Bozell Column: The Media Never Loved Reagan
Is it not amazing that it’s taken the news media exactly 100 years to discover that Ronald Reagan was a role model? While he lived and even after he died, they shot every arrow and dropped every bomb they could on this man and his reputation. Now that it’s his 100th birthday and America is celebrating, they find him useful. They’re trying to rub Reagan’s magic all over a floundering Obama.
After Obama’s latest State of the Union speech – a dreary, boring spectacle for a normally riveting speaker – all three networks praised Obama as “Reaganesque,” as if he were one of the sunniest American exceptionalists. Time’s latest cover reads “Why Obama [Hearts] Reagan,” and the cover story inside is titled “The Role Model,” oozing that Obama “realized long ago that Ronald Reagan was a transformational president.”
This is all a grand deception.
The multitude of Americans who were very young or yet unborn in the Reagan years might be misled from one enormous reality: in his prime, Reagan was deeply dispised by the the same media that now honor him. He was stupid, he was uncaring, he was evil, he was senile, and he was going to ruin America, if not destroy the world in a nuclear war.
The Media Research Center has assembled a Special Report to recount some of the most pernicious and false attacks on Reagan. Let’s consider just a few examples, among hundreds.
Take the class war. The “news” people were always waging it. ABC’s Richard Threlkeld went to a Miami riot scene in 1989 and announced: “There is an Overtown in every big city in America. Pockets of misery made even meaner and more desperate the past eight years.” NBC’s Bryant Gumbel proclaimed in 1989: “Largely as a result of the policies and priorities of the Reagan Administration, more people are becoming poor and staying poor in this country than at any time since World War II.”
NBC reporter Keith Morrison took the cake in 1992: “Did we wear blinders? Did we think the ’80s just left behind the homeless? The fact is that almost nine in ten Americans actually saw their lifestyle decline.” Morrison completely ignored reality: (Census Bureau data shows median family income increased in all income classes from 1981 to 1989.)
The meanest attack was that Reagan’s lack of caring led to a pile of AIDS deaths. NBC’s Maria Shriver asked activist Elizabeth Glaser at the 1992 Democratic convention: “You place the responsibility for the death of your daughter squarely on the feet of the Reagan administration. Do you believe they’re responsible for that?”
A 1998 PBS program on Reagan claimed: “AIDS became an epidemic in the 1980s, nearly 50,000 died. Reagan largely ignored it.” CBS “Sunday Morning” TV critic John Leonard sneered that Reagan “took this plague less seriously than Gerald Ford had taken swine flu. After all, he didn’t need the ghettos and he didn’t want the gays.” He added, as Reagan’s legacy: “by 1992, 194,364 American men, women, and children were dead.”
(In reality, AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 – when the media started blaring headlines – from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988. This is what CBS calls “largely ignoring it.”)
But defense spending was, by contrast, an enormous waste. Take it from ABC’s Jim Wooten in 1990: “The dreaded federal deficit, created, for the most part, by the most massive peacetime military buildup in America’s history.” (But in 1990, defense spending was a fourth of the budget and had decreased 16 percent in the previous five years, while entitlements were half the budget and grew sharply.)
The reality of the Reagan years was a historic economic recovery, a strong defense posture that led to the demise of the Soviet empire, and an America that once more burst with pride. But media liberals were so obstinate in denying reality that CBS’s Morley Safer huffed just days after Reagan passed away: “When it gets down to the real substance, I don’t think history has any reason to be kind to him.”
All Reagan received was mudballs like this one from NBC's Tom Brokaw at the end of 1989: “Reagan, as commander-in-chief, was the military's best friend. He gave the Pentagon almost everything it wanted. That spending, combined with a broad tax cut, contributed to a trillion-dollar deficit....Social programs? They suffered under Reagan. But he refused to see the cause and effect."
The “objective” press that never saw any reason to be kind to President Reagan can only manage to do it now to try and save the sinking ship that is Barack Obama’s presidency. No one should let them put these two men in the same sentence, unless it’s to discuss how far we’ve fallen as a nation.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Brent - I like your column,
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:03am.
Brent - I like your column, but I have to vehemently disagree about calling Boy Barry a 'normally riveting speaker'................especially now that we've had the opportunity to see what he's made out of - which isn't much. I NEVER could understand they hype about his oratory skills........unless it was related to how well he could read a teleprompter, and even then, his arrogant back and forth with his head cocked back, coupled with his totally contrived speech pattern, just irritated the hell out of me...............and a lot of other people that I know too.
And now, it seems like a LOT more people know that it's just a big charade................
Red State Blue State
Submitted by SimJim on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:13am.
The last and only time I was impressed with an Obama speech was his Red State, Blue State speech at the Dem convention. Even then i knew he was full of crap, but the speech was delivered well. I'm not sure why we have to play these games of pretend with the media?
Well, if you want to talk
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:38am.
Well, if you want to talk about 'well delivered speeches that are full of crap', then let's go to the king of them all - Der Schlickmeister Slick Willy Clinton. And he can do it off the cuff!!! Obama is a lightweight in ALL arenas, and especially when compared to Clinton with regards to public speaking.
But.........yeah.......they are BOTH full of crap. To paraphrase Billy Martin (when talking about George Steinbrenner and Reggie Jackson) - 'one is a pathological liar, and the other IS a lie'!!
Well said...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:43am.
My thoughts exactly...The cadence of Obama's speech makes me nuts, too. It quickly becomes extremely tiresome, to the point that I just can't listen to him anymore and hit the mute button.
The ridiculous hype and smoke and mirrors that the American people were subjected to about Obama is largely over, no matter how hard the media tries to resurrect them. Most people can see now that Obama has not proven to be what he was packaged and sold as, and is in fact something else entirely...He is a committed "the bigger the government the better" liberal leftist, who is still, 2 years in, figuring out how to be president. I just hope that enough of his supporters from the first time around have learned a hard lesson, and will not make the same mistake again in 2012.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
I agree k37
Submitted by gwalt on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 8:10am.
Riveting speaker? I said back in 2008 he was a boor, a bore and a snore. When my wife said how exciting it must have been for so and so friend to meet him working on his campaign, I stated he would be the last person I would want to meet. Now he can't fill a gymnasium for one of his 'look at me" speeches. How pathetic.
"A lot of briefing for a 2 hr. special with Dan Rather. Saw the show & wonder why we bothered". Ronald Reagan
I agree, killa---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:09am.
as it appears that many who apparently are trying to be decent and even-handed with their comments, tilt a bit too far towards being "fair", when the target subject truly deserves nothing more than a back-handed bitch slap.
Like you suggested for Schmucky Schumer on that other thread.
The knuckles do get itchy, don't they. :o)
MD
Well, you know, MD, that I'm
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:28am.
Well, you know, MD, that I'm a pretty mellow guy - although I know how to take care of myself. But do you think I'm delusional when I say that guys like Chuck U.............or Keef O................or Chuck U's bastard son from hell, Anthony 'the weener' Weiner..........SHOULD get a couple of backhands - just on general principle??? I'm sure it wouldn't have ANY impact on them (hell, Schumah would sue me for every cent I have - which is NONE - but he'd probably end up with my little piece of paradise here in Hawaii)............but it'd probably make you and me, and a lot of others, feel a little better!!!
killa---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:54am.
If you are delusional, then there are a lot of us right along with you. The only problem I can see with thumpin' these huckster-mucksters, is two-fold, before and during: during - breaking part of the metacarpus (hand OR forefoot) upon striking the bone density of their liberal noggins; before - having to watch grown metrosexuals scream like mashed cats in fear of being physically shown the error of their ways. :o)When You Finish...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 8:23am.
Killa, when you finish slapping the crap out of these jerkasses, there will be several of us in line to take our turn! It will be By-Partisan [ I'll slap them "by theLaft hand and then by the right"!].
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
<Chris Matthews imitation>
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:24am.
<Chris Matthews imitation> HA!!
Reagan and Obama: NO Comparison
This says it all, in 30 seconds.
Obama it an aloof and offputting speaker
Submitted by StanO360 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:35am.
When he is outside the range of the rose colored glasses, he is the class president thinking that everyone came to the assembly just to hear his speech. Has no aide ever pointed out that sticking your nose up in the air and throwing your head back implies derision of the listener?
Right on target...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:12am.
"The 'objective' press that never saw any reason to be kind to President Reagan can only manage to do it now to try and save the sinking ship that is Barack Obama’s presidency."
Precisely. And it is more important than ever to make sure that this crucial fact is made crystal clear in the age we now live in because there are so many twenty and thirtysomethings (and younger) out there who were either too young to remember Reagan, or who hadn't even been born yet when he was in office. Many if not most of these young people largely know of Reagan only what they have learned from their liberal leaning, revisionist history textbooks, and the corrupt, leftist media. These younger Americans must be taught the truth about who President Reagan really was, what he wanted for the country, what his presidency accomplished, and what his legacy is.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
The MSM Expose Themselves Again
Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 5:56am.
Anyone over 45years old has had to listen to the constant bombastic declarations of Reagan being the devil incarnate up until Obama's recent cram session on him in Hawaii. To call Obama "Reaganesque" ingnores all that Obama has ever been merely because he said a couple of things that sounded kinda like Reagan in the SOTU address. The incredible hypocrisy of stealing Reagan's legacy for political haymaking by the MSM who has vilified him all these years is an amazing spectacle. To be so totalling unaware of exposing their own dishonesty also exposes their heavily partisan nature. It's the left wing agenda sprinkled with bits of plausible "journalist type stuff" that typifies the MSM.
Again I would like to thank Brent Bozell for repeating their words back to them in demonstration of the MSM's complete unworthiness in the field of journalism.
Suggestion for the twenty-somethings
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:17am.
My son is very interested in going into politics, so I occasionally send him You Tube links to Reagan's speeches as a guidepost. If the "kids" listen to Reagan, they start to "get" him. (Slowly, my son's returning to his conservative roots.)
Notice how Obama
Submitted by sherlock1 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:33am.
gets the kid gloves treatment about Egypt in the media? No criticism to speak of, no questioning of his effectiveness, just a pretty sympathetic accounting of how tough it is for the adminstration to go along without being seen to be manipulating things.
Why? If you don't know the answer to that, you haven't been paying attention. Of course the media treats Obama more than fairly... okay they kiss his rosy red royal rump, but that isn't the whole story here.
Another reason for the calm fairness is that the Republicans are not trying to score political points off of Obama on this. In similar situations not that long ago when a Republican was President, Democrats were lining up at the microphones to castigate and mock the administration's response to any world situation - no matter what it was, it was always wrong... and more than merely wrong - actually mean-spirited and evil! And the media provided them the megaphone and then ran with those "stories" for days - in fact, those stories became the story, getting much greater coverage than the actual real-world one!
I don't want the Republicans to act like the Dems - I want them to support the President when he is trying to walk a tightrope and keep America from becoming emeshed when we don't have to be. But it does anger me that Democrats never seem to give into that most sensible impulse - they always play every crisis for maximum partisan advantage, and the media always helps them do it, usually to the detriment of our country's standing.
No Comparison
Submitted by RobAtAmPre on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:34am.
Can you even imagine Obama giving a speech like Reagan did when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded?
Reagan loved America, Obama does not.
Good article
Submitted by cristanti on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 4:55am.
Brent you are right on, good article, I remember how bad the media was with Reagan, you would have thought he was an idiot, now look at them I cannot believe they are trying to compare obama to him, what a joke. It's sickening.
telli
BO Goes from.....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 5:48am.
..."Reaganesque" to "Carteresque" in one weeks time...
Decade of Greed.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 7:51am.
Yes. Yes. Yes. They hated hated hated President Reagan. Blamed him for the homeless. Blamed him for AIDS. Sweated he would take us into a nuclear war. Called the 80's the Decade of Greed.
They Always Blame...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 8:33am.
They always lay the blame for their ineptitude at the feet of someone else. AIDS came as a result of careless behavior among "Queers" and "Junkies", not as result of anything Reagan did. The homelessness of many was a byproduct of this misbehavior. As far as a "Nu-Cu- Lor war, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, did not have any capability. China had the bomb but no way to deliver until Clinton sold them the technology to launch their missiles. The bottom line is every one of these problems have their roots in the Democrat/Liberal/Socialist/Marxist/Communist Party led by such baffoons as Ding Harry, Turbin Durbin, and Schmuck Chuck!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
No. It was the liberals again.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 9:46am.
In the 60's and 70's, there was a patients rights' movement generated by the mental health advocate community. They began to lower the standards for keeping the mentally ill locked up. So they were either kicked to the street or never locked up in the first place. They were not insane enough to be locked up but not quite sane enough to find and keep a job. So the unintended consequence, and there is always one with liberals, was more and more homeless.
Genuine - Sincere - Authentic - Cheerfully Optimistic - Humble
Submitted by Fenwick on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 8:56am.
Reagan was all of those things and Obama is none of them. Only the easily-duped and the intentionally-deceitful (ie. the MSM) cannot see or will not acknowledge the difference.
Obama is Reaganesque
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 9:27am.
Mr. Bozell that really is one of your best articles - Thank you.
I've said it before but the only thing these two presidents have in common may be that they use the same color dye to touch up their hair.
The photographs of President Reagan were my first realization of the bias in the liberal media. They consistantly showed Reagan as tired or seemingly unattentive. During the election cycle there were constant articles about his age with pictures showing his fatigue. Luckily Americans at that time didn't fall for such crap.
yep yep
Submitted by Indie Dude on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 10:16am.
Growing up, I never understood why I was suppose to dislike Reagan. The man always made me smile when he was on TV. He made me feel proud and safe. Yet, the media (and my "hip" friends) made him out to be some boogyman. As you grow up, you learn that's not always the case. Thank Goodness for the internet, NewsBusters,Fox, or any media outlet that has a "different" opinion, or simply....straight FACTS.
Hmmm, to sum it up (I guess) Hollywood always gives the Oscar, or props to stupid, boring, and forgettable movies that you don't remember who won after a year goes by. But everyone always remember the cool Movies & TV shows, the cool Characters forever in their minds like a TV series, like Star Trek. Reagan is Captain Kirk and will never be forgotten!
80's media bias
Submitted by CrazyHungarian on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 11:01am.
I was not interested in politics in the 80's but I recall wondering why every TV report on how the economy was doing great was always followed by some economist saying "but the economy could turn bad at any moment". I now understand that this was our biased media in action. I also recall that every time Carter goofed up, the media was saying "but he's trying his best". Very similar to today.