Will media challenge first lady's criticisms of media?

[ck4829]

Following first lady Laura Bush's December 14 interview with MSNBC chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell, in which Bush asserted that the media have failed to cover "a lot of good things that are happening" in Iraq, National Review editor Rich Lowry, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, and New York Times columnist David Brooks have all weighed in, disputing the charge. As Media Matters for America noted, during the December 14 interview, O'Donnell did not dispute Laura Bush's assertion, consistent with a practice, also documented by Media Matters, of journalists not challenging the first lady's criticisms of the media's coverage of the Bush administration. Media Matters asks: Will the media generally take the example of Blankley, Brooks, and Lowry and take on the first lady's baseless -- and at times outright false -- attacks on the media?

President Bush himself offered further ballast for the media to challenge the first lady going forward, acknowledging in a December 19 interview with The Washington Post, that "e're not winning, we're not losing" in Iraq, a statement the Post noted "was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, 'Absolutely, we're winning.' "

During the December 14 MSNBC interview, Laura Bush asserted, "I do know that there are a lot of good things that are happening that aren't covered, and I think the drumbeat in the country from the media, from the only way people know what's happening, unless they happen to have a loved one deployed there, is discouraging." As Media Matters noted, beyond pointing out that "there are a lot of deaths every day," O'Donnell did not dispute the first lady's assertion; rather, she prompted her to elaborate on "some of those good things that people should know about," at no point mentioning that President Bush himself acknowledged, during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on December 7, that the United States needs a "new approach" because "it's bad in Iraq."

Writing about Laura Bush's statement during the interview, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz observed in his December 20 "Media Notes" column, "I no longer see most conservatives making this argument," a fact he described as "telling." Kurtz noted that Lowry and Brooks disputed Laura Bush's comments.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612200009

[LynnTheDem]

1. ISG; "significant underreporting of the

VIOLENCE in Iraq"

Poor Laura. As ignorant as her idiot husband.

[Olney Blue]

2. Laura, it's over. Your husband failed and you can't fix it.

[northofdenali]

3. At first, I was uncertain. Now I firmly believe that Laura

is a complete "enabler". She cannot possibly believe that her husband is sane, yet continues in her Stepford-like support. They both need to be institutionalized.

[Disturbed]

4. Laura Bush is a fake.

Her public persona is an act. She is as mean spirited and vapid as her Asshole husband.