As the right’s Obama-discounting/Bush-crediting rhetoric heats up, Steve Benen at Washingtonmonthly.com has a series of three great posts relevant to the subject.
The first pertains to Bush’s statements and actions that suggest his inaction and disinterest in actually getting bin Laden.
The real problem is that it really does appear that Bush was sleeping at the wheel. How else to account for his closing the CIA’s bin Laden unit? Remember “the system was blinking red” when Bush delegated responsibilities for terrorism preparation and the Cheney-led While House task force failed to even meet on the subject? Why should we believe things were different regarding the hunt for bin Laden?
“Osama bin Forgotten”? Not any more. At some point, Republicans have to be held accountable to what actually happens in the real world under their leadership, and when their ideas are implemented, don’t they?
I don’t see that at all. The Bush story was given a tiny bit of space underneath a much larger section that’s reserved for the story of Osama bin Laden’s death. He’s hardly being given top billing.
Now on this particular page, Bush is indeed given more prominence over Obama. However, I think we should remember that news agencies like to change their content everyday. Obama’s response was covered yesterday and was given considerable attention.
Besides, this is really more of a military victory than an Obama win. I seriously doubt that Obama did much more than say “Let’s make it a priority to get this guy.” The details would have been left in the hands of the military and possibly the CIA.
I’m not saying that Fox News doesn’t have its bias. News agencies generally do. This just doesn’t strike me as a case of inappropriate bias, nor does it seem like they’re elevating Bush over Obama in this particular situation.
The thread title is misleading. It should read: How will certain folks on this MB make up shit about Fox and then pat themselves on the backs for being so smug about it?
Look, I agree that it is important to call Fox News out specifically for what it actually does. I took a look briefly at their website this morning, and what I saw was that their front page had a picture of Bush, but none of Obama, and their headlines excluded Obama altogether while referencing Bush. However, their primary article on the topic did prominently describe Obama’s actions and statements.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that this puts Republicans in what shouldn’t be, but in reality is, the awkward position of celebrating a positive national news story while minimizing the benefits that accrue to Obama. It’s a shame that that is the case, but that’s the way it is, and it’s clear from their statements already that they are going to do their best to wrest credit from Obama and give it to Bush. And that’s the nationally prominent ones. Go to Red State or Free Republic and you can see what they really think.
As a libertarian (I guess you could say “former conservative”), I went to Foxnews.com with trepidation this morning, thinking “Are they total whores? Are they going to spin this toward a republican somehow?”
And there on the home page, the only photos of people were bin Laden and Bush. I thought it was a transparently political move, and it lowered them even farther in my estimation. And I still feel a like sick to my stomach at how far from Journalism the press has fallen.
If photographs were the only valid consideration, then I would agree. Ultimately though, I don’t think that’s an adequate basis for declaring some sort of blatant pro-Bush, anti-Obama spin.
Like I said, Obama’s response was covered yesterday. What’s more, the main article does give credit to Obama, as does Bush’s response. Does the main article contain a photograph of Obama? Admittedly not, but that’s because such a photo would be inappropriate. The article is about the death of bin Laden, after all, and so there’s simply no good reason to stick the President’s photo in there.
Photographs may not be the only valid consideration, but they certainly give the first impression, which sets the tone for how readers will filter the news that is reported.
Some people don’t have a political translator. When Bush said we are not hunting him, what he was saying is we have no idea where he is . When he said we are not after him he was saying we have several units that are on ready when we find him. If you think Bush did not want to kill Bin Laden ,you don’t know Bush and the neocons.
You’re right, I don’t know Bush. Perhaps you do, but interpreting what they wanted as opposed to what they said and did is an exercise in mind reading. I’m confident your skills in the latter are no better than my own.
True, many undiscerning readers are like that. That’s not the issue, though. The issue is whether foxnews.com is displaying egregious pro-Bush, anti-Obama bias in its coverage of this event. I don’t think it’s fair to conclude that they are – not in this situation.
At this very moment, the Fox News website has a banner at the top which says “Watch Live President Obama Speaks About Bin Laden’s Death at Medal of Honor Ceremony”.
It’s also worth noting that the news article on Bush’s response has been replaced with other Osama-related news. This is no surprise. As I said, news agencies like to change their content on a regular basis.
Once again, I’m not claiming that Fox has no political bias whatsoever. However, I also think that people are jumping the gun when they complain that Fox News is elevating Bush over Obama in its coverage of this event.
A more interesting question, to me, is…how will AQ spin ObL’s death? Have they tried to deny it? That would be my guess for a first step…just say that the US is making it up and that ObL is still alive and fine. Possibly find some footage ObL has that hasn’t been released yet to ‘prove’ he’s still alive.
And how will they spin it once the realization sinks in with people who might be sympathetic to ObL? Will they try and ramp up the violence and anger towards the US over this? How will people in the ME view this?
I do not know about AQ but we have this from Hamas:
I also read somewhere (will look for the cite if you want) that the US buried Bin Laden at sea. They did so within 24 hours in accord with Islamic tradition and buried him at sea so his grave could not become enshrined.
Don’t know about Faux News, but certain right-wing tea party types of my acquaintance are already fretting that this will cause AQ to rain retribution and retaliation on our heads, with the inference that Obama has put the country in danger by this rash act.
Of course, if it had happened on Bush’s watch they’d have been praising god in the streets and challenging AQ to “bring it on”.
SS
ETA; It’s true…the teabaggers really do hate Obama more than they hated OBL. Which pretty much says all that needs to be said about their vaunted “patriotism”.
Let’s see: in early 2002, Bush tookspecial opsunits from Afghanistan - units that had learned the local languages and were involved in the hunt for bin Laden - and put them in Iraq.
Then, per the links in Hentor’s post, in 2006, Bush disbanded the unit that was dedicated to hunting bin Laden, effectively giving up the hunt.
Obama put his intelligence services back on the hunt, and directed them to make it their top priority.
And while McCain would have refused to go hunting bin Laden in Pakistan, Obama willingly signed off on such a mission.
No, neither Bush nor Obama was out there in the Af/Pak theatre, personally tracking down bin Laden.
Yes, it makes a big difference who’s running the show.
Anyway, I’m glad you agree that Bush’s choices to undermine and ultimately end the pursuit of bin Laden (at least, until he was succeeded by Obama) “bordered on treason.”