John Hinderaker makes an excellent point over at Powerline today. As Bush’s poll numbers continue to tank on a number of issues, media-watchers wonder how much of the drop is attributable to anti-Bush reporters slanting the news. Hinderaker suggests that we can use the economy as a test case to find our answer:

What’s different about the economy is that, unlike most issues, we have lots of objective data that have been maintained, on a reasonably consistent basis, for many years. So, when inflation is under 3%, unemployment is under 5%, millions of jobs are being created, GDP growth is strong and consistent and incomes are rising, we can say, objectively, that poll respondents who rate the economy mediocre to poor are wrong. That is strong evidence, I think, that incomplete and biased reporting is driving Americans’ perceptions down on this issue. It is reasonable to believe that the same thing is happening on other issues where press coverage is relentlessly negative, as well.

Exactly. Iraq is a mixed picture — violence in Baghdad continues unabated, but Iraqi leaders have managed to prevent an all-out civil war despite the best efforts of al-Qaeda terrorists, and areas like Kurdistan are achieving unprecedented levels of peace and prosperity. Whether we are succeeding or failing is very much up for debate, but you wouldn’t know that just from reading the overheated and pessimistic news reports in the major dailies.

We can, however, measure the economy and take stock of its performance independently of the New York Times’ “Yes, but…” analysis or Chris Matthews’ mawkish tales about “working stiffs” not getting a fair shake. And as Hinderaker points out, those numbers indicate that when it comes to the U.S. economy, the pundits, and the polls, are wrong. So it’s not nonsensical to argue that on other issues — such as the chance of civil war in Iraq or opposition to the now-defunct Dubai ports deal — the pundits and the polls are wrong as well.