posted October 27, 2009 10:21 AM         

quote:

---

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

---

PS

(link from above article)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28417.html

posted October 27, 2009 10:58 PM         

of course ALL news contains bias, the people who report it are human with their own viewpoints, and the corporations they work for have their ideas of what's fit to print. what newspaper used to have that as a slogan (all the news that's fit to print) and then there was another that countered that with (all the news that fits)! but surely it's a matter of degree?

or does CNN have shrieking hosts and newsreaders now too? fox give the shortest shrift to "facts" i have ever seen...with the possible exception of NPR, on the other side of the fence and equally adamant that their point of view is the only one worth listening to...

posted October 28, 2009 02:17 PM         

For instance, the press had nothing whatsoever to say about O'Bomber's Communist Party USA political mentor Frank Marshall Davis, or about his domestic terrorist communist friend Bill Ayers.

For instance, the press only trotted out the story about his racist, anti-American, cursing America Black Liberation Theology preacher....after it was so far out of the bag they had no choice.

For instance, the press still haven't told the story about an O'Bomber appointee named Van Jones...a self admitted communist revolutionary...and how he came to be appointed to a high level Administration job.

On issue after issue concerning O'Bomber, the press is utterly silent, never vetted O'Bomber in any way and generally go after anyone who has a negative word to say about O'Bomber.

Now, the Washington Post is attempting to float the idea that people are better off being laid off from their jobs...the subtext being that O'Bomber's recession is a blessing in disguise on the way to making them better people.

On the other hand, the press was all over Bush before he even took the oath of office. They never let up and invented every excuse in the book...including outright lies to bash Bush.

This isn't even a close call.

posted October 28, 2009 04:26 PM         

They also didn't bash Bush when he was right...as in tax cuts across the board to get the economy moving; as in going after terrorists and keeping the pressure on them; as in not abandoning the Iraqis to the tender mercies of al-Qaeda; as in freeing 50 million people from the grip of ruthless, murderous tyrannies.

Of course, the rest of the American Press...and your Socialist idols in Congress and now the White House thought all those good things were just terrible.

posted October 28, 2009 10:13 PM         

no, they saved that for the democrats. because we all know all democrats are goons and socialists, right?

according to jwhop's american dictionary.

posted November 14, 2009 05:14 PM         

nor did i ever consider bush to be evil incarnate as much as i disagreed with most of what happened during his administration.

and i couldn't agree more that party lines don't seem to mean much of anything any more...but i do find it creepy that i can listen to a call-in talk show and hear the same phrases and ideas being spouted by any number of people...and come here and hear the same phrases and ideas from jwhop...there is a common source obviously, and i first heard this stuff on fox years ago. corporate radio seems to run all down the same gutter.

then turn the dial and get the left-hand side, and though the battle cries are different, the tone of voice remains the same.

polarization is rampant and i have had my fill of it!

then there is the small fact that bush was "favoured" by a large SURPLUS on arrival at the white house, which became a large DEFICIT before he left. whereas obama inherited a huge DEFICIT which may CURRENTLY look worse than ever but which, if things pan out, will be decreasing over time...