Posted on 10/27/2003 4:00:14 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON – After several months of bad news, the Bush administration has discovered the source of its problems. It turns out that it's not the Democrats, not really anyway. It's not Saddam or Osama. It's not even Bill Clinton. No, the problem, it turns out, is the media.
The press, particularly the Washington press, has created a "filter" that's blocking the good news from getting out, the president says. He insists that positive stories abound in Iraq and in the US economy. Things are looking up all over. But you in the public aren't being allowed to hear about it. And if you could hear about it, you'd feel a lot better about the direction of the country.
This is the new line from the White House as it's taken its good-news message around the country, in speeches and in interviews with local television stations and smaller newspapers.
The motives here aren't hard to discern.
Presidents have long sought to reach beyond the Washington press corps to take their message directly to the people. More than 80 years ago, President Woodrow Wilson went on a whistle-stop tour to try to generate public support for the League of Nations.
In terms of strategy, the new White House approach is something of a no-brainer. The press ranks just below trial lawyers, telemarketers, and the French as a favorite piñata for surly Americans.
And then there's the chance to suggest that the press leans left politically and simply can't be fair in its reporting. This argument, in case you haven't talked to Anne Coulter recently, was put forward again last week by the president's mom. Barbara Bush told NBC News that "my gut feeling is that all the media is against George, Republicans, any Republican."
Ah, yes. It's lonely at the top, particularly if you have the misfortune of being a Republican. But even with the odds and the media- industrial complex stacked against him, the president is soldiering on, or so the story goes.
This is all very interesting, even compelling, save for one small problem. When one looks at the facts, the argument just doesn't hold up. In fact, up until the last few months, one could argue that the Bush administration has had a relatively easy time of it with the press. Most of the potential "scandals" the press could have latched on to - Enron, Halliburton, etc. - were mostly overlooked, even by the usually tenacious Washington press corps, in large part probably because since Sept. 11 there are bigger issues at stake.
But now, as much as the president wants good news reported, there simply isn't a lot to be had at the moment. The nation's former surplus is now a record deficit, thanks in large part to tax cuts the president advocated. School principals and parents are unhappy with the education reform he pushed for and then underfunded. States aren't pleased that they're seeing more federal mandates, some of which involve homeland security, without seeing more money coming their way.
On top of all of this is Iraq, where the president maintains the press isn't reporting on the major progress being made. But at the same time, his secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said in a candid memo that it's "pretty clear" the US and its allies can carry the day "but it will be a long, hard slog."
And as time goes by, it's becoming clearer that the US went into Iraq on faulty information that was either poorly gathered and assembled or put together to be deliberately misleading.
Of course, not all of these problems are completely the president's fault - though some unmistakably bear his stamp of responsibility - but that's the negative side of sitting in the Oval Office, just as the positive side comes when one gets credit for things one has nothing to do with. If the president has any questions about this aspect of the office he holds, he'd be well advised to talk with his father, who watched his ratings hit the 90 percent range before plummeting quickly to the 40s.
Much the president's support is based on the fact that people find him to be personally likeable. Like it or not, that's increasingly the nature of politics in America. But the press's job isn't to cover personality; it is to cover the news. And you can call it a filter, if you like, or you can call it bias, but the news, of late, is not good.
And that's why strategies like the one Mr. Bush is employing now rarely work. You can rail against the messenger all you want, but when the message is bad, it doesn't sound like defending yourself, it sounds like whining.
Obviously these people have been practicing the new math
Too bad the CSM is not what I thought it was. If they were they would know that democrats and the media are one in the same, and it IS their fault. The administration finally started to fight back, although it is a losing battle with the bozo media carrying water for the socialists.
Well, the author gets it right in the first paragraph. --- Good for him!
Well, admit it or not, Bushie is spending like a sailor on port call.
When Clinton was in office and the message was that he was having sexual escapades with other women in the White House, Hillary and Bill went on this screaming tirade that it was a lie and a vast republican conspiracy... until the blue dress showed up.
The message is getting out to me. I like President Bush, I respect him, and I think he's doing a far better job at cleaning up the mess he inherited from Clinton (including the bad economy that went sour in Spring 2000 before Bush was elected).
On some things you have to put up the money. We're paying the bills coming due on Clinton's expenses.
I don't understand the money situation in Iraq; what money is theirs and why we can't spend their money as we see fit. But I do understand that spending some money over there to stop terrorists may be far cheaper than spending money here to fix up a terrorist-created disaster in our cities. What is it, $20B as a grant to Iraq? The cost of the WTC attack was about $500B? What is the cost of one of our cities getting destroyed? That's dollars. What's the cost in American lives? It saddens me when our soldiers die in Iraq. But they are there to help prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from perishing here. Another reason why I think many Democrats are un-American; they want to pull out our soldiers and let the terrorists have at it with us.
And which of the nine dwarves pockets are you in C.S.M.? If not all of them !
Hoooo Hummm. It seems as well as correcting your post, I must explain to you how government TRULY works.
The White House lobbies for its pet boondoggles.
This is all very interesting, even compelling, save for one small problem. When one looks at the facts, the argument just doesn't hold up.
Yes it does hold up. 90% of the press votes Democrat.
In fact, up until the last few months, one could argue that the Bush administration has had a relatively easy time of it with the press. Most of the potential "scandals" the press could have latched on to - Enron, Halliburton, etc. - were mostly overlooked...
They were overlooked because there were no "scandals" there to begin with. Enron was kept alive by the Clinton Administration, not the Bush Administration. And what "Halliburton" scandal?! Sheesh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.