In this discussion, particularly for my American Government students, I’d like you to think about the role of the media and Barack Obama’s presidency. Has the media been fair in its coverage of the President? Has it asked the tough questions of him or has it not reported on his first few months in office with the proper level of scrutiny? Are there some elements of the media that have been more fair than others?
The Independent Thinkers
A page for thinking people who tirelessly challenge their own assumptions and let neither conventionality nor agenda nor political party obstruct the relentless pursuit of truth
- Home
- Books of Note
- Election 2008
- Films of Note
- Groundbreakers
- In the News
- Music
- Video Presentations and Clips
April 4, 2009 at 11:41 am |
In all fairness, the coverage of President Obama is much different from the coverage of Senator Obama. Barack Obama’s official approval from the media changed after he came into office. The press went from adoring a man, with little experience, to questioning his every move as President. And so, powerful segments of the media can be persistent in trying to elect a President and then go and oppose him. This can be explained simply because he made promises and now has to “…talk the talk,” as Katie Couric once said to the President.
The change in coverage by some outlets could also be explained by some of the losses of revenue occurring in the media. Two important causes of the revenue losses are 1) the internet is becoming more popular, and 2) some news outlets are fairer than others. The first is obvious. And the second, I am postulating because not all news outlets are losers in ratings. Therefore, people are discriminating from bad news stations like MSNBC and switching to Fox News—note: a fair network. Most importantly, President Obama is scrutinized more because the media is competing for viewers.
Furthermore, Presidents are victims of intense press coverage when they’re presiding over a war and a recession. When the War in Iraq started, much of the press carried out critical coverage of President Bush. I will acknowledge that President Obama dealt with some difficult questions regarding the economy on his 24th of March Press Conference. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton presided over peace and prosperity so they didn’t have it too bad. The media did adore Clinton until the Election of 2008 and detested Reagan’s policies, but Reagan was a very popular president. However, each President did have some bad days—see Iran-Contra and the Lewinski Scandal. Namely, Presidents serving in difficult circumstances deal with difficult questions from the press.
On the contrary, President Obama doesn’t deal with as much scrutiny as President Bush did. Late night talk show hosts all had a variety of ways to trash Bush. The double standard is shown with President Obama when he made an appearance on Jay Leno’s The Tonight Show. Just imagine if President Bush went on a late night talk show and mistakenly referenced his personal anecdote to the Special Olympics. Much of the press ignored this frivolous story about Obama, but if it was George W. Bush, Keith Olbermann would have been apoplectic. He would also invite people on his show who agree Bush should be arrested for his statement. This is possibly a reason he is losing his ratings to another douchy reporter who does invite opposition to his show—O’Reilly. There is no question that much of the media favor their Presidents.
President Obama’s deal with the press—to coin a phrase—was made during his election and then broken as he ascended the highest office of the world. It could be noted that the press are mendacious, moreover, because they made his slim record look appealing. However, the media are losing money and ratings, so they are beginning to become more objective. Also, Presidents under hard times are pressured to answer hard questions. Therefore, the people do have enough information if they pay attention to the events in national news.
April 4, 2009 at 11:58 am |
If any wants proof that the media is losing revenue just visit http://www.journalism.org. Also, Bill Clinton’s adoration is documented at significant length in Ann Coulter’s Guilty: Liberal Victims and their assault on America.
April 7, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
For the majority of all American media outlets that tend to make coverage of an American president with so much accolades and popularity, I agree so much on this issue regarding Obama and the media perception about him. I’ve been reading this article that was about a year ago (Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/just-how-soft-has-obamas_b_97146.html) in which Taylor Marsh explains her take on the media’s part of being soft and not excessively critical. She talks about the way Americans are ignoring reality and sensationalize him as an idol in which he is indeed the first black president, but to an extent, the media went overboard and somehow express their news coverage as being biased and protective on what he does as president.
In my opinion, it is considered a big deal than people think because his tenure is weighed against him if he is involved in a scandal and with that, he will get away with it if he was taking gifts from the government, accepting money from other people etc. The media have to do their job just to fair to themselves and trust worthy in their viewers because everybody takes the liability and the blame and as a result will taint their reputation for good.
May 4, 2009 at 10:58 pm |
Anyone remember President Obama’s last press conference? According to Yahoo News, Jeff Zeleny, a New York Times reporter, asked President Obama, “During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?”
This is the most frivolous question ever asked by the media. That question should be asked at the Magic Kingdom, not the White House. Someone please convince me that this is a valid question to ask the president.