[1] Not media-quoted or foregrounded for the public.
[1] Not media-quoted or foregrounded for the public.
The media narrative is out of the control of the various statistics bodies, and it is up to the informed reader to seek out better sources if the article they are reading has scanty info. For the record though, FRED is frequently cited as a source in reputable mainstream media (I see it in the NYT all the time). Read The Economist some time, that's an international news source that will deeply report on these stats. Can't be helped if people prefer Fox or other garbage as their news diet.
You are complaining about media literacy and bad journalism, which is an entirely separate issue from the fact that the data both exists, and is extremely easy to access.
The frustration isn’t about access it is about trust.
People want metrics that reflect lived reality and can’t be spun or redefined every election cycle.
It is also possible to try to paint journalists as worst then they are ... that is good for actual quacks that to not like the good data.
Why are we wasting our time having this discussion and not just debating the finer points of Wittgenstein?
Once basic needs are met humans mostly do things for fun and entertainment. Truth seeking is mostly an after the fact justification for what was fun and entertaining in the moment.
Sich meinen, einer regel zu folgen, ist nicht, einer regel folgen.