Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
What do you think? Is the mainstream American Press too hard, too soft, or just right on Bush?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Press: Too hard or too soft on Bush?
- Thread starter Mercy Not Sacrifice
- Start date
d.
_______
Booko
Deviled Hen
Mercy Not Sacrifice said:
I was looking for a choice of "just plain incompetent" but I didn't find one.
The televised media in this country seem to fly with the wind on just about any subject, and even more so on political ones. Print media is a little better, but that's not saying much.
The idea that putting two ideologues together so they can spout their talking points and interrupt each other so you can't understand a word of it and calling that "news" makes the case that they are not too hard or too soft on Bush...they are just plain incompetent.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
I voted too soft.
I am quite surprised the press here is not tougher on Bush. My guess is that newspapers want to make money, TV stations want to make money. If they peeve the 62 million voters that put him in the White House, they may lose money. People won't buy those newspapers or be subjected to the commercials on TV if Bush is constantly hounded. Just a theory....
I am quite surprised the press here is not tougher on Bush. My guess is that newspapers want to make money, TV stations want to make money. If they peeve the 62 million voters that put him in the White House, they may lose money. People won't buy those newspapers or be subjected to the commercials on TV if Bush is constantly hounded. Just a theory....
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
michel said:
*hugs* It's nice to think that!
I think it kind of depends on when in the administration one is talking about. In the begining, they were very much too easy on him. One got the impression that this was intimidation, or something else, but a lot of the things that should have been reported weren't- something that made some Americans feel betrayed by the press.
Now, I'm not sure if it's because Bush isn't polling so well, or because someone decided to 'take a stand' and the others followed, but I think they're starting to get the hang of it.
Booko
Deviled Hen
Buttercup said:I voted too soft.
I am quite surprised the press here is not tougher on Bush. My guess is that newspapers want to make money, TV stations want to make money. If they peeve the 62 million voters that put him in the White House, they may lose money. People won't buy those newspapers or be subjected to the commercials on TV if Bush is constantly hounded. Just a theory....
It's that and more. The DC press want access, and in order to get that, you can't p*** off this White House. His actions have made it abundantly clear that no difficult questions may be asked, or you will never be chosen to ask a question again. Look at Helen Thomas' treatment during this Admin and compare it to previous Admins, regardless of political party.
You can have access if you post gay porn pix of yourself, apparently, but not if you actually try to do the job the Fourth Estate is supposed to be doing. I couldn't make up fiction like this if I tried.
The other issue to consider is "who owns the media"? It's not just about making money, though obviously that's a huge bit of it, but every time I hear silliness about the "liberal" press, I wonder when someone's going to mention "conservative" owners pulling their strings. They have a vested interest in political matters in this country, just like the rest of us, and can be expected to try to sway public opinion in favor of their interests. It's not like it's nefarious or anything, and it's hardly unexpected.
Mercy Not Sacrifice said:
My hunch is that it's varied. After 9/11, and through when he went into Iraq, the impression I got was that the mainstream American press had put kid gloves on when dealing with him. But in recent months, especially after Katrina, as his popularity has dropped, the mainstream press is more willing to publish stories that don't reflect well on him or his administration.
Even so, I think the press has been overall less apt to take on George Bush than some former presidents. You pretty much have to go to the international press to see some issues raised about him. Of course, when I listen to the conservative talk show hosts, the press has been out for Bush's blood from day one, etc.
Karl R
Active Member
I voted for "too soft", but that's not entirely accurate.Mercy Not Sacrifice said:
The press harasses Bush about things that don't matter, but blindly accept things that they should question.
For example, before the invasion of Iraq, Bush kept talking about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda. Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden despised Saddam Hussein for being a secular leader. But the press never questioned Bush's rhetoric.
Instead the press questions things like Bush's failure to pull out of Iraq. If US troops withdraw from Iraq, the country will disintegrate into civil war. Bush should have realized this before invading, but that's not the question the press is asking.
I was chatting with an acquaintance (who works for the state department), and we were both amused that the Daily Show on Comedy Central is the best source of hard news on television. That says a lot about the state of journalism in the US today.
Booko
Deviled Hen
What he said! :jam:Karl R said:
And consequently, at one point 70% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. :sarcastic
I have gotten to the point where I read BBC online, watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report, and if anything earth shattering really happens, one of my friends will call or someone will post something about it on RF.
I've quite given up wasting my time with mainstream American press. And it's an election year...wow, if that isn't a reason to take a news fast, I don't know what is.
Oh, that reminds me, there's an easy and fast read on the subject of the state of the media called "Amusing Ourselves to Death." I recommend it highly.
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
Karl R said:
If there's nothing else I miss cable for, it's the Daily Show. It's sad on one level that they seemed to be the only ones willing to report the 'tough stuff'. On the other hand, it's reassuring to feel like someone in the news (or 'news', depending on how one views it) actually knows that the viewers are intelligent enough to hear what they should be hearing.
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
Booko said:
Actually, no I didn't, though I should have thought of it. Thanks for the heads-up!
Ardent Listener
Active Member
Too hard on what's silly, too soft on what's important.
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
I started this thread because I have noticed a running theme among many talking heads here in the States: Outspoken conservatives tend to believe that the Press is too harsh on Bush, whereas outspoken liberals believe that it (sic) is too spineless to stand him up. Just as few people voted "Just right" on this poll, not many have openly stated that the Press is giving impartial coverage to President Bush's actions and attitudes.
Ultimately, where I think the Press has gone wrong is not its bravado or marked lack thereof; instead, its devotion to those in both camps has greatly diminished its reputation. By unapologetically living by the principle that there are two sides to every story, the Press has willingly placed itself in the middle of an ideological tug-of-war, treating both sides as nearly equal regardless of their respective positions. Indeed, this dilemma begs the question as to whether the Press should just take a firm stance on the occasions when it is clear that one side's claim to truth carries much more weight than the other's does.
So why doesn't the Press do this? I think the answer is simple. If the mainstream Press shifted well to the left or right, it would alienate those whose position is treated as inferior. Consider, for example, the effect of the right-leaning FOXNews: many conservatives love it; many liberals love to hate it. More importantly, though, FOXNews remains because it has established its reputation as a mainstream conservative news outlet, and thus it attracts plenty enough viewers to keep it going. This, I think, represents the crux of the issue: media outlets that have ratings have profits. A profitable news station is an effective news station, it seems.
That the Press likely depends singlehandedly on its profits would seem to imply that it indeed leans to the right, but I contend that this conclusion does not necessarily follow. In a profit-driven media, whatever sells, goes. Case in point are Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, two very outspoken talking heads that find themselves almost at the opposite extremes on any political spectrum. Yet we find that both have easily-recognizeable names. Why is this so? Because both Coulter and Moore attract attention very well. Attention means ratings; ratings means profits. This scenario recurs many times over, regardless of which person or what story makes its way onto our TV sets.
Put bluntly, the Press' devotion to walking the middle road will not end as long as it is a profit-driven machine and our nation is so well-divided on current affairs. It seems that this is part of the price we must pay for living with free enterprise. So in the meantime, keep listening to FOXNews if you're conservative or BBC and NPR if you're liberal, because it appears that the mainstream Press isn't going to be your cup of tea any time soon.
Ultimately, where I think the Press has gone wrong is not its bravado or marked lack thereof; instead, its devotion to those in both camps has greatly diminished its reputation. By unapologetically living by the principle that there are two sides to every story, the Press has willingly placed itself in the middle of an ideological tug-of-war, treating both sides as nearly equal regardless of their respective positions. Indeed, this dilemma begs the question as to whether the Press should just take a firm stance on the occasions when it is clear that one side's claim to truth carries much more weight than the other's does.
So why doesn't the Press do this? I think the answer is simple. If the mainstream Press shifted well to the left or right, it would alienate those whose position is treated as inferior. Consider, for example, the effect of the right-leaning FOXNews: many conservatives love it; many liberals love to hate it. More importantly, though, FOXNews remains because it has established its reputation as a mainstream conservative news outlet, and thus it attracts plenty enough viewers to keep it going. This, I think, represents the crux of the issue: media outlets that have ratings have profits. A profitable news station is an effective news station, it seems.
That the Press likely depends singlehandedly on its profits would seem to imply that it indeed leans to the right, but I contend that this conclusion does not necessarily follow. In a profit-driven media, whatever sells, goes. Case in point are Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, two very outspoken talking heads that find themselves almost at the opposite extremes on any political spectrum. Yet we find that both have easily-recognizeable names. Why is this so? Because both Coulter and Moore attract attention very well. Attention means ratings; ratings means profits. This scenario recurs many times over, regardless of which person or what story makes its way onto our TV sets.
Put bluntly, the Press' devotion to walking the middle road will not end as long as it is a profit-driven machine and our nation is so well-divided on current affairs. It seems that this is part of the price we must pay for living with free enterprise. So in the meantime, keep listening to FOXNews if you're conservative or BBC and NPR if you're liberal, because it appears that the mainstream Press isn't going to be your cup of tea any time soon.