On Tuesday’s "Imus in the Morning," Newsweek editor Jon Meacham opined that George H.W. Bush, the 41st president, had been vindicated by history. He suggested that Newsweek runs stories based on partisan preferences, i.e. we helped defeat President Bush in 1992, but in hindsight, George H.W. Bush was right. Meacham also revealed that journalists often make hasty judgements and treat those judgements as "infallible." In the same segment, Meacham admitted that journalists are wrong. Meacham offers as an example the coverage of President Bush 41 during the 1992 campaign and before:
"What's important is journalistically, one of the mistakes we make is we kick people in the shins and we tend to make instant judgments and act as though our judgment is infallible and absolute. It’s not. See ‘wimp factor,’ see the mistakes and the misperceptions of the first Bush at the time when everybody was saying he was out of touch and was no good. Now we see with hindsight that he’d done pretty well."
But right after criticizing journalists for their instant judgments that are sometimes wrong, Meacham offered his own judgements of the current Bush Administration:
"The same thing may happen and we have to hope it happens for the sake of the men and women who are at the front while Tony Snow is chuckling at the podium, there are other people's sons and daughters in harm's way. We have to hope that the experience, the cumulative years of wisdom and experience that is bipartisan, I mean Vernon Jordan is not one of 41's guys, far from it. But, that group of people have seen almost every conceivable situation in modern American history; they’ve been a part of it, and if they can help shed some light, then God be with them, and let’s see what we can do to make this right."
The judgement made is that the Bush administration does not take the war in Iraq seriously and can not fix the situation with advisers of their choosing. Meacham, appearing on "Imus" and discussing the current cover of Newsweek magazine, which shows a close up of Bush 41 with Bush 43 in background and features the caption ‘Father Knows Best,’ opined that history had vindicated President Bush 41:
"I think that everything he did that got him beaten in 1992, that only got him 37% of the vote, only slightly more than you or I would have gotten that year, has been proven in the light of history to have been the right thing to do."
In January 1992, Newsweek contributor Howard Fineman suggested that Bush 41 ought to run on a platform of higher taxes and of asking the American people to sacrifice. In the August 24, 1992 issue Fineman portrayed Bush as out of touch with the American public on domestic issues. A look at the Bush 41record suggests he was out of touch with conservative voters. Bush 41 raised taxes and the economy soured. Bush 41 refused to topple Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, and let the problem fester for future administrations. And Bush 41 gave David Souter a seat on the Supreme Court, and he has turned out to be one of the most liberal justices. So by whose historic standards is Bush 41 vindicated? Apparently the standards of liberals.
Bush 41 was attacked by Newsweek in 1992 not because he was a conservative. He was attacked to elect Bill Clinton. An objective look at the Bush record show’s the Newsweek attacks to be politically motivated.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Of course, the issue isn't wh
November 15, 2006 - 17:47 ET by GalvanicOf course, the issue isn't whether media like Newsweek are infallible. That standard is way to high.
This issue is about objectivity and neutrality. It was easy for Newsweek to overlook facts and consequences because they had already decided that Bush 41 was wrong and needed to be replaced by a Democrat. That made it easy to overlook the economic trend (2 straight quarters of GDP growth in '92) and join in on Carville's "It's the economy, stupid!" mantra.
Of course, we've seen similar antics in this past election. Several MSM just couldn't drop the Big Oil/Gasoline Price Drop Conspiracy story, even though all the industry experts had a perfectly logical supply-and-demand explanation for it. Now that the election is over, and the gasoline prices remain low, the MSM in hindsight is acknowledging that they got it wrong.
infallible
November 15, 2006 - 17:56 ET by iveseenitallOh, we in the MSM are not infallible. We're only right 99% of the time. Try 9%, you jerks.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
it's like listening to an addict...
November 15, 2006 - 18:07 ET by kahoonait's like listening to an addict...
"we tend to make instant judgements and act as though our judgment is infallible and absolute. It’s not."
and he should have added, (while rubbing his arm vigorously):
"...but I just can't stop myself from doing it again..."
Good point there kahoona, whe
November 16, 2006 - 10:31 ET by MightyMouthGood point there kahoona, when you think about it, most people are "addicted" to something (or someone). These guys have an "infallibility addiction" . Regardless of how quickly they jump to judgement they will rarely admit they were wrong.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
all the liberal media is sing
November 15, 2006 - 18:13 ET by buddycall the liberal media is singing the same song. we were wrong. we were too partisan. we are sorry. golly gee we will be nice.
BULLCRAP.
They knew there would be a reaction to their actions. NEVER has the media gone as far as did leading up to the election.
I say remember, never forget. get the aholes any way we can.
A resounding "YEA!"
November 16, 2006 - 04:29 ET by Indiana JoeA resounding "YEA!" to buddyc.
Also, the current babble about being "hard" on the Dems, how long will "the honeymoon" last? Holding them "accountable," etc etc etc..... I mean, they haven't even really admitted to being "too partisan," "wrong" OR "sorry." They have merely been behaving like children who got away with stealing the cookies, but feel so guilty they have to keep offerring to bake a new batch.
"Guilty?" Maybe that's not the word for it. But every time I see one of these "hey, look, we can find good things to say about Republicans," stories, I get the feeling even THEY are amazed they "got away with it."
Sure, they can even say good things about Bush 41....NOW, 15 years later, when it's too late. Because it's a chance to keep bashing Bush 43, while NOT appearing "partisan,"... in THEIR eyes.
Just like, from the moment he died, Ronald Reagan became the most respected Republican alive...."well, we really DID respect him when he WAS alive, we just had...er,... a, um.... DIFFICULT time expressing our true feelings!"
Hogwash! Just another chance to bash GWB by comparison. They HAD to hold up an example of a "good" Republican to show "balance," then use that "balance" to try to destroy ANOTHER Republican. And a dead Republican suited their purpose PERFECTLY. Disgusting!
Now, they'll try to act like they are just as critical of the Dems. I find it INSULTING!
Is there a bottom to the level of stupidity they think we possess? It's simply nauseating. I mean literally, grab-the-Bromo-and-run, sick-making.
"I say remember, never forget. get the aholes any way we can." - buddyc
Lucky Strikes Winston Franklin and Hyde
November 15, 2006 - 18:52 ET by ucNot sure I should really comment! >> Such trueisms from Newsweek may be better left alone by me with my history of now taking 14 years for them to get this point. I really thought they would contact me about what now seem to real to believe points I was then sharing. I do not know what they were thinking then and still can't find way to comprehend such and not to mention I wrote "Franklin and Hyde" in one of my poems to try to point out then the risks we seemed to face. Franklin and Hyde to me was Franklin in these days would have been smart enough to see the dicotomy (sp?) of the threats against us today ( 1992's today). I did sacrifice income most of Clinton's eight years trying to make this point and kept doing so into Bush administration. I did finally give up one morning while saying I must have been wrong to even consider such a threat. Maybe it was my twelve credits of modern standard arabic in college or something? That day was 9/11/01 and I drove by White House at 8:45 that morning. I never should have asked why Saddam thought he could keep Kuwait. How can I get free golf fees across this country?
"Such trueisms from News
November 16, 2006 - 07:17 ET by Indiana Joe"Such trueisms from Newsweek may be better left alone by me with my history of now taking 14 years for them to get this point. I really thought they would contact me about what now seem to real to believe points I was then sharing."
uc, I gather from this that you've written Newsweek many times in the past, trying to raise the same points they've now raised themselves. I must congratulate you on your optimism that anyone there was actually reading and considering your thoughts. Myself, I became a solid cynic so long ago, I can barely remember the kind of hope you displayed then.
These people only consider their own thoughts, because they know they are so much smarter and more sophisticated than us "hayseeds." They spend all their time patting each other on the back, as they race to see who can be the fastest-rising "yes-man."
They will never actually acknowledge that they were ever really "wrong." At most, they may say they were "mistaken," then point to some justification for their "mistake." And even that's too rare. All this now is mere smoke-and-mirrors, positioning themselves as "balanced" so that we "yokels" will fall for the same line two years from now.
Most people have a short memory, politically speaking. They count on that and encourage that. "Time to move on" has become a staple of the way the media directs the attention of the country ever since the Clinton years. If not sooner.
Mark my words, they'll do this again next time. And be even bolder about it, since it succeeded so well this time. We must be prepared, and start trying to counter it NOW.
How do we do that? ...?????....
That's the question.
In other news
November 15, 2006 - 19:10 ET by nkviking75In other news, Newsweek admits the sun rises in the east.
holy jihad
November 15, 2006 - 19:45 ET by ucHad to write again: Jon Meacham should demote himself and maybe Evan Thomas as well. So much history to reconsider and such about attempts at Holy Jihad against America which somehow through good government prediction and response seemed no more than 19 suicide radical islamites not valuing their own lives enough. Middle East attempts to win a Jihad seemed to be unsurmountable and definitely beyond simple computations what with each attempt todate being understood as such an attempt and not some greater design by other than humans convinced to kill themselves for some other human. Only America seems to be offering a plan that gives each human being a chance at their greatest individual contribution towards their own greatest contribution to helping as many other humans towards greater peace and happiness withing current ideas of legal morals. Theocracies are coming up way short in such trusted logical arguements for which system of laws more than a few should try to follow.
Oh he said infallible not in
November 15, 2006 - 19:52 ET by ucOh he said infallible not inadmisable >>> how could I not sink to the lower standard even when hearing who was being quoted. Sorry, Infallible may still me admissable at newsweek as a regular reduced standard for printability. Does anyone really subscribe to this rag anymore?
What is Meacham is REALLY say
November 15, 2006 - 20:13 ET by chris_gillWhat is Meacham is REALLY saying is "we were hard on Bush 41, when in hindsight, maybe he wasn't that bad....compared to his son, 43"
What that translates to is, if Bush had of won a second term in 92, W would not have been elected in 2000 because Clinton would have won in 1996, and 9/11 would have happened in his second term.
Another point for Meacham.'s point "we have to hope it happens for the sake of the men and women who are at the front while Tony Snow is chuckling at the podium"
Men, women, sons, daughters have been on the front in harm's way for years. This was the case in Somalia, Khobar Towers, African embassies, USS Cole, Lebanon, etc. The problem is not the people in the military, who news medium refuse to report on the tidbit average joe grunts support Bush by an overwhelming majority. The Clinton Dept of Defense got women into combat, and implemented a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy that was in existence befor ethe liberal media made it an issue, then complained when women were killed in combat
The issue is the media has too much a vested interest in politics today,as the candidates, but they still have the responsibility to report the news and all of iits facts. What ends up happening is the news is reported to fit their current opinion, and often comes out like some vent. I mean, they coronated Kerry and Edwards:Two of the most replacable and irrelevant members of the senate, yet overlook Joe Lieberman, and candidate Mike Steele?
The problem is not Bush 41 or 43, it's Meacham and the rest of the press
Dittos! And I hope--I reall
November 16, 2006 - 04:34 ET by Andrew H.Dittos! And I hope--I really hope, that Meachum and all of them are among the first to get hit with a hefty tax increase. They should pay for what they've been campaigning for.
Never relent to those who would enslave our life... fight the leftists until death!
"The issue is the media
November 16, 2006 - 05:10 ET by Indiana Joe"The issue is the media has too much a vested interest in politics today,as the candidates, but they still have the responsibility to report the news and all of iits facts. What ends up happening is the news is reported to fit their current opinion, and often comes out like some vent. I mean, they coronated Kerry and Edwards:Two of the most replacable and irrelevant members of the senate, yet overlook Joe Lieberman, and candidate Mike Steele?
"The problem is not Bush 41 or 43, it's Meacham and the rest of the press"
chris- You've nailed the crux of the problem. The "vested interest" of the press is what's ruining true "watchdog" reporting. Amazingly, I find myself willing to grant them the small concession that it was a long, slow, creeping infestation of bias, that reached it's full-blown status in this last cycle. All here know of this bias, else we wouldn't patronize this site.
I guess my true amazement comes from how blatant things have gotten. I think even THEY know that. I would have said YEARS ago that the bias couldn't be any more self-evident. Sad to say, I was wrong. And, unbelievably, wrong by several orders of magnitude.
I never, EVER would have believed I'd live to even THINK something like this, let alone say it. But we may have reached the point in the whole "free press" debate where some limitations need to be considered. I know, I KNOW what that sounds like, believe me, I KNOW!!!
But remember the old adage about shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. There are times when "the public good" has trumped individual rights in this country. Times when it HAS TO be so.
And I'm not talking "individual" rights, here, anyway. I'm talking "corporate rights," something the MSM would laughingly deny the existence of for a company like, oh let's say, Halliburton? Or Exxon-Mobil, for instance. Let them just try to defend the "rights" of Time-Warner!
I'm not talking about censorship. I'm not talking about some goofy "word-count" scheme, or some "govenment panel's" idea of "balance." I am CERTAINLY not talking about "McCain-Feingold," the BIGGEST THEFT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN HISTORY!!! (and a "media" that could swallow THAT load of tripe whole has no business calling itself a "watchdog," ANYWAY! "Lapdog," maybe. In fact, scratch the "maybe.") Maybe something more along the lines of the "creative" application of the RICO statutes, that have been used to deny ordinary citizens their rights to "peaceably assemble" to protest abortion. Or maybe an aspect of the Taft-Hartley anti-trust laws. Are all the "imaginative" lawyers working for the libs/MSM?
I don't even know WHAT I'm proposing, other than the fact that the blatant meddling in politics, as opposed to actual "reporting" of politics and opinions, has finally, demonstrably, begun to do actual harm to our electoral process. After this last cycle, it can't be denied. Imagine a lawsuit to the effect that the MSM is accused of distorting facts and outright lying in it's reportage. Who here couldn't cite and prove myriad examples to be placed "in evidence?"
And there should be a way to prevent that. Or minimize it. Or do SOME DAMN THING about it!!!
<edit> Really, folks, I expect some moonbats to scream "NAZI PROPAGANDIST!!!" But a careful reading and consideration of what I'm saying should show that's the furthest thing from my mind. I hope.....
Hope he's got a golden parach
November 16, 2006 - 08:45 ET by FastEdHope he's got a golden parachute - he can't be there long after "leaking" this opinion.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
41's tax increase
November 16, 2006 - 11:06 ET by nkviking75Yeah, that tax increase under Bush '41 was so good for the economy that we were in a recession when Clinton took over. Clinton used it to justify the largest tax increase in history. The only thing that saved Clinton from a really lousy economy is that he was lucky enough to be president during the dot com stock market boom. When that collapsed, we went directly into a recession that ran into '43's term.