That is a big part of it, but look closer at the years.
We use 1989, the year HW Bush was inaugurated.
We use 1993, the year Clinton was inaugurated.
Then we use 2000, the year W. was elected, not the year he was inaugurated.
So not only do we have the effect exaggerated, but we make it look like the decline occurred entirely under W.
that's not a bias. it's just bad labelling. a bias would be counting differently, or comparing apples to oranges. For example, Vorlon has defined "bias" with respect to polling data several times, in terms of sampling and the nature of a question being asked. If we extrapolate this understanding to unemployment data presentation, we can say that a bias would be something like defining differently "unemployment rate" differently in different years. And that's actually done sometimes. But bias is simply skew or prediliction or prejudice, such as an inclination of temperament or outlook, or a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green, or a voltage applied to an electrode to establish a reference level for operation. I'd say that the phenomenon to which you refer is more correctly identified as "propaganda" or "poor presentation" rather than "bias." Which term I'd choose would depend on whether I thought there was an intention to mislead. Giving the presenter the benefit of the doubt, I'll go with poor presentation rather than spin. It should have been caught by an editor, but in this "everyone's a publisher" age, such mistakes go through with regularity. I blame the schools.
Also, I couldn't identify it till you pointed it out. very clever.
