Are the News Media Soft on Bush? American Journalism Review slices, dices

[TacticalPeek]

That much-ballyhooed “liberal press” hasn’t been nearly as tough on President Bush as it was on his predecessor. One key reason: Bush’s controversies have involved policy rather than personal peccadilloes, and the media have a much bigger appetite for the latter. But does the weapons of mass destruction flap presage a shift?

By Rachel Smolkin
Rachel Smolkin is an AJR contributing writer.

Ninety-four reporters gathered in the stately East Room of the White House to bear witness to a rarity in George W. Bush's presidency: a solo, prime-time press conference.

At 8 p.m. on March 6, Bush began his remarks about "our war against terror," flatly asserting that Saddam Hussein "possesses weapons of terror" and that he and his weapons "are a direct threat to this country." Bush then parried with 18 reporters, who asked 30 questions about the looming war against Iraq and three about North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. Nary a word passed from reporters' lips about the ballooning deficit, rising oil prices, surging unemployment, soaring prescription drug prices or any other domestic issue.

If a sure loser emerged from that evening assembly, it was the White House press corps. Scathing commentary followed. New York Press contributing writer Matt Taibbi likened the press conference to "a mini-Alamo for American journalism, a final announcement that the press no longer performs anything akin to a real function." Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales panned Bush's performance, then said that the "lethargy was contagious; correspondents were almost as logy as Bush was. Nobody even bothered to ask a question about Osama bin Laden."

more

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3406

I'm still reading it, quite long, but very brutal.

[Caution]

1. Is the pope catholic?

Do bears defecate in tree-dominated areas?
Do Pintos explode?

[dkamin]

2. I don't buy the policy vs. personal peccadillos line

Bush is a guy who never denied using cocaine; who dodged the draft and then went AWOL for a year while in the National Guard; who was arrested for DUI and later lied about it; who almost certainly violated federal securities laws in selling a huge block of Harken stock just before Harken was to file a report indicating heavy losses, while on the Board of Directors of that company; who most likely received significant monies from the bin Laden family and has significant economic co-interests with that family; who talks with a Texas twang despite being raised in the privileged Northeast...

the ammunition has always existed to attack bush. the problem is that 1/2 the media is openly dedicated to advancing the republican agenda, and the other half is bumbling around reactively. compare the treatment of bush with the treatment clark is getting right now, despite having honorably served his country, with great distinction, his entire life.