Are the media too soft on Bush?

Great Debates
1

John Harris suggests that the difference in the level of Bush’s press coverage vs. Clinton’s at the same point in their terms is unjustifiable. He suggests that is partly due to reporters’ laziness (intellectual and otherwise) and hypocrisy, but mostly to the lack of a vast left-wing conspiracy that corresponds to the right-wing “advocacy” groups that made a career of undermining Clinton at every turn.

So is he right? Can Bush claim he’s “changed the tone” in Washington, or is he just not getting as much scrutiny as he deserves?

2

For a response to Harris, see: http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr050701.shtml

Andrew Sullivan wrote a two relevant bits a week ago. The first quotes a study showing that the NY Times and Washington Post gave Bush worse coverage than Clinton. The second is quite amusing. See: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

THE LIBERAL MEDIA VS BUSH: Only 22 percent of respondents to the New York Times’ online poll have a negative view of George W. Bush’s first 100 days. But the editorial columns of the Washington Post and the New York Times, says the Project for Excellence in Journalism, are another story. A full half of the editorials were critical of Bush, with only 20 percent positive. Compare that with coverage of Clinton, who, despite a disastrous beginning by any standards, garnered positive editorials in his first hundred days twice as often as Bush has. Taking op-eds into account, anti-Bush pieces comprised 40 percent of the space in the Times and Post, compared to a meager 16 percent pro-Bush - a tally that amounts to an unprecedented liberal media crusade against the president. “I think it’s ideological,” Tom Rosenstiel, the project’s director, tells Howie Kurtz, winning the “no-shit” quote prize of the day. Still, the good news is that readers are simply ignoring the editorials. Over 60 percent approval ratings among the general public - and 60 percent approval ratings even among the Times’ online readers - is the best answer to the combined whine of DowdHerbertLewisFriedmanKrugmanCollins, from which not a single positive, or even vaguely fair, squeak can be discerned.

  • 4/30/2001 12:33:27 AM

THE UNEXAMINED EDITORIAL PAGE: The authors of the study I cited yesterday showing unprecedented hostility to George W. Bush from the editorials and op-eds at the New York Times have an op-ed in the New York Times today, called “The Unexamined President.” They relate the results of their study of the media’s coverage of Bush with one obvious piece missing. You guessed it.

Finally, here’s a letter I wrote to another web site on April 21, 2001:

**Why do Republicans who do right need moral guidance more than Democrats who do wrong? In a lead editorial 4/20, the Times sternly warns our president: “The Bush administration needs to proceed with a sense of urgency, lest Central and South America leaders conclude that Washington is not serious about affording their economies the same direct access to America’s markets and investment capital that has proven so beneficial to Mexico as a result of Nafta. Such an impression could undermine the cause of free markets and liberalization in the hemisphere and sour America’s relations with Latin America, which on balance have been highly positive in recent years.”

Of course, Bush is a big supporter of free trade in the Americas. It’s his issue. He campaigned on it. On the other hand, the Times has no criticism or suggestions for their friends the Democrats, who are lukewarm on this issue, or for labor unions, who are opposed.

Compare also their praise for Clinton’s Latin America relations (“on balance have been highly positive”) versus their slams at Bush’s hypothetically non-urgent relations (“not serious” “undermine the cause of free markets” and “sour”).**

3

“Press coverage” needs to be subdivided into pieces that are clearly labeled as editorials, and “straight” news. Bush is getting a rougher ride than Clinton did on the op-ed pages, most notably for his environmental stands (some of these critiques are dead on, some ludicrous in tone. You’d think that Dubya was introducing arsenic into our water supplies, rather than just being soft on strengthening standards). But on the central issue of bias in reporting, I haven’t seen enough to indicate that Bush is being treated more softly or harshly than past Presidents just beginning a term in office.

Interesting to see that Harris in the linked article talks about the alternate right-wing news outlets (a “network” or “conspiracy” if you prefer) that sprang up in response to liberal media bias and so heavily plagued Clinton during his presidency. It’s nice to see additional recognition of this consequence of slanted coverage by mainstream media.

By the way, Elvis, you need to be careful about linking to pieces that say things like “The Brookings Institution tilts liberal”, or Kimstu will kick your butt. :wink:

4

They’re definitely too easy on him. Starting with the fact that they call him “president.” We had a coup d’etat in the United States and the press didn’t bat an eyelash. There were tens of thousands of people in the cold protesting the inauguration, and they pretended like we weren’t there. Business as well. There is clearly a right-wing conspiracy in the media.

5

december: In a lead editorial 4/20, the Times sternly warns our president: “The Bush administration needs to proceed with a sense of urgency, lest Central and South America leaders conclude that Washington is not serious […]” On the other hand, the Times has no criticism or suggestions for their friends the Democrats, who are lukewarm on this issue, or for labor unions, who are opposed.

snort Gosh, december, and I bet they didn’t offer any “criticism or suggestions” for Canadians, social workers, or Reform Party members either. C’mon, Bush is the guy who happens to be President, and whose party happens to control both houses of Congress! Of course if a mainstream-media editor is going to be handing out “suggestions” about what to do about FTAA, he’s going to be handing them out to the guy in power! While I have certainly seen plenty of liberal editorializing, you’ve picked on a pretty weak instance here to support the notion of an “unprecedented liberal media crusade against the president.”

As for Bush not needing any encouragement to proceed with FTAA because it’s “his issue” and he “campaigned on it”: uh-huh. He also campaigned on the need to reduce CO2 emissions, if you recall, and look what happened to that. Mind you, I personally have no doubt that Bush will be agreeable to further trade liberalization: I simply think it’s silly to consider the New York Times’ nagging him about it as prima facie evidence of deep partisan hostility.

(And Jackmannii, thanks for the assist. :slight_smile: But when you talk about “recognition of this consequence of slanted coverage by mainstream media,” be aware that you’re indulging in a little slanted reporting of your own: Harris’s article says merely that “conservatives believed that they would never get a fair shake from the establishment news media” (and therefore founded “alternative right-wing news outlets”), not that he thinks it was fair or accurate of them to believe so.)

6

Tatjana:

Oh? Can you support that, or is it simply pro-Demo kneejerking?

Oh? I suspect that’s an exaggeration.

Oh, please.
Isn’t it funny? A partisan Democrat reads anything negative about a Demo or positive and concludes there’s a right-wing slant among the media. A partisan Republican sees something good about a Demo or negative about a Republican and concludes the media are comprised of liberals. Doesn’t anyone stop to think that maybe there’s a fairly good balance of left and right in the media? No, of course not–some folks are just too fucking blinded by some useless party affiliation to actually get over it and work to do something good in the world.

7

[/QUOTE]

**Coup d’etat: A sudden stroke of state policy involving deliberate violation of constitutional forms by a group of persons in authority.

It is blatantly obvious to most people that that election was not democratic. But if you think otherwise, I guess there’s nothing we can do to convince you.**

No, it’s not an exaggeration. The independent media estimates are around 20,000. I don’t think the corporate media gave an estimate, because they were pretending the protests didn’t happen.

The remark was a bit tongue-in-cheek. But clearly the same corporate interests that control both major political parties also control the media.

**Talk about knee-jerk! Why do you assume I’m a Democrat? There is very little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties - they both represent corporate interests and are both right-wing.

I recommend taking a look at FAIR’s analysis of media coverage of Bush.**

8

Originally posted by Tatjana *
**
I recommend taking a look at FAIR’s analysis of media coverage of Bush.* **
[/QUOTE]

FAIR is a left-wing group. That doesn’t mean they’re necessarily wrong, but they are a biased source. I suggest Tatjana get both sides by supplementing FAIR with http://www.mediaresearch.org/

A few years ago, I remember FAIR criticized Rush Limbaugh over several alleged inaccuracies, including an item about Chelsea Clinton’s class visiting Cuba (or some such.) RL responded that he got that item from CBS News. Instead of admitting that RL was correct on that particular item, Jeffrey What’s-his-name wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that the source was the “CBS News Service,” not the “CBS News Show,” Of course, either way, RL had a reasonable source for his report. RL also maintained that the item was factually correct, but I never found another source to refute or support his claim.

9

How thoughtful should we consider a rebuttal to be that the author sums up by saying “It is true, of course, that many Republicans despised Clinton. But then it is also true that Clinton was despicable.” ? This is the National Review you’re using to buttress your views, for pity’s sake. Going to refer to a thread on the Free Republic web site next?

I’m still cowering in fear of what Kimstu is going to do to me now …

10

oh man, I have everyone talking about Free Republic!
LOL

Yeah, countering a left wing publication with the National Review as a “fair” source is kinda iffy…

11

Good. Now please demonstrate how the 2000 Presidential election was a coup d’etat.

Whatever. Are these the same “most people” who are giving Mr. Bush a positive approval rating? Just curious.

And, by the by, what does democracy have to do with anything?

Not that I’m doubting you, but can you provite a citation for that, please? Thanks.

And the Trilateral Commission is conspiring with the Bavarian Illuminati and Microsoft, right? You use terms like “corporate interests” as though the phrase has a specific meaning. It doesn’t.

Er, I don’t. It was meant as a separate thought. Sorry I wasn’t more explicit.

And I’ve been reading articles from FAIR for a long time. If you think they are unmotivated by their own agenda, you’re mistaken.

12

I’m referring to halting the recount, the decision in Gore v. Bush, evidence of polic interfering with people’s right to vote, etc. All actions clearly designed to install Bush into power, and all unconstitutional. But like I said, if you don’t see that, I don’t think it worth trying to convince you.

I don’t have time to look it up but I’m sure I got it from the Independent Media Center. There’s a lot of garbage there (it tends to function like a message board), but occasionally some good articles are posted.

It doesn’t have a specific meaning, but it does have a meaning. The corporate agenda includes things like cheap labor with no protection for workers, no environmental standards, tax breaks, etc., etc. The media monopolies also serve them well, making it very difficult for people to get independent sources of information.

I understand their agenda primarily to be to expose the pro-corporate biases of the media. What do you think it is?

13

All IMO:

  1. The “vast liberal media” is nothing but a Conservative myth, usually dragged out by Republicans for whom anyone left of Charlton Heston is a “liberal”. Considering that most media outlets today are owned by large conglomerates which tend to be fiscally conservative, the idea of a “vast conservative media” would be closer to the truth.

  2. With that said, I think Dubya is getting a free ride because of lowered expectations. He went into office without a mandate and with a solid block of people convinced that he was a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Because of this lowered perception, the news outlets are hesitant to give him a critical scrutiny because they’re afraid of looking like bullies – kicking the runt of the litter, as it were. The irony, of course, is that Bush then gets to go nuts with his agenda, without the press pointing out that (a) he doesn’t have a mandate and (b) he’s hardly the consensus-building “compassionate conservative” he hyped himself as last November.

  3. Hi Opal! :slight_smile:

  4. The honeymoon will not last forever. Bush might have gotten a free ride in his first hundred days in office, but eventually the public will get used to their lowered expectations for the guy. Then it’ll be time for a closer look at his dealings, though I suspect it still won’t be as vicious or critical as it ought to be.

14

You lost me right off the bat. Any survey researher will tell you those online polls are worthless for anything other than PR.

15

'Cept it wasn’t a violation of Constitutional forms. The very body that exists to interpret the Constitution said as such.

Yes, Republicans are clairvoyant, and they pass laws (and even trick Democrats into passing laws) beforehand, and then stick to the laws after the fact.

Yeah, it’s hard to fight facts with Ignorance, isn’t it?

I DO have time to look it up and I’m sure you’re wrong. Your Independent Media Center site took a helluva long time to load up, but, knowing that there are other sources of information in existence, took off on a little exploring of my own.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/21/inaugural.wrap/index.html - mentions “thousands” of protestors. Nothing about 20,000, though.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/protest.wrap/index.html#2 - mentions that 20,000 protestors were expected. No word if they actually showed up. However, it did mention that 10,000 protestors marched in San Francisco (I feel sorry for them… isn’t 'Frisco a hilly area?)

You’re welcome.

16

My apologies, that came off sounding harsher than I intended after editing my post. With the context of my post, it originally had the meaning of “Your memory might be faulty.”

I intend to be more careful with editing in the future.

17

On the topic of some blacks being prevented from voting (supposedly most blacks are democrats), there was a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report on exactly this topic. Last I heard, and I could use an update, the Justice Department was looking into it. I don’t think it’s fair for some on this board to gainsay automatically any suggestion of irregularities during the presidential elections.

The elections, at least in Florida, certainly appeared to be a highly irregular affair. If the elections were irregular, doesn’t it necessarily follow that they were unconstitutional because at least some voters were disenfranchised?

I can only provide an international perspective, which is the feeling I encounter that the Bush clan cheated to win Florida. I was not an avid election watcher, but I caught updates on the BBC every day. Certainly the newscasts I saw at the time left me with the impression that the Bushes were playing a dirty game.

Abe

18

It depends on what you mean by “disenfranchised”. If you mean “to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote”, then I see no evidence of voters being disenfranchised (accusations, yes. Evidence, no).

Now, if you mean “a lot of people didn’t get their way”, then yes, that’s being “disenfranchised”. Unfortunately, that’s not what the word means.

Keep in mind that throwing out void votes doesn’t count as “disenfranchised”, since it was the voter who made their vote ineligible for counting (yeah, so the ballot was confusing… tough noogies).

19

I’d like to believe that-but they said the same thing about Reagan-that people would wake up and see he didn’t know what the hell he was doing and making a mess of our country. But it never happened.

20

Of course, it’s a bit much to expect Mr. Harris to outright admit to mainstream media bias. But he clearly recognizes its consequences. I would hope he also understands the difference between expressing an opinion and reporting an event, which you apparently do not.

It’s interesting how people who claim that the Brookings Institution is centrist or even right-wing, tend to suddenly clam up on the subject when an embarassing fact or opinion to the contrary crops up (in this case, a casual remark about Brookings’ liberal tilt from a left-leaning pundit). In a previous thread on media bias, a mini-debate on this subject was hastily dropped after I quoted from a savagely (and somewhat enjoyably) anti-Bush Brookings piece that had run in that day’s paper. Don’t worry fellas, keep burying your heads in the sand and waving FAIR at us.

I would hope Harris’ piece energizes the left to do two things. First, to develop its own non-mainstream media sources to dig up dirt (investigative journalism in the U.S. is pitifully inadequate). As is the case with the right, a lot of the revelations would be exaggerated or untrue, but there would be useful nuggets (like Clinton’s payback to Indonesian benefactors by placing a large chunk of U.S. coal off limits to mining). Second, to professionalize reporting by stressing scrupulous fairness. This will help restore confidence in the mainstream media and stop energizing the right, who have already overfilled my airwaves with right-wing loons.

To lurch back closer to the original point of the OP - has anyone stopped to consider that Clinton’s critics (media and non-media) were eager to jump on him early in his 1st term because he already had a powerful reputation for slickness and sleaze? Bush on the other hand has a “nice-guy” image which it will take time to crack. It will inevitably happen (I think Dubya’s place in history will be a little closer to Warren Harding than to Jimmy Carter).

Coup d’etat my ass.