In Monday’s Washington Post, reporter Peter Baker’s front-page political analysis on President Bush’s improving fortunes carries a strong whiff of Hate to Admit It:
In many ways, the shifting political fortunes may owe as much to the absence of bad news as to any particular good news. No one lately has been indicted, botched a hurricane relief effort or shot someone in a hunting accident. Instead, pictures from Iraq show people returning to the streets as often as they show a new suicide bombing.
That’s just wrong. The Big Kahuna of bad news has always been Iraq, which has always cast a dark cloud over other news. Left out of Baker’s analysis: how much the media spin has affected most of these stories (leave out Iraq for the moment).
How much of Bush’s "bad news" has been magnified by the liberal media? Ask yourself: if these happened in the Clinton years, how much "bad news" would have been emphasized, let along Cover-of-Time-and-Newsweek exploited? Several cabinet officials and business partners were indicted, and they were often close to being ignored by the national media. Under Clinton, the media wouldn’t dream of blaming a natural disaster on the President, even if FEMA or the Corps of Engineers mishandled the situation. The hunting accident would probably never happen, since that would have seemed too John Kerry-phony, even for Clinton. But imagine if Al Gore’s adventures in Buddhist temples and then complaining there was "no controlling legal authority" and his Iced Tea Defense had been treated toughly instead of softly.
Baker’s analysis as a whole is a grudging admission that Bush right now is on firmer political ground, that the return of the Democrats to the majorities in the House and Senate is giving him a foil. That’s safe conventional wisdom, and he quotes Republicans slamming the Democrats. But Baker also emphasized the thought (hope?) that Bush may never recover enough to be popular:
Neither [Clinton nor Reagan] had sunk as low as Bush, whose numbers are the worst of any president in decades. Just 33 percent of Americans approved of his performance in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, a rating that matches his record low and has not changed in four months. Potentially ominous for Bush is the economy. Only 35 percent of Americans rated it as good this month, a seven-point drop since spring and the lowest in two years.
That, too, has a lot to do with media spin. For the other side of the story, see Donald Lambro.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No one lately has been
November 19, 2007 - 07:39 ET by motherbeltNo one lately has been indicted, botched a hurricane relief effort or shot someone in a hunting accident.
How mature.
That sounds like one of Maureen Dowd's snarky columns.
Rush always says that good news for the country is bad news for the Democrats. He is certainly right on this...this is almost a parody of itself.
Cheer up, guys, maybe something terrible will happen today....you can only hope....
Are these junior high kids
November 19, 2007 - 09:57 ET by TruthMongerAre these junior high kids running todays newspapers:)?
"And did you see what Bush was wearing, ewwww, like totally..."
How to report good news for Bush:
IT'S JUST A LACK OF BAD NEWS!!!! DON'T GET TOO EXCITED!!!!
lmao
Say What You Want
November 19, 2007 - 07:48 ET by BourbeauSay what you want about President Bush, but the man knows how to take a punch. Not only that, he knows how to handle himself when he's being roughed up by a gang of mindless thugs (i.e. Congressional Democrats and the Main Stream Media). So if they're sitting there wondering why he isn't hiding in the oval office in the fetal position, they might just take a look at the character of the man himself. Unlike them, there's nothing phoney about him; he's confident in his own skin, and he's more then willing to talk to you, especially if you disagree with him, without resorting to all kinds of damning and distasteful name-calling and insinuations. And the moral of this story is, if you're sitting their licking your chops over whatever number of days he has left in office, just remember, he's sitting there thinking what he can do in the next 300 plus days to remain relevant. And if he's successful, he just might convince enough independents in this country that turning the presidency over to a bunch of whiney liberals will end up bringing more of what we see in Congress - nothing. Game, set, match.
Say What You Want, Part 2
November 19, 2007 - 09:04 ET by planetrepublicanI agree. Think about the incredible and unending onslaught of mud and crap constantly aimed at Bush by all the Democrats and their media arm, the MSM. Then think about Bush never wavering from his course. This man has cohanes, something his pansy opponents know nothing of. Once he leaves office we will soon discover how much he did mainly because his successor will do so little. This is OK if it's taxes of education or some such; but if it's protecting us against terrorists, that is another matter. If we miss Bush because we are getting killed, we will have a serious problem on our hands and we will collectively start looking for another man like him for 2012. Bush will become a super star, fund raising for the GOP and drawing tremendous crowds. He's still young enough to enjoy another career after this is over. Bush is a genuine American hero.
Spot on Bourbeau! The way
November 19, 2007 - 09:20 ET by rimskySpot on Bourbeau! The way President Bush has handled himself in the face of constant trashing by the media and the left side of Congress is exemplary. This President will have a legacy that is inextricably tied to the WOT. It wasn't his choosing, but nonetheless he has shouldered the burden with Grace and has persevered throughout, and most thankfully, he has set the USA on a course of engagement in this war from which it will be VERY hard for any successor to disengage. This WOT is not only going to be the President's legacy, it is going to be the legacy of the era in which we live. We will perish because of it, or survive because we've accepted it and dealt with it successfully.
Bushs vs. Clintons
November 19, 2007 - 09:44 ET by JimboI agree completely, and would like to point out the exemplary behavior of another Bush, George HW Bush (Sr.) and the contrast of this behavior to that of the Clintons.
Over the past 6 or 7 years of the MSM’s relentless bashing of his son. Sr. has remained stoic and publically silent despite the fact that he remains glued to the news and reads all the major newspapers daily. He offers his son advice only when asked for, and never does so publicly.
By contrast, Bill feels the need to defend his wife very publicly by making allegations of “swift boating”, “the boys ganging up on her”, "unfair treatment by the media" (imagine that one in comparison to the Bushs!)
The loyalty to those around them is one of the strongest qualities of the Bush family (granted, sometimes to a fault) vs. loyalty by the Clintons to NOONE other than themselves, and even then, not always.
Both Bushs stuck to their guns based on what they believed to be right for the country, not what the polls state they should do. This was a contributing factor to Sr’s second term loss and certainly a factor in the low approval ratings for the current President.
Both Hillary and Bill on the other hand, have no values or beliefs of their own other than poll numbers. They really don’t stand for anything of their own, as evidenced by their constant waffling on issues based on poll numbers. The most sickening part is not that they don’t stand for anything, but that they don’t care that they don’t stand for anything.
The contrasts between these two families is truly startling. I can go on and on, but I think everyone gets the point. I am confident that in time, history will accurately record these facts.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
The Key
November 19, 2007 - 09:53 ET by mattm"Ask yourself: if these happened in the Clinton years..."
The bad news for Clinton started in 1992 during the campaign, only the media suppressed it. Rush Limbaugh and a few others were the only ones telling the truth about the Clintoids. The MSM was campaigning for him.
Should we run down the list? Besides all the scandals...there was the failed Hillary Health Care cabal, the stumbling and bumbling mis-use of the military re. Kosovo, Iraq, and the biggest military screw-up since Carter - Mogadishu. The Enron debacle began under Billy, as did the stock market crash. Elian Gonzales, Waco,.... you get the picture....the only thing Clinton did was welfare, and that was a Republican intitative...
Clinton inherited a strong economy and a strong military and a Nation that won the Cold War, and he left his successor with a weak economy, a weak national security system and a disrespected government.
All Bush would need from the MSM is even-handed treatment and his approval ratings, and his public image would blow slick-sick B.J. away.
Blackhawk Down
November 19, 2007 - 10:11 ET by JimboIs it just me or does anyone else have difficulty recalling very much if any news coverage of Mogadishu when it happened? I have far more recollection of the movie "Blackhawk Down" than any of the actual events.
Sad, really.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
If you listened to Rush
November 19, 2007 - 10:21 ET by mattmIf you listened to Rush Limbaugh and read the National Review, you might have heard about it.
If you only watched the Network news, CNN, or read the newspapers, you might have heard a tiny blip about it, but only as a military failure, not a Clinton failure, then you would have gotten a full-blown report on Bill and Hillary's anniversary vacation at Martha's Vineyard...
On the contrary, Clinton
November 19, 2007 - 10:56 ET by JerOn the contrary, Clinton never enjoyed wide media support during his presidency. [It did become more favorable after he left office.] Even George Will cited studies showing Clinton had [slightly] more negative coverage than George H. W. Bush during the '92 campaign. Members of the press may have voted for Clinton in greater numbers, but they didn't particularly like him. Elements of the media which ordinarily would have been very friendly to a Democratic President just didn't rally behind Clinton. The progressive/left media thought he was too conservative...The New York Times editorial page hammered him relentlessly, and, to a lesser extent, so did the Washington Post. (It was the NYT and the LAT which launched the Whitewater investigation.) The liberal curmudgeon, Sam Donaldson, went on the Tonight Show in 1993 and announced he didn't particularly care for Clinton, and then proved it almost every Sunday. On PBS, Sunday afternoons consisted of about three straight hours of Clinton bashing. And of course talk radio's treatment of Clinton makes BDS look positively benign by comparison. Kim "the Great American" Peterson lamented that military firing squads weren't available to take care of his "treason". Around Atlanta there are still [or at least within the last year] places where you can pick up a placard with Clinton's head in the crosshairs of a rifle scope.
Frankly the Bushes, father and son, have shown more grace and class with respect to the Clintons than just about anyone else in their party. I have tremendous respect for the Bush family. George W. Bush is a good and decent man. He made two serious mistakes: He failed to take the pre-9/11 warnings seriously enough, and he let the neocons push him too hard and fast in Iraq.
Jer
You seem like a reasonable
November 19, 2007 - 11:24 ET by Chris NormanYou seem like a reasonable person, but I'm not buying the premise of your comment. The press may have had to report some of Bill Clinton's problems, but they were far from the hostile probers that you portray. Certainly, the hounds from hell who breathlessly report and probe every accusation (with glee) against the Bush Administration bear almost no resemblence to the press (and their half-hearted attempts) in the Nineties. Many of the some what negative appraisals of Clinton were written from the standpoint of disappointment, rather than disagreement. I'm sure the big guys, here, could document the more favorable press Clinton received than I can.
Well Chris, thanks for the
November 19, 2007 - 11:49 ET by JerWell Chris, thanks for the "reasonable" label. Tell the "big guys" to bring it on...I'd love to see the evidence.
Look, Clinton was faced with an incredibly hostile Congress for six of his eight years in office--an opposition party that was frankly obsessed with scandalizing him into oblivion and launching another investigation every time he sneezed. Millions were spent just trying to prove he murdered Vince Foster. The Park Service investigated it, the FBI, Robert Fiske, Ken Starr and that wasn't enough...so a Senate committee investigated and a House committee investigated...Dan Burton was shooting pumpkins in his back yard. Talk about BDS. And guess what? After three full-scale investigations plus two separate Congressional inquiries, they all concluded it was a suicide! Yet to this day Rush Limbaugh makes sinister references to Ft. Marcy Park. Good grief. Let it go!
Anyway, Chris, I'll probably get back on this subject later. Have a good day.
Jer
Jer, Your original
November 19, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Chris NormanJer,
Your original comment didn't address a hostile Congress or Rush Limbaugh. I go back to my original reply to your original comment: the rank and file mainstream media was not all that antagonistic towards Clinton. Not remotely near the level of antipathy it feels towards George W. Bush.
You seem to
November 20, 2007 - 09:13 ET by pbanks7You seem to have forgotten about the obvious lies and spin the Clintoon machine made, and the media reported it without questioning it. As I've often said, the media echo Dems and analize Repubs.
The most corrupt presidency ever would be sure to have lots of investigations. It's easier to get away with something when there's no cross-examination, and you have 1,000 FBI files. Would you investigate that, or let it go? FBI files and 40+ dead witnesses will buy a lot of silence.
Read Christopher Ruddy's book on the Death of Vincent Foster.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Thanks pbank7, for your
November 20, 2007 - 17:06 ET by JerThanks pbank7, for your help in making my point. The alleged "corruption" was investigated...thoroughly. In some cases grand juries were empaneled, indedpendent counsel [all Republican] were appointed, the FBI questioned witnesses, staff attorneys interviewed and sometimes intimidated them. The media conducted their own investigations. [Did you overlook my reference to the fact that it was the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times which initiated the Whitewater expose?] Republican House and Senate committees authorized and spent enormous sums of money conducting their own investigations. [Do you thind they bought the Clinton spin?] The Clintons and the Clinton administration have arguably been the most intensely scrutinized and investigated political entities in American history.
Chris Ruddy?!...get serious. Does his book come with a free copy of the Clinton Chroicles? I might just as well direct you to Ward Churchill for an expert analysis on 9/11, or "Redacted" for an authentic assessment of our military in Iraq, or Michael Moore for an unbiased opinion of Bush. Equally absurd.
By the way, in case you missed it, Filegate was the subject of yet another investigation by the Office of Independent Counsel. Robert Ray [Republican] exonerated Hillary. Read the report.
Jer
LAT & NYT launched Whitewater Investigation?
November 19, 2007 - 12:33 ET by MoreCowbellWasn't it Jerry Seper of The Washington Times who broke the Whitewaer story? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sorry, but
November 19, 2007 - 12:50 ET by mattmYou're making the common mistake of only looking at what is covered, and not what is not covered or how stories are placed in relation to other stories, how stories are covered in regard to their importance...etc.
There's a helluva lot more to bias than just the number of "negative" vs. "positive" stories.
The media ignored or downplayed virtually all of GHW Bush's press conferences during 1992 while also "back-paging" and apologizing for any negative Clinton stories. Then there was the October Surprise. etc. etc. They did this throughout the Clinton presidency which would have ended after one term if Clinton had been treated the way Republicans are.
The Media PUT Clinton in the Presidency
November 19, 2007 - 17:53 ET by josephsamuelsonAre you blind, my man? CNN, the Alphabet networks, and the liberal newspapers are what PUT him in power and were the only thing that KEPT him in power.
GWB's mistakes
November 19, 2007 - 11:28 ET by cheesegraterJER... And you know GWB made made two glaring mistakes how?
I know you guys like to gang up on Jer but...
November 19, 2007 - 14:16 ET by timotheHe's as reasonable as anyone here who offers a dissenting opinion. Please be respectful when debating him.
I don't have a strong enough recollection of history to determine whether Bill Clinton was treated softly by the MSM or not. However, I am 100% certain that George W. Bush has been treated extremely unfairly by the media and it's been that way since the campaign for the 2004 elections began.
I think I know why.
Just like the way border security jazzes up the GOP base, war of any kind jazzes up the Dem base. It was one thing to do the whole "shock and awe" thing, but it was a whole other kettle of fish to keep forces on the ground in Iraq for many years, as we have. Outcome doesn't matter to the Dems or to the mainstream media. "When do the troops leave?" is the only question that matters to that side.
Keep in mind, Walter Cronkite pretty much single-handedly got us out of Vietnam. These MSMs want to have that kind of power...that kind of effect in Iraq as well. As long as they believe they have the muscle to affect change, they will continue to flex it. And Bush is simply the easiest target because he won't back down. (as opposed to the 90 something senators that authorized the use of force) When they can't get him for Iraq directly, they get him for anything they possibly can.
Of course, the hatred for Bush intensifies by his reaction to it. Bush "turns the other cheek" and doesn't get in the mud with the media and it just rails them that they can't get a reaction. The media wants to be powerful and influential and Bush has just chopped off their power at the knees. The most perfect example of this is the Karl Rove witch hunt. The Dems and the media were going after this guy relentlessly...mercilessly. They didn't have anything on him and Bush wasn't going to appease them. In the end, Rove did eventually resign, but he did it on his own timeline.
Bush behaves in public like a Christian, and that may be the other issue that rails the media. He is a threat to their way of life, so his detractors try to imagine Bush as they view themselves. (dishonest, self-serving, greedy, etc.) They then create these conspiracy theories directly from their own imagination and then try to dig up "proof" to back their concoctions. It's kinda sick, actually.
In my lifetime, I have never seen such unfair treatment of a public official by the media. Not even close. He's literally demonized by these people who "mean well". It just goes to show that there is a spiritual war out there being waged every day.
Mean Spirited? Yeah but what else is new?
November 19, 2007 - 15:55 ET by planetrepublicanTimothe write, "In my lifetime, I have never seen such unfair treatment of a public official by the media. Not even close. He's literally demonized by these people who "mean well". It just goes to show that there is a spiritual war out there being waged every day."
Try this out :
"Accused of changing the rationale for 'his' war, and hounded for mismanaging it. Derided as an uninspiring public speaker. Belittled as an idiot. Blamed for dividing the nation. Charged with incompetence in his administration. Accused of trampling on the Constitution. Engaged in censorship and manipulation of the press. Mockingly compared with lower primates. Pressured for a key Cabinet Advisor's resignation."
This was written, of course, about Abraham Lincoln (hats off to Mister Snitch blog, read the whole peice here).
Lincoln was called just about every name imaginable in the press of his day, including: A 'grotesque baboon', a 'third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union', a 'coarse, vulgar joker', a dictator, an ape, and a buffoon. The Illinois State Register [published in his adopted home state] labeled him “the craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an [American political] office."
Of the abuse that U.S. leaders face, Civil War journalist Donn Piatt wrote: "There is no tyranny so despotic as that of public opinion among a free people. The rule of the majority is to the last extent exacting and brutal. When brought to bear upon our eminent men, it is also senseless."
And so on. We tend to forget how bad it was back then too. Now take a good hard look at Abraham Lincoln. Our pennies have his picture on them. Deemed the greatest president ever! Think Lincoln's enemies back then would have thought he'd be revered like that? Fat chance. Will Bush be this great? I don't know but I will never, ever listen to a bunch of pinheaded liberals telling me anything about him!
It started with the 2000 election
November 20, 2007 - 09:21 ET by pbanks7Since Bush won, the left has been upset that those aren't "our planes now."
(Remember during Clinton's first inaugural when fighter jets flew over the Lincoln Memorial in formation and actor Ron Silver was troubled at the display of militarism until it dawned on him, "Hey, those are our planes now"?) - David Limbaugh
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
timothe, I appreciate
November 20, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Jertimothe, I appreciate that...thanks. Believe me, I know what I'm opening myself up for when posting something even remotely supportive of the Clintons. So, I've got my flak jacket on.
For the record, I think Clinton disgraced the office in the Lewinsky affair, and with his dissembling in attempting to conceal it. I thought at the time he should at least take a leave of absence and seek treatment. Congressional censure also seemed like a viable option, but of course the Republicans would have none of that...they wanted his head on a platter.
I do not support Hillary...her decision to seek the Presidency in my view is an act of monumental hubris. She is far too divisive and polarizing. A lot of the venom directed at her is unfair and undeserved, but that's just the way it is, and it ain't gonna change.
If the media treatment of Bush is subjected to a truly independent review, I believe it would reveal that it was [surprisingly] favorable until Iraq became--and continues to be--the central issue. Then things changed.
Jer