"The media takes the gloves off" in a president's second term?

[wildflower]

Janeane said this last night on the Majority Report. Do you think this will be true for Bush?

It's hard for me to see how it could be. They deny the ever-coveted "access" to reporters who don't say what they want, don't they?

-wildflower

[Ducks In A Row]

1. Don't believe it, the media are wuzzies

[Hello_Kitty]

10. Mainstream media is but not the progressives.

We've Air America now and websites. What we really need is a Cable news network. Our own FoxNews, except with journalistic integrity.

[wildflower]

23. Do you know what's happening with Al Gore's network? n/t

[Ducks In A Row]

29. it's still in the works, but no word on when it starts

soon I hope

[wildflower]

31. I did some searching on Gore's network... Something I found:

Sounds like it starts in 2005...

Al Gore's TV Network one step closer to launching
September 02, 2004

Al Gore and Joel Hyatt put up the website for INdTV. According to the site:

TV can be better. Much better.

Want to see more than just reality television? Tired of news outlets that cover celebrity trials instead of tackling critical questions? Bored with shows that don't challenge or engage you? So are we.

snip

We are an independent media company led by former Vice President Al Gore, entrepreneur Joel Hyatt and a growing team of industry professionals and young creatives. We are coming together around a common mission: to share the world's most dominant media platform - television - with people who want an outlet for their creativity, their voices heard and their perspectives valued.

Last May we acquired an existing television network that is currently available in almost 20 million U.S. homes. In 2005 we will debut our new programming on this network, shows shaped by a new generation of media-savvy creators.

http://www.blueherenow.com/blueherenow/archives/004857.php

ON EDIT: Here's the Web site for the network:

http://www.indtv.tv/

[Chili]

35. this is great news...!

...and is a subtle shift from what the first news release stated the network would be about. If I remember correctly, it was to be a completely non-partisan channel for young people. Maybe after seeing how Kerry and the left were demonized by the right all summer with no help from the media, it could be he changed direction and saw the need to be more aggressive. I hope so!

[cubsfan forever]

2. Horsehit!

The corporate media owes its livelihood to the RW nutjobs. I am afraid we will see more cheerleading, and not less. Hope I'm wrong.

Professor 2

[snacker]

3. It'll never happen.

[ewagner]

4. They have no incentive

to "take the gloves off"....The FCC is ruled by Bushbots....they can't piss them off.

[bryant69]

8. Well We need to give them an incentive

By keeping the pressure on. By supporting alternative media sources, and letting them know we aren't buying their spin.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[wildflower]

11. Right, the FCC too...forgot about that. Janeane said...

that this tougher media treatment has happened historically. She mentioned Reagan's second term....And of course there was Clinton. I forget who else now.

-wildflower

[trotsky]

5. BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Oh I'm sorry, what were you saying?

[ladjf]

6. You have got to be kidding. The media was the linchpin of

his election. Why in the hell would they "take the gloves off"?

That makes no sense to me at all.

[luaneryder]

7. Hell no

there'll be evn more boot licking than before and I refuse to watch it.

[katmondoo]

14. Right

Boycott them all

[Cat Atomic]

9. Possibly- but not because it's his second term.

We may see more critical coverage of Bush from the corporate press- maybe. If we do, it will be due to old-school Republican media owners being frightened by the fundamentalist influence in the Bush Administration.

I don't think the owners of GE want to see a fundamentalist culture anymore than we do. They want to rob the system- not break it.

[calico1]

22. You may have a point there.

I sure hope you're right.

[0007]

12. I've heard it said that most media journalist are second rate

stenographies with a first class VIP look.

[retread]

13. That just means the mediawhores will pleasure him with their

bare hands now!

[nonconformist]

15. HA!

This is generally true for most presidents, but I don't see it happening. "he got a MANDATE" after all and the media tells us what they think we want to hear for the most part.

Janeane should know just as well as we do that the Bush cabal defies all logic and precedents. Our incompetent propaganda-fueled media is the result of media conglomeration and until that changes we can't expect much more than the occasional dissenters.

That is, unless it has to do with a sex scandal....

[eataTREE]

16. I'd settle for the media taking off their kneepads.

(nt)

[Triana]

17. Sure. Ice-Hockey pucks are the #1-selling item at the Wal-Mart...

...in Hell this week too.

HA!

[VaYallaDawg]

18. Ass-kissin' line forms to the right.

And NO BUTTIN' IN!

[wildflower]

20. LOL...I guess you're all as skeptical as I am about this....

What are your thoughts on the historical precedent for Janeane's statement?

Do you remember presidents in your lifetime who were treated more harshly in the second term?

-wildflower

[VaYallaDawg]

32. Most recent precedent would be Clinton's 2d term, of course.

Once the blue-dress episode erupted they were after him like wolves. But thinking back to Reagan's 2d term I don't recall them giving him very much hell. As a matter of fact, after the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" they practically anointed him as a messiah.

Of course second term for Nixon couldn't have been a picnic for him. Back in those days we had an objective, fact-finding discipline known as journalism (as contrasted with today's infotainment), and those people did a lot to help preserve our democracy. IMO, of course.

[wildflower]

34. Yes, Nixon is the best example and best comparison

...if the media today were like it was then.

Did Nixon do the same thing as Bush re: barring access to reporters?

-wildflower

[VaYallaDawg]

36. Lordy, yes!!!

The proudest moment of Dan Schorr's life was when he learned he was on the top of the "enemies list." That was a badge of honor for a journalist back then.

[autorank]

19. You know why there's no point in teaching pigs to sing?

First of all, pigs can't sing.
Second, even if they could, they wouldn't appreciate it!

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.
Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[JohnyCanuck]

21. What,and give up the invites to ride on AF1 with Chimpinator?

I'll believe it when I see it.

[msgadget]

24. No way,

not in the beginning but maybe in the last two years

[OnceAndFutureTruth]

25. Why can't the media set their OWN rules for press conferences?

For instance, if they band together, couldn't they arrange for the next person called upon, after Bush has enforced his "one question rule" to ask the question the previous reporter wasn't able to ask. Or that the next reporter would do the obvious and logical follow up of asking "Now, could you please answer that question, instead of just talking at us with unrelated information?" If they worked together this could be achieved. Are they afraid of just not having ANY access if they stood up to him. In the end, Bush would have to back down if it came to it. Wouldn't it make him look like a dictator, if he just refused to answer questions entirely?

[wildflower]

26. As I understand it, Bush can bar them from the conference, from his plane,

and so on.

So the administration threatens reporters who say negative things with this non-access. Then the reporters can't get near enough to report.

Reporters want the access, so they toe the line.

Otherwise they are banned; marginalized.

I seem to remember specific examples of this from books; I think _The Bush Dyslexicon_ was one.

-wildflower

[jrthin]

27. OH? Are they

going to use the gloves in lieu of kneepads?

[The empressof all]

28. Like they did with Reagan?????????

I don't remember there being that much outrage about Iran/Contra in the Media during his second term. In fact I don't remember them really going into that much detail about it at all.....

[jpgray]

30. My sentiments exactly. (nt)

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. Sure, they will give up all of their advertising money and

Ignore the wishes of their owners. When chimps fly.

[Cinletharwi]

37. Corporations own the media and Bush/GOP

Why would they allow their foot-soldiers to threaten their power?

Not gonna happen. They don't care about democracy, they don't care about your vote - they own the ballot machines now.

They do care about money though, so hit them where it hurts.

[d_b]

38. riiiiight