Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:41:00 AM
I am hardly the first to point this out, but the media has a clear double standard when evaluating presidents. Nor is it only an Obama-centered double standard. Though Obama may be benefiting more than any previous president, don't forget that Clinton vacationed as much as Bush yet was never once called "out of touch", while any hint of moving more than a mile form Washington resulted in criticism of Bush.
Still, Obama seems to be receiving favoritism of a scope even greater than Clinton's. Nor is it just political. Obviously the press is completely overlooking his promises to close Guantanamo and his failure to commit troops to Afghanistan, both campaign promises. Nor are they pointing out that his dithering on Afghanistan is precisely what he accused McCain of contemplating. Similarly, they are ignoring his lack of progress on the economy, his faulty prognostications, and the absolute lack of impact his near trillion dollar spending bill brought about. Not to mention his many snubs by foreign nations, the lack of results form his many foreign policy initiatives and the generally hostile state of the world. If these are even mentioned, the press simply parrots the administration excuse that Bush is to blame.
But worse, they are ignoring absolutely absurd missteps that they would be ridiculing mercilessly in a Republican. For example, Obama has now played as many rounds of golf as Bush did in over two years. He took time out to head to Copenhagen to plead for Chicago's Olympic bid. And then his absolutely Marie Antoinette-like dog's birthday party, complete with veal cake.
Does anyone believe that were Obama a man with an R after his name that he would be getting the same treatment?
What makes this all the more sad is that absolutely everyone recognizes it but the media. Or, worse still, even the media recognizes it, but they are doing nothing about it. Basically, they have published a few navel gazing pieces about their love affair with Obama and how it could "give the wrong impression" and then they go back to doing nothing about it. Meanwhile the White House has declared war on Fox for not joining the sycophantic throng.
I think it is time for me to renew my suggestion. As I explained in "
The Death of Impartial Media", "
The Impossibility of Unbiased Reporting" and "
A Question of Fairness", there is no great historical precedent for an "impartial and objective press". Historically, and even at present in many other nations, the press exists as many competing, but openly ideological, entities. Instead of attempting to pretend to objectivity, these newspapers, broadcasters and others admit to a bias and leave it to the readers and listeners to make the necessary allowances, or take in several perspectives and draw their own conclusions.
Considering how badly our current journalists have failed at impartiality, smuggling in bias while claiming to be unbiased protectors of the truth, why not try this alternate approach? Let us admit to press bias and restore a little honesty to journalism.
POSTSCRIPT
My prior writing specifically on media and media bias can be found in the following posts:
Some Thoughts on the Media
The Press Versus The Nation
Why Are Journalists Special?
The Death of Impartial Media
An Adversarial Press?
Reporters' Opinions
Strange Priorities
No Comment
The Impossibility of Unbiased Reporting
A Question of Fairness
There may be a few I overlooked, but I think this list covers all the highlights.