LAPDOG PRESS SEETHES OVER BILL CLINTON, SHRUGS AT GEORGE BUSH

[DeepModem Mom]

Media Matters for America: The press seethes over Bill Clinton, shrugs at George Bush
by Eric Boehlert

....The sitting president was delivering his final State of the Union, capping off his failed presidency, which has provoked deep despair among most Americans about the future of the country. And for that, Bush has been tagged the most consistently unpopular president in modern history. Yet the reaction from the press and pundits last week when marking the final chapter of the Bush decline was mostly to shrug their shoulders and look away. The media has, throughout Bush's gruesome political collapse, shown very little interest in taking part in the usual Beltway pastime of dissecting the miscues, assigning blame, and yes, doing a little bit of grave-dancing.

When it comes to Bush's two-year decline, the press has remained oddly detached. By contrast, the recent coverage of Clinton has been dripping with emotion; with disdain and contempt that bordered on vitriol. Bush literally drives the country into a ditch while erecting new standards for secrecy and incompetence (Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed Hospital, Hurricane Katrina, staggering national debt, etc.), and the press yawns. But Clinton makes ill-advised and insensitive unscripted comments on the campaign trail, and that's what really gets the Beltway press upset -- enrages them, really, as they scramble to find just the right adjective to describe Clinton's allegedly deceitful, abhorrent behavior. Am I the only one struck by the disconnect here?

I'm not suggesting Clinton is immune from criticism or that he didn't screw up. His comments obviously upset many people who in the past supported him politically. But it sure would have been nice, over the previous eight years, if the same press corps that today has trouble controlling its roiling contempt for Clinton would just once or twice flash the same passion and anger towards Bush for what he's done in the White House and what he's done to this country....

In a sense, we're witnessing the logical conclusion to the media's lapdog approach to covering Bush. When the president was flying high during the glory years of 2002-2005, the press eagerly played the role of star-maker, while walking away from its traditional oversight duties. But when the Bush presidency collapsed and the American people abandoned the administration, the press quietly turned away, not wanting to dwell on the unpleasantness.

One of the likely reasons for that is that the press understands its own, almost monumental failure in covering this presidency, especially during the defining moment -- the run-up to the war in Iraq. And remember, this is the same political press corps that had a gut feeling about Bush in 2000; just liked the guy. They vouched for him. Said he was a real, authentic politician who would restore bipartisanship to Washington again. So, today, journalists aren't interested in dissecting what went wrong with Bush because then journalists would have to dissect what they did wrong, and that's not where they want the spotlight to be....

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200802050001

[xultar]

1. YEah. that is the questio I've been pondering for a couple of weeks now.

Bill Clinton has had more negative press than Bush yet Bush has killed thousands of people in an unpopular war.

:shrug:

Same thing here @ DU. People are more angry and willing to bash Bill more than they are willing to bash Bush. Hummmm.

[AndyTiedye]

2. The Press Understands that Their Owners Want the Repiglickins to Stay in Power Forever

Nothing else matters. Not even ratings.

[dave123williams]

3. "THE MOST TRUSTED SOURCE" They all say. Too bad they're clearly prima facia whores.

That's right Matthews, we're talking about you.

[xchrom]

4. recommend -- and hoping someone like olberman will be big enough to

set aside primary fever and comment on it.

[MiniMe]

5. Can you hear me now?