weaving?
Anonymous

Our credit rating was downgraded because of “conservative” Republican scum bags that wish for the country to fail so that they can be in power again. Look it up.
Anonymous

who was president? who borrowed more money? the answer is obama. We are spending more than we are bringing in, that is why and the who. When you are blowing obama and the media come up for air so you can learn how the economy works. If you have a lot more debt than the money you are bringing in your credit rating will get downgraded. Stop this blame conservatives crap, for one thing its both sides that can’t agree on anything to make a debt deal, but who spent 6 trill Obama. can’t spend that kind of money, need to cut spending or else we will won’t have a country to debate these types of issues. You got mcsquirtyed on!
Anonymous

Just where the Hell were you in the previous 8 years while the Credit Card Texan went on an apeshit spending spree.Don’t give me any of your insincere outrage, and take that pleasure rod out of your hand,I sure don’t want Mcsquirted on.
Anonymous

You’re not only full of crap but apparently full of your own “squirt”. Go read the report from the credit agency and tell me where it says that the POTUS was to blame for the downgrade. It specifically calls out the Republicans and the way that they like to “govern” (if you want to call bitching, whining, moaning and generally being scum bags governing) as the reason for the credit down grade.

Now go change your name again, Stonepark.
Anonymous

I am sure some of you anti-birthers might like to learn that the brother of a well-known birther is heading the tech community behind the Trust the Vote open source digital voting project. Here he is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/opengov/3292627731/

And here is the story: http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/answers/
Anonymous

lol

where do we look that up – media matter? MSMedia’s talking points?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U7T5LVIQK7AMIBM5WI765VDVDQ smald4lib

Republicans have a real gift for waving the flag and appealing to people who want to return to a simpler time. The problem is that most people who vote Republican want to return to the 1950s. The Republican party wants to return to the 1890s.
Anonymous

“Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-does-not-believe-the-bush-tax-cuts-will-get-lifted-in-2012-2011-8?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+businessinsider+(Business+Insider)#ixzz1nKo9TJL4Poor pathetic “conservative” scum bags can’t even handle facts. Never could, for that matter.
Anonymous

You should either swallow or get a towel, but to don’t spit.
Anonymous

Its more like a tree trunk not a rod. I think you would like it too much so I will spare you. I like to force it upon people like the government and Kobe.
Anonymous

Yes, we should care. They keep talking about jobs, and they were elected on a platform of JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, but the only thing they’re focusing on is social issues. And getting rid of Obama. That’s it. Nothing else. They are the PARTY OF NO. I’m not a fan of Obama and I think he could have done a lot more to help the country and to make things better for many of the people but compared to him, the GOP aren’t worth my bother.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LDO6LIQBI2JQ4Q5MWLWBKGKSJY bensanity

Arlen Spector > JOBS??!?1