A quick search shows that a few papers decided to play up the anti-Hoover angle to the latest jobs report. The Newark Star-Ledger apparently just rewrote the original AP’s story:

President Bush has narrowly escaped becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch.

These other papers wrote their own versions that mentioned Hoover.

The Contra Costa Times:

Herbert Hoover can keep his place in the history books, because President Bush’s first term produced a gain in jobs — barely.

The Boston Herald:

President Bush won’t be haunted by economic comparisons to Herbert Hoover on the jobs front – at least for now.

The Washington Post didn’t reference Hoover specifically, but alluded to the overall issue:

The nation’s longest job slump since the Depression ended last month when U.S. employers hired enough new workers to boost total payrolls above the level before the 2001 recession.

These papers aren’t right-wing propaganda pieces out to protect Bush’s record. Nor are the other papers paragons of leftist thought. But the different ways this story was presented shows how much influence journalists have in framing the news.

Obviously the issue was debated in a lot of newsrooms last night. In the end, I don’t really care which way it was decided, I’d just like to know the debate was fair and no one’s view was dismissed too easily.

(By the way, the New York Times manages to write the entire story without referencing anything about the overall job numbers for Bush.)