Older DUers: Did Ronald Reagan get as much media protection as Bush gets?

[blm]

If I had to put it in percentages, I would say that Reagan and his legacy today benefitted with about 40% of the protection from the overall media as Bush has been getting consistently since 1999..

The media machine today seems to have made Reagan into an enormously heroic figure in this country and have downplayed every negative aspect of his governance.

I can't help but think the reason is that the NEXT candidate for the GOPs will piggyback on that Reagan myth, as the public cannot be sold any longer on the Bush myth that was created for him post 9-11.

From what you recall of the media atmosphere then and now, how would you describe and compare the coverage the two were given?

[ixion]

1. The MSM loved Ray-Gun

they never stopped drooling over him, even when he lied his ass off durning the Iran-Contra hearings.

[unblock]

7. but they still reported the news back then

they reported all these scandals, and then reported how nothing seemed to stick to him. hence the "teflon" moniker.

nowadays, they don't bother to report the news at all. they just report the our "leader" is wonderful, and argue whether he's more like churchill or washington or either roosevelt or kennedy....

[ixion]

47. well, the 'teflon' moniker was created by the MSM... the reason nothing

stuck to him is the same reason Little Lord Pissypants isn't in a cell in the Hague where he belongs.

I would disagree that they still reported the news. The 80's was the birth of CNN and HNN, and I remember thinking back then that there was very little substance in their reporting. I'll give you that it was by far better journalism than the garbage that is accepted as standard today, but it still wasn't real news.

I think Real News died somewhere around the same time as Disco. :evilgrin:

Interestingly enough, rewatch the movie 'Broadcast News', released in 1987. The theme of "Journalism is becoming News Lite" is certainly a harbinger of things to come. I doubt they realized how prophetic that theme actually was.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Less, but he needed less....cause no matter how dumb he

seemed, he clearly won the elections fair and square (unlike the current piece of shit sitting in our White House)

Many "liked" Reagan, no matter his policies.

But in the final analysis, Yes, the media was soft on him....as he was called "the Teflon President" for a reason.

[autorank]

24. Media soft on Reagan, yep; but "collaborating" with Bush...

Reagan would make really stupid statements like trees cause pollution and the press would run them. The public just didn't care. It was almost as if the center had it's guy in there to pander to the right wing but do little for them; and, at the same time, advance the cause of wealth and unrestrained capitalism. He was a moderate governor in CA but tilted conservative in rhetoric and action as president. In a fit if brilliance, he negotiated away all nuclear weapons (with Gorbachev) which blew peoples minds. That was quickly undone. Generally, he didn't stray to far from his base, big money. It was all very clear and discussed openly. The press simply didn't go after him. The people didn't really care (after he survived the shooting and behaved so gracefully).

With Bush, there is NONE of the personal charm that Reagan displayed and none of the restraint. Bush is here to steal everything that isn't nailed down, do it efficiently, and leave things in such a shambles it will take decades to repair. The advantage to his patrons is considerable. His execution is brutish and the press is COMPLICIT; they're part of the theft.

NOW the press IS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT...that's the difference. They collaborate because they work for the same employers. They do so at the great expense of the country and the people, not to mention the rest of the planet. It is now very ugly. Don't hold your breath waiting for MSM to come to our rescue. They will turn on their employers only when their employers tell them to; and that would mean creating an object of blame and derision, which may be Bush soon, but not yet.

[blm]

35. VERY SOLID OBSERVATION. GE didn't OWN the NBCs then, did they?

And I subnit that during the coverups of the 80s the GOPs decided it would be much easier to just buy CONTROL of the media to protect themselves and ruin their opponents. No way would Clinton have gotten impeached without the media pushing for it.

[papau]

65. NBC sold by RCA to GE in 1986 n/t

n/t

[blm]

66. Exactly - and I do not believe that purchase happened innocently.

They set a course and stayed on it - they are staying on it to this day - RW activists bought the two largest Philly papers a couple weeks ago and Carlyle Group just bought up the parent company of Editor and Publisher.

[autorank]

74. Coudn't agree more...it's not "the media" it's "the media division"

of "management," GE, Westinghouse, etc. It is not a matter of them refusing to report on the crimes of *, it's a logical choice for them not to report on themselves. They're all cousins at a family gathering, carving up the turkey of the US economy .

:hi:

[Patchuli]

3. They schmoozed him but I don't remember

this much protection. Probably due to that smart old bird he was married to...she was all he needed! Oh yeah, and an astrologist to tell him and Nancy how to run Amerika.

[saltpoint]

4. There was not much in the press in those days about the death squads.

They occurred during the Reagan presidency.

The recession got more press, almost all of it negative, but Reagan's "foreign policy," such as it was, got almost nothing.

They tagged him with the nickname "Teflon President" for good reason. Bush is getting more scrutiny now, IMO, than Reagan got in his second term.

[blm]

9. But for his first term Bush didn't get much scrutiny on anything.

Post 9-11, the press gave him a free pass to do anything he liked WITHOUT scrutiny for at least two years. The number of underhanded stunts he pulled that went unreported are just astounding.

[saltpoint]

20. Oh that's excatly right. My fear is that there are far worse things

that are yet to be uncovered about this administration.

These are slithering lizards in a dark cave. That's the most positive I can be about them.

[KansDem]

63. Actually, Pat Schroeder (D-Colorado) tagged Reagan the "teflon president"

From Wikipedia

She is perhaps best known, however, for saying, of Ronald Reagan, "He's just like a Teflon frying pan: Nothing sticks to him." Ironically, her characterization did stick, and the phrase "Teflon President" entered the American political lexicon. She did not seek a 13th term in 1996, and was succeeded by state house minority whip Diana DeGette, a fellow Democrat.

It's a delight to listen to Ms. Schroeder's anecdotes from her days in Congress!

[GodlessBiker]

5. Those who remember Reagan are older? No. Roosevelt, maybe.

[blm]

13. I didn't say how much older - just "older" ... heh

I doubt the student population here at DU would remember the news media back then.

[MadHound]

6. No, he didn't

There was still a free press at the time, and he was brutally criticized. However we also had a much more diverse media at the time also. It was during the Reagan term that we first saw the neo-cons taking action to reign in the media. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the allowance of larger media mergers. Then Clinton really screwed us with the '96 Telecom Act. It was this piece of legislation that changed our media from diverse and independent to constrained and monolithic. Whereas once we had hundreds and thousands of media owners, now it has been pared down to literally a handful. Five corporations own 95% of the entire media sector in this country.

Yeah, Reagan started this madness, but it was Clinton who really hurt us.

[The Deacon]

11. Nope

Not Clinton - Newt Gingrich. Clinton was presented with a bill he couldn't veto due to the fact he would have been overridden, making him look even weaker as a lame duck facing a hostile Congress.

[blm]

21. The Dems then also expected to revisit that bill to adjust those areas

that didn't hold up for the consumer.

Buah taking office in 2001 with the same congress made sure it wouldn't be revisited.

[MadHound]

37. Go check your history friend

Clinton not only started work on passage of this bill back in '93, both he and Gore were enthusiastic supporters of it<http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/PEGB/chap04.htm#metatop>

Hate to break it to you, but Clinton and Gore were just as much puppets of their corporate masters as Bushco and the Republicans. That's one of the huge problems with politics in America these days, it is being operated on the two party/same corporate master system.

[ixion]

50. agreed...

absolutely.

[blm]

57. Yes - but they still expected to go in and fix the areas that proved

to be bad for the consumer. I'm no big defender of the many bad choices made by Clinton and Gore, but I do remember well that they and other Dems did say they would reconsider the bill after a few years. And I believe they would have.

I really think they never expected the GOP to control everything in 2001.

[MadHound]

60. Maybe, maybe not,

But I think that promise was nothing more than candy coating on a bitter pill, just to make it more palitable to the public.

But sad to say, it doesn't really matter anymore. We're stuck with a dysfunctional press who sucks up to Bushco on a daily basis now, and nothing short of repealing both the Telecom Act and reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will ever return this country's media to what it used to be, the public watchdog.

[blm]

61. A Democrat has to run on restoring the Fairness Doctrine. It has to start

somewhere and I think some of them are finally waking up to the lopsidedness.

[AX10]

43. True. Reagan did get hit with bad coverage when his misadministration...

made a mistake/lied. The only reason that Reagan is given so much respect is because the right wing media has invested tons of resources into rebuilding the Reagan legacy.

[ixion]

53. Ray-Gun skated through

-- Iran Contra
-- The Invasion of Grenada
-- The Death Squads throughout Latin America
-- The Savings and Loan Scandal
-- The stock market crash of 87 "Black Monday"
-- A really, really crappy job market
-- Supply-Side economics

And on and on... the guy was a war criminal, and he was given a pass by the MSM, because he was just so darn 'charismatic'.

[MadHound]

56. Each of those that you mentioned were front page news

For days and weeks on end. Time, Newsweek and others did some pretty critical pieces on these issues.

But yes, Reagan did in the end get a pass.

[AX10]

59. The people probably gave Reagan a pass because

things in the 1980's were RELATIVELY better than they were in the 1970's. People felt better and therefore gave Reagan a pass.

[blm]

64. Most red meat of the issues came out AFTER Bush's election and factored

in to the loss of trust of him and his role in those scandals and caused his subsequent loss to Clinton.

[ixion]

49. brutally criticized?

that's not the way I recall it at all. I will grant you that the journalism practiced then was of a more serious bent that that of today, but it still wasn't a free press, IMO.

[MadHound]

52. We'll have to agree to disagree

I remember Reagan getting hammered in the press, especially over Iran/Contra and various other issues.:shrug:

[ixion]

55. sure there was a higher degree of journalism still practiced then

it's fallen very far since then, to be sure.

Reagan committed war crimes in Latin America, and this was largely ignored by the MSM.

[MadHound]

58. I'm guessing that we're remembering things differently

I was in radio at the time, and I do remember that the news tickers, AP, UPI, NPR all had major feature stories on the death squads, the dead nuns, El Salvador, etc. on a daily basis.

[On the Road]

51. IMO, Eliminating the Fairness Doctrine in the Late 80s

was much more important than the 1996 Telecom Act.

[MadHound]

54. I think that they were equally vile,

And perhaps the '96 Telecom Act is the more vile of the two, by a nose. I find that consolidating our media, our movies, books, television, radio, newspapers, etc. into the hands of five large corporations just screams abuse and propaganda. Especially when these five corporations are already controlling our government. Just my humble opinion.

[Jane Austin]

8. He got favorable treatment by the media, but nothing like this.

This fawning over the bush baby is as unprecidented as it is nauseating.

From the very first month of this administration, cable news stations have broken into programming to broadcast every single word of every single speech this criminally insane President has uttered.

And ever since 9/11, they have interrupted regular programming, including important interviews with actual experts and scholars, to show - - complete with BREAKING NEWS graphics and music - - the Duncledent returning by helicopter from his weekend at Camp David.

Even before 9/11, there were media studies that showed that television had shown bush vastly more minutes than they had Clinton, and I think we all remember that most of the Clinton coverage was negative.

Just now we are being treated to a propaganda, er, speech on the occasion of Michael Hayden being sworn in.

[PRETZEL]

10. I think he did, but I don't think they're comparable

information wasn't as free flowing during Reagan as it is today. I think that has a lot to do with it. There was alot less negative press about Reagan because there wasn't as many outlets for Left/Progressive views.

Bush (aside from the obvious) doesn't enjoy the limited playing field Reagan had.

[Lerkfish]

12. yes and no. Yes, they loved him, almost worshipped him, but no

they didn't cover for him that much because, even with alzheimers he was light years ahead of dubya in the communication business.
He could cover his own messes, pretty much. Which is not to say a whole lot of bad stuff wasn't going down, but it was nowhere near this administration's level of complete and utter evil, incompetence and villiany.
The press has really had to earn their bribes this administration.
Under Reagan, they just had to point and shoot the cameras or write down what he said. they didn't have to spin as much. Reagan came pre-spun.

[blm]

14. That's a solid observation.

.

[jobycom]

31. I agree and disagree :)

That's a good point, that Reagan could communicate better (though there was that odd "Alien Invaders" speech in 84). The media had to report what he said without having to pretend he said it better than he did. Where I disagree is over how evil and incompetent Reagan was, or wasn't. He was a corrupt, bloodthirsty, hate-filled man. He kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town known nationally (though it has it's own virtues) only for three civil rights murders (this was before Jerry Rice!). Reagan supported Apartheid. He financed and trained death squads in Central America. He funded both sides of the Iraqi/Iranian war, allowing that war to live far beyond its resources. He funded and trained Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. He bombed Lebanon, which turned UBL against us, and, according to UBL tapes (if they are real) inspired the attacks on the WTC.

Reagan also used the Soviet Empire as an excuse to increase funding for weapons systems that we could not afford. Many of these systems were outdated or ineffective. Some were sheer fantasy, like the "Star Wars" defense shield. Evidence released from the Soviet Union is beginning to show that Reagan not only knowingly inflated the military strength of the Soviets to justify his spending, but also may have helped keep the Soviet Union afloat until it was flat busted, rather than helping it to collapse softly--a move that may have allowed us to better dispose of nuclear leftovers, and that may have helped head off some of the extreme financial devastation that has caused so much suffering in the region.

Your final line is brilliant. Reagan came pre-spun. All the media had to do was not look too hard at what he said. With Bush, they have to edit as well as ignore.

[leftofthedial]

15. king george is the least reported president in history

the media just lets him do whatever he wants without c ritical comment. at best, they cover about .00001% of the horrific shit the bushturd does.

[Tom Joad]

16. Yes, Read this: On Bended Knee.

We have been kinder to President Reagan than any President that I can remember since I've been at the Post."
So said Benjamin C. Bradlee, executive editor of The Washington Post, some four months before the November 1984 re-election of Ronald Reagan. Three years later, after the Iran-Contra affair had shattered Mr. Reagan's previous image of invincibility, I asked the legendary editor if he still stood by his statement. He did. Stressing that this was "all totally subconscious," Bradlee explained that when Ronald Reagan came to Washington in 1980, journalists at the Post sensed that "here comes a really true conservative.... And we are known-though I don't think justifiably-as the great liberals. So, we've got to really behave ourselves here. We've got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride, but they didn't use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon."
Even with all that eventually went wrong-the Iran-contra scandal, the stock-market crash, the seemingly endless series of criminal investigations of former top White House officials-the overall press coverage of the Reagan administration was extraordinarily positive. It is rare indeed for public officials to express satisfaction with their press coverage-in the words of NBC News White House correspondent Andrea Mitchell, "Politicians always say they want a fair press, when what they really want is a positive press"-but the men in charge of media and public relations in the Reagan White House were, almost unanimously, quite pleased with how their President was treated.
James Baker, White House chief of staff during the first term and Secretary of the Treasury during the second, told me, "There were days and times and events we might have some complaint about, on balance and generally speaking, I don't think we had anything to complain about in terms of first-term press coverage. "
David Gergen, former White House director of communications, confirmed shortly after leaving the administration in January 1984 that President Reagan and most of his advisers had come to believe that the basic goal of their approach to the news media-"to correct the imbalance of power with the press so that the White House will once again achieve a 'margin of safety' "- had finally been attained.

From the book, On Bended Knee,The Press and the Reagan Presidency, by Mark Hertsgaard
read more: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/On_Bended_Knee.html
______________________________________________________________________
How that compared to the current press i don't know. Do consider that Reagan was usually very popular, despite the high crimes of his Presidency. It was still a corporate press then, and is one now.
Manufacturing Consent is what it is all about.

[jobycom]

17. The same if not more. I think more.

Reagan by the end of his term had the most corrupt administration record of an president. More investigations, convictions and indictments of any president before or after. He himself was under investigation by an independent counsel for acts tantamount to treason. He had sold weapons to a nation that had declared war on us and that was involved in terrorist attacks against us. He shielded that nation from all investigations from the beginning to the end of his administration. The funds from the weapons sales were diverted, against direct congressional order, to terrorists in Central America who were raping and killing American nuns and priests, and were killing tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians in Central and South America.

Despite all that, Reagan was treated as a kindly man with a good heart, who was maybe just a touch living in a previous era when some of his atrocities would have been more accepted.

The only reason Reagan stayed out of serious legal trouble over his treason was because Bush pardoned all of the figures who were going to testify against him and Reagan. Otherwise it's quite possible Reagan would have become the first indicted president.

Through all of this, the media treated him as a cute old man who cared deeply for people and may have sometimes made a few mistakes because of his strong compassion.

Bush ain't got nothin' on Reagan. The fact that so many Dems even believe Bush was so much worse than Reagan is a testament to the media's PR work for Reagan. In the days before the Internet, it was harder to found alternative views. Bush may be a little worse than Reagan, maybe, but not a lot worse. And Reagan was more racist. I still despise him more.

[Old and In the Way]

18. He got more favorable press than he deserved.

Carter got more negative press than he deserved. But the trend has been increasing biased towards Republican politics ever since. Honestly, it is absolutely ridiculous today how extreme the corporate media is in avoiding any criticism of this failed and corrupted administration.

[eagler]

19. They still had the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE back then

which meant that opposing points of view had to be tolerated and that those being slandered in the media had a chance to rebutt.When the Fairness Doctrine was killed back in 1987, it opened the doors wide for the likes of Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon radio hosts, whom otherwise couldn't survive free and open debate.

[papau]

26. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE was killed by regulation by Reagan, & veto'd

by Reagan when the Congress passed it as a law.

[AndyA]

22. Ronald Reagan = Iran Contra.

That's pretty much what I remember of his Presidency. Another Republican scandal, swept under the carpet. Now the parties involved are all American heroes.

BULLSHIT.

[blm]

27. Actually, instead of media sweeping it under the carpet, they treated it

as if it were a tough decision he made for the good of the country. Media helped turn Ollie North into a hero for a large segment of Americans. Today's media ignores that the same terror networks Poppy Bush and North were making deals with and supplying also spawned the terrorists that conceived 9-11 and who are the enemy this country is supposed to be fighting today.

[papau]

23. yes - the treason was more obvious (Boland Amend) and the MSM

said it didn't count because the USSC would not allow control of the budget rules in the Constitution get in the way of GOP power (actually MSM just told the public that Boland was obviously an unconstitutional limitation om Executive power.

Then when Reagan lied under oath on tape they said any court would realize he was old and tired so it did not count.

Meanwhile the screw the middle class to feed the rich and send debt down the line was never complained about - all articles were retyped GOP PR handouts, or gentle on one hand, and on the other hand articles. When Dems complained we were told "it is masterful - the way Reagan handles the press - you folks should learn from him".

Reagan shit - like speeches over Nazi graves - never stunk to the US Media (on that one he was at least X number of yards from those Nazi graves, or they were Nazi but not SS, or he is healing a WW2 wound- etc).

In the first 6 months of 1981 Reagan attack Social Security, declared it bankrupt and that it needed to end. In the first Budget - the one with the massive tax cut - in Aug 1981 he also killed Federal aid to the mentally ill - saying that the states should pick up that cost and claiming the "block grants in the budget gave the states enough to do so - of course this was a lie and we had mentally ill om grates all through America and very visible in DC.

When the VP (H W Bush) had the car accident while drunk with his mistress, all of DC knew - but it never got into the media.

When the GOP homosexual pedophile scandal at the capitol building broke - it never got into the media.

[papau]

48. ATOMIC SECRETS GOING TO CHINA UNDER REAGAN. - Treason?

1985 to 1990, Presidents Reagan and Bush certified and lied that Pakistan was not building a bomb - It was MISSION ACCOMPLISHED when Pakistan got the bomb. China was not needed - if they had not stepped in our CIA would have helped out.

But more Important in terms of Reagan Treason:

Under Reagan within 3 years of our developing a small atomic bomb (200 plus pounds but that means it was a "suit case bomb") China had the design - and was publishing their improvements in Science journals! The CIA officially says they did not discover the theft until 91 when someone read the journals.

And no one says Reagan "gave" China the bomb. But he did see them get the suitcase bomb under his watch.

TO THIS DAY OUR MEDIA COVERS FOR REAGAN. NEVER A MENTION OF THE ATOMIC SECRETS GOING TO CHINA UNDER REAGAN.

LOL

[Minnesota Libra]

25. You all are forgetting the release of the Iranian hostages on the day.....

......Reagan was sworn into office. We didn't find out for a long time that deals were made behind the scenes to thwart everything Carter tried to do to bring those hostages home and keep the hostages from being released until the moment Reagan was sworn in. That little arrangement turned out to be "Iran Contra" and as it turned out Reagan was right when he swore up and down he knew nothing about the whole thing. :sarcasm: The old boy was even then suffering the beginning stages of Alzheimer's and so "North" took the fall for that. Eventually the media did report the majority of it all though but that was only because at that time we didn't have huge conglomerate media organizations to the extent we do now.

You may be right in that the next GOP candidate will fall back on the Reagan era and if that be the case then we need to bring up the hostages and Iran/Contra real quick. Birds of a feather.............

[blm]

29. The saddest part about that is Lawrence Walsh had the proof, but

when Clinton took office, he wanted all the books closed on IranContra and BCCI.

Think about what this country and the world would be like today if BushInc had been fully exposed for their treachery then.

[AX10]

44. Clinton should have never closed those books.

The Bush family would have been ruined forever.

[TomInTib]

32. And they flew them into IAH (Houston)n since renamed...

George H W Bush International Airport.

Wasn't that just so cute?

I was there that day and watched the airplane land.

[blm]

42. How incredibly loathsome.

.

[TomInTib]

45. I could not believe the goings on.

We could not leave the terminal.
Security like I had never witnessed.

I was raising hell about the craven shamelessness of the whole deal.

[gaspee]

28. I think the press took it easy on him...

Too many scandals for his admin not to have gone down. They broke every law ever written. Remember all the assholes now cut their teeth with Reagan.

I was just as frustrated then as I am now as to why can't people just *see* how evil these people are?

[mmonk]

30. No.

The media takeover began in the 80's so it wasn't this far advanced.

[robbedvoter]

39. Actually, the takeover started the next morning after Watergate

It was during Reagan that it has started as a conscious class effort by the "moral majority" and by the time Clinton took office it was a loaded weapon fully stocked with 24hnews cycle, hate radio shows, internet and videotapes selling to the rabid.
The Hunting of the president underscores just on how many levels they were working - from network news and newspapers to underground crazy fabrications sold on videotapes.
This kind of arsenal was in the planning stages in Reagan's time.

here's a quote from the reagan's funeral time that to mme shed some light on the image fabrication:

When Ronald Reagan died earlier this year, someone from Fox News called Gordon, looking for a sound bite for a story on Reagan’s religious faith because Gordon had known Reagan’s pastor.
“I said, ‘He didn’t take care of poor people,’ ” Gordon said.
The guy from Fox said, “I don’t want to hear about poor people, I want to hear about Reagan’s Christianity.”
Gordon replied, “That IS Reagan’s Christianity,” and the Fox guy hung up on him."
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?Art...

[CAcyclist]

33. He wasn't called the Teflon president for nothing

a great little book to check out was "Reagan's Reign of Error"

[Minnesota Libra]

36. Boy, do I remember that - the neocons/fundies all but worshiped...........

.....the old boy.

[robbedvoter]

40. The Teflon was media made - that was the little secret

It didn't just "happen"

[blm]

41. True - if teflon came from charm, Clinton would never have been impeached

The media protected Reagan and Bush1 from their serious crimes even though it worked alongside GOPs to assure Clinton's impeachment.

Those are decisions made and they don't happen in a vacuum.

[noonwitch]

34. No, I think there were more critics then

I think that Reagan had better press secretaries, for one thing, and a better command of the language, for another (at least in his first term, before alzheimer's started affecting him).

The media tore him apart over Iran-contra. It was the people who looked the other way over it.

[primative1]

38. I wasn't much into politics then ...

Times were much better than they are today. People really only pay attention to politics when it starts to hurt them.

[Joanne98]

46. Yes.

[ieoeja]

62. No. They were just stupid.

Journalism ain't exactly rocket science. It does not attract the best and brightest, and the Reagan era was a prime example of this as time and again their first reaction to any Reagan speech or press conference was to marvel at the man's genius. I could watch the same speech and think, "what a load of it". By the next day the press would figure out the same thing.

Most famous of these was the speech he gave to thunderous applause. but when the full text appeared in print shortly thereafter, it did so under the caption, "Find the Verb". Turns out this great speech did not contain a single verb. Which means there was not a complete sentence in the entire speech. And not one member of the media present at the time noticed.

[Totally Committed]

67. The MSM loved Reagan and Nancy, too...

but there was not the air of being their personal PR team that seems to be the modus operendus today. The press didn't seem like an arm of the WH information aparatus. There was still a lot of oppostion reported to his governance, unlike now.

Things still hadn't gotten as filthy as they are now. The Santorums and the Frists and the Gingriches hadn't begun to reframe everything the Democrats were trying to do. Karl Rove wan't there to throw a monkey-wrench into the works. And there wasn't the Religious Right pulling the strings. If any of those things had been around, the media would have reported on it and called the Reagan administration on it, unlike now.

It was different, to be sure. I never would have thought he'd end up "St. Ronald" as he has now.

TC

[leesa]

68. Not quite in the same way...remember he did away with the equal access

which set the stage for this nightmare of the neocons operating ALL the news outlets.

[dsc]

69. Yes and no

I think a large part of Reagan's positive press came from the very skillful manipulation of images that his White House engaged in. Oftentimes a very negative report on Reagan would be coupled with the images of him that the White House released. For example, they might couple a story about his cuts in food stamps with images of him visiting a soup kitchen. The Reagan White House realized that the positive visual outweighed the negative copy.

With Bush, there really is no negative copy. The press has simply given up any pretense of investigating him.

[Samantha]

70. Many reporters knew Reagan had Alzheimer's his second term

They did not reveal this for the same reason they religiously! protected John Kennedy's affairs of the heart. Reason: they liked them both personally and didn't want to see them hurt. Reporters can be human too.

I think in the beginning many reporters got a charge out of Bush* and just didn't want to beat up on him. After 9/11 when many realized the seriousness of our dilemma, the fear factor set in, the retaliations were obvious, and, too late, they realized they could not talk even if they wanted to do so.

I think the tide has only changed now because Bush*s numbers are so low and because the true fear factor, i.e., this nation is crumbling under this leadership (sic), prompts leaks and press scrutiny on issues and maneuvers previously allowed to float beneath the surface.

Just my two cents, BLM.

[Samantha]

71. Postscript: I am not THAT old!

I just thought I would give your question a shot....

[blm]

73. heheh.... don't worry - there are plenty of us real oldies who appreciate

the younger ones who chose to be aware. I squandered a good bit of my youthful energy when I should have been in the streets protesting IranContra.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

72. It was incredibly frustrating...

to hear the MSM opine about how he was the "Teflon President" because none of the many scandals in his administration ever effected him.

...taking a deep breath...

MAYBE THEY WOULD HAVE IF YOU FREAKIN' MORONS WOULD HAVE DONE YOUR JOB. FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, IT'S THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA TO EXPOSE OFFICIAL CORRUPTION, NONE PASS IT OFF AS SOME GODDAMED "BOYS WILL BE BOYS" ESCAPADE AND THEN HAVE THE AUDICITY TO WONDER WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE.

There. I feel better now.