A Washington Post news story earlier week served to demonstrate that mainstream media journalists apply the same prism overseas as they do domestically when covering illegal immigration and the Ground Zero mosque: When an overwhelming majority of the public goes against the media’s position, journalists see division and portray politicians sharing the majority position as causing rancor.

Case in a point: An article from Paris on page A6 of the Tuesday, August 31, Washington Post, “Crackdown on Roma divides French: Unease grows as Sarkozy razes camps, expels residents,” in which the newspaper’s Edward Cody led: “Much of France has returned from summer vacation in a rancorous mood, disturbed by a crackdown ordered by President Nicolas Sarkozy against illegal Roma camps and naturalized immigrant youths who attack police in troubled suburbs.” Yes, the French people are “disturbed” that the police are reacting against immigrants who attack them.

Cody proceeded to assert “the unease over the action against illegal Roma immigrants, most from Romania and Bulgaria, has been particularly strong, with the expulsions drawing criticism at home and abroad.” Indeed, “for many, such policies undermine France's idea of itself as a haven for exiles and a beacon for human rights. Similar fears of intolerance were raised in July when, at Sarkozy's urging, the National Assembly passed a law banning women from wearing full-face Islamic veils in public.”

Those Cody cited were hardly the citizenry, but Sarkozy’s political opponents and meddling foreigners, starting with how “a U.N. human rights panel sharply criticized Sarkozy's actions against the Roma camps last week and called on him to halt the campaign. Pope Benedict XVI, speaking in French to make sure the message was received, called on Catholics to respect human diversity.” Cody also maintained: “In the political arena, the policies have generated protests from Sarkozy's opponents, on the right as well as the left.”

Not until the 7th paragraph did Cody relay some information that undermined his entire premise and explained why a politician like Sarkozy would be pursuing policies that supposedly enraged the electorate:

In a recent poll, two-thirds of those queried approved of the campaign, suggesting the policy might provide at least temporary gains as Sarkozy maneuvers to set the stage for reelection in 2012.

Cody’s next sentence should have been: “Never mind.”

Jay Leno on Friday ribbed Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the poor state of the economy.

In his opening monologue on the "Tonight Show," the comedian began with a lot of politics first joking about the President's Middle East peace talks, then moving to the war in Afghanistan, and eventually a poke at airline security.

On the day the Labor Department announced an uptick in the unemployment rate, Leno had a number of jokes about how bad the economy is.

Finally, the monologue concluded with a nice tribute to a United States Marine Corps unit in the audience (video follows with commentary):

It sure is nice to see the late night comedians feeling that this White House is no longer off limits. 

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld had some fun Thursday evening bashing NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel for absurd comments he made on the "Today" show this week.

As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, Engel that morning told NBC's Ann Curry:

If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation.

LAURA INGRAHAM: In the "Back of the Book" segment tonight, "The Dumbest Things of the Week." Is NBC News making excuses for Saddam Hussein? Regardless of your thoughts on Iraq, one thing most people agree on is that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But some are wondering if NBC's chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engle, doesn't miss the good old days when Saddam was still around.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD ENGLE, NBC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: If there had been no invasion, Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the -- into -- by a lot of European countries. He was being welcomed in Eastern Europe, in particular.

He was heading in a direction of accommodation. The sanctions regime that was holding him in place was starting to fail. So, I think it would be somewhat of a basket case, but it would be -- Iran would be a lot more contained.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining us now from New York is Greg Gutfeld, host of "Red Eye" and the author of "The Bible of Unspeakable Truths."

So Greg, as far as I can tell, Saddam was on the verge of having his own reality show.

GREG GUTFELD, HOST, "RED EYE": I mean, you have to figure out he said he would be more moderate. You have to ask him, what does he mean by moderate? Was he talking about alcohol intake? Was he going to cut back on his booze? Or was he going to only gas half as many Kurds or tell his sons they could only rape women every other weekend?

Pr maybe he was becoming more environmentally friendly and was going to use renewable car batteries when he electrocuted his citizens. So we need -- we need to give specifics on what he meant by moderation.

INGRAHAM: I think he was clearly going green, Greg. He was making inroads with Eastern Europe. I don't know what countries in Eastern Europe? Poland? Old Czechoslovakia? What countries was he getting close to? I just don't recall that.

GUTFELD: He does have a point, though. He said that, if we didn't have the war, Saddam would be more accommodating, which is true because you are more accommodating when you are not dead. It's really hard to buy somebody dinner when you're dead. So, in effect, he's actually correct by accident.

INGRAHAM: Well, Iran -- Iran might not have been the problem it is today, but the idea that he -- it was going to be Saddam the milquetoast if we didn't invade. I just -- I was desperately looking to follow that logic. But you know, when NBC is involved, Greg, all bets are off. All bets are off.

GUTFELD: Yes. Can't stomach victory. You've got a war that you've won. Enjoy it.

INGRAHAM: Winning is not fun. We're supposed to be America on our knees, begging for mercy all the time. You don't understand that. We need to apologize, Greg. Get used to it.

GUTFELD: I am. Believe me. I'm married.

To give readers an idea just how absurd Engel's comments were, even the liberal Mediaite found this segment to its liking.

Now that's saying something.

Liberal "comedian" Kathy Griffin thinks there is no line of rudeness she can't cross, including calling the daughters of Sen. Scott Brown "prostitutes." On Monday's Joy Behar Show on CNN Headline News, Griffin proclaimed "But yes, whenever a statement is issued against me, I`m in heaven. I feel my next special is half written for me. And then I get to read statements allowed in my live shows which you can go to KathyGriffin.net and see the many, many cities I`ve picked up for my current tour."

Not even Rep. Barney Frank could make her feel bad about it:

BEHAR: So you're really feeling bad about it all? Okay, I mean, when Barney Frank turns on you, one of your gays, you have to start to wonder.

GRIFFIN: Hey, the gays, look, there is -- that's -- there is a reason that that flag has colors. There's many levels and colors. There's not just -- I mean, I make the joke about the gays, but there's many, many kinds of gay people like there are many, many kinds of straight people. And you know, he's one of my gays. He just doesn't know it because he doesn`t know, you know, who I am, as usual.

Behar had the same conversation with liberal "comedian" Margaret Cho on August 25, but Cho had no idea who Scott Brown was. So Behar told her (incorrectly) that Scott Brown posed for Playgirl magazine -- when it was really Cosmopolitan. 

BEHAR: And he also introduced his daughters in one speech that he gave saying they're available and he posed for them in bikinis. They were in bikinis. People felt that they were easy targets and available. But she got into trouble because he didn't like that she called them prostitutes.

CHO: Yes, well, I don't know. I think she can say whatever she wants. And part of her appeal and her glory is that she does. She doesn`t really care.

BEHAR: She doesn't care, the more you criticize, the more she loves it.

This logic of Griffin's doesn't always work -- CNN did bump her off their New Year's Eve program as she incessantly tried to embarrass Anderson Cooper. 

Rap star Kanye West bashed former President George W. Bush on Saturday while apologizing to country singer Taylor Swift for his appalling behavior at last year's MTV Video Awards.

Our story begins with West making a fool of himself - again! - when he interrupted Swift last September during her acceptance speech for best female music video of 2009 (right).

With the 2010 Awards quickly approaching, West must have felt it necessary to make amends.

As People.com reported moments ago, West took to Twitter early Saturday morning issuing a bizarre stream of consciousness apology:

"I wrote a song for Taylor Swift that's so beautiful and I want her to have it," he said on his Twitter Saturday morning. "If she won't take it then I'll perform it for her."

West's actual Twitter account doesn't show any of these tweets. However, the People links do indicate the activity being reported suggesting West has since taken them down:

Nearly a year since he first apologized to Swift, the hip-hop artist is still offering up I'm sorries, calling her "justa lil girl with dreams like the rest of us" on his Twitter.

"She deserves the apology more than anyone," he Tweeted, before thanking the creators of Twitter for making a public platform for expression.

"We're both artist[s] and the media and managers are trying to get between us. Everyone wants to capitalize off this [in] some way." 

Maybe even more delicious, MTV.com reported some other tweets People missed:

Expounding on the backlash he received, he wrote, "If you Google a--hole my face may very well pop up 2 pages into the search. ... There are people who don't dislike me ... they absolutely hate me. People tweeted that they wish I was dead ... No listen. They wanted me to die, people. I carry that."

I was indeed hoping his face would appear in such a Google search. Unfortunately, no. But I digress:

Kanye went on to say that the media vilified him. He alluded to his claim during a 2005 NBC telethon for Hurricane Katrina that "George Bush doesn't care about black people," as a point for which the media was looking to pay him back. He noted that in the VMA aftermath, the media played the race card and turned it into an angry black man versus innocent white girl issue.

"Even though the NBC telethon was widely praised y'all didn't think they was just gone let me get away with that did y'all???!!!" he questioned, rhetorically. "The media has successfully diminished the 'receptive' audience of... KANYE WEST. ...taking a 15 second blip the media have successfully painted the image of the 'ANGRY BLACK MAN.' The King Kong theory. With the help of strong will, a lack of empathy, a lil alcohol and extremely distasteful & bad timing ... I became George Bush over night."

I was wondering when he'd take to bashing Bush. For those that have forgotten, this was West during the aforementioned Hurricane Katrina telethon in September 2005:

I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they're looting. See a white family, it says they're looking for food. And you know that it's been five days because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV, because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before I've even given a donation. So now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help with the set up the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way, and they have given them permission to go down and shoot us...George Bush doesn't care about black people.

Makes one wonder how much alcohol and "extremely distasteful & bad timing" it took for West to again make an "a--hole" of himself.

Actually, it should now be apparent that this isn't that difficult for him. 

The following headline appeared at Time.com shortly after the release of Friday's jobs report:

What's Good About Rising Unemployment

What should jump out at the eagle-eyed reader is that headline didn't end with a question mark.

Time senior writer Stephen Gandel was actually making the case that the rising unemployment rate was good news.

Watch just how far a liberal media member is willing to go today to make economic data look favorable for the Party currently in power, and imagine the unlikelihood of such a thing happening if a Republican was in the White House (h/t Rusty Weiss):

The unemployment rate, probably the most famous of economic gauges, may actually be a very bad indicator of how healthy the economy is. [...]

The unemployment rate peaked in late 2009 at just above 10% and has been mostly falling ever since. But the hiring numbers, or less firing numbers, have only been improving recently. So what was going on? The unemployment rate tracks not just how many people have jobs, but how many people are looking for jobs. And, up until August, the number of people looking for jobs was dropping rapidly.

Really? And just how did Gandel reach that conclusion?

Here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics' table of folks 16 and over currently out of the labor force but wanting a job now:

As is plainly visible, the number of folks out of the labor force but wanting work has been fluctuating between 5.61 million and 6.31 million since last August. It did experience a large drop in May, but has pretty much been rising since and is now basically where it was in April and January.

As such, claiming that "up until August, the number of people looking for jobs was dropping rapidly" is utter nonsense not supported by the data. In fact, this number is basically right back to where it was last September.

With that in mind, let's continue:

When people give up looking for work, essentially giving up on the economy, that indicates a really bad drop in confidence, something a recovery feeds on. So the reason the unemployment rate was rising has less to do with more people getting jobs, and more to do with fewer people looking.

Is this really a senior writer? 

Let's walk through that last sentence again: "So the reason the unemployment rate was rising has less to do with more people getting jobs..."

Huh? The unemployment rate is a simple arithmetic equation whereby the number of people unemployed is divided by the number of people considered part of the labor force. 

Using data just released Friday, there are currently 14.86 million people considered unemployed. The labor force is 154.11 million. This produces an unemployment rate of 9.64 percent.

Now, when people get jobs, the number considered unemployed declines reducing the numerator and therefore decreasing the unemployment rate.

As such, to claim rising unemployment has less to do with more people getting jobs makes absolutely no sense.

On the other hand, the final part of that sentence "and more to do with fewer people looking" needs to be addressed.

"Discouraged workers" - those out of the labor force but wanting a job - can have a huge impact on the unemployment rate.

The way these numbers are calculated, you are only considered unemployed and part of the labor force if you're actively looking for work. As such, when folks give up their search, it reduces the number of unemployed and the labor force by an equal amount.

Once again going back to simple arithmetic, a decrease in the numerator and denominator by an equal amount results in a lower ratio.

2 divided by 3 equals .67; 1 divided by 2 equals .5.

With this in mind, the unemployment rate can decline simply by discouraged job seekers ending their search. This has happened a number of times in the past few years.

Conversely, discouraged workers re-entering the labor force can cause the unemployment rate to rise. An increase in the numerator and denominator by equal amounts produces a higher result.

Gandel claimed this is what happened last month:

According to today's report, 550,000 people entered the workforce in August. That's a huge jump of new people looking for work, either because they haven't worked before or because they decided that this was the month to get back off the couch and start looking. With that many people entering the workforce, the fact that the unemployment number only rose 0.1% is quite a good thing. In fact, more than half of those people who began looking for work in August, or 290,000, landed a job in August. 

I agree that this this could be good news, but not necessarily for the same reason.

To make the case that the big jump in the labor force in August was even partially due to discouraged workers starting to look for work again goes against the data as the number of people out of the labor force and wanting work now increased by 86,000.

It goes without saying that if this huge increase in the labor force was caused by discouraged workers re-entering it, the number of discouraged workers wanting work should have declined.

But that's not what happened.

Instead, it appears the August data might have been confounded by seasonalities and the associated adjustments.

As employment watchers are painfully aware, there are seasonal changes in the jobs market that make for wild shifts in the numbers depending on the month.

The summer is a particularly volatile period with teachers out of work, students taking part-time jobs, and graduates getting full-time positions.

To smooth out the data, the Labor Department makes adjustments to the raw figures each month; the headline numbers are always "seasonally adjusted."

However, these manipulations at times present a peculiar picture of the labor market. As Gandel correctly pointed out:

It is possible that coming at the end of the summer an uptick in people looking for work is not as positive as it appears. This is the time of year, after two hot months, when recent graduates start to actually think about their future and send out resumes. And you can image many other out of work people deciding to take off looking for a job in the summer. In August, with the summer ending, some of those people started looking again in earnest.

Exactly. As such, the uptick in the labor force might have had little to do with discouraged workers beginning a new search as he suggested earlier. 

In fact, the unadjusted data actually showed a 600,000 decline in the labor force as well as an almost 400,000 decrease in the number of people unemployed.

This means the August data could easily be confounded by seasonalities and their related adjustments thereby offering a fuzzy picture about what any of this means going forward.

This is not to say Friday's report wasn't better than expected.

Over the past couple of weeks, signs had been pointing to a much worse economic conditions leading analysts to ratchet down their estimates for these numbers. As a result, what the BLS released Friday was certainly better than the gloomiest predictions out there.

But, calling this clearly mixed bag "good news" should be left to the administration and the Party currently controlling Congress and not so depicted by a so-called journalist.  

This seems especially true given that these exact same numbers would certainly not have been reported with such optimism when George W. Bush was in the White House.

Or have you forgotten the media's favorite economic term during his presidency "jobless recovery?"