Why does the MSM hate President Bush?
By Steven Den Beste Posted in Elections — Comments (86) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Why does the MSM hate President Bush, and why do they seem to be doing everything in their
power to sink him? The stock answer is "ideological bias", but it
occurred to me that there's another, deeper reason. They view him as a threat to their very
existence -- and they're right to do so.
The MSM sees itself as "the fourth estate". They have the conceit
that the press is a coequal branch of government with the
legislative, judicial, and executive branches. The MSM sees itself as being the
representative of the people in Washington, a watchdog to keep an eye on the
government. And it demands that members of the three estates treat it as a
coequal.
Bush has largely refused to do so. He has publicly stated that he doesn't see
the press as being a representative of the voters. He has held fewer press
conferences than any other president in recent memory, and has actively worked
around the press or outright ignored them.
This represents an existential threat to the MSM, because in fact they are
not a constitutional coequal branch of the government. The only reason they were
able to act in such a capacity in the past was because members of the
legislative and executive branches were convinced to treat them that way. It's
kind of like the British unwritten constitutional system, except that it isn't
judicially enforced. It's also fragile since the MSM's position as the
"fourth estate" is based mostly on tradition and habit.
Bush has broken with the tradition, and it represented a threat to the MSM to
create a new tradition in which the MSM's position is substantially downgraded.
So I think that part of the MSM's reaction to Bush has been, "Ignore us,
will you? OK, we'll raise such a stink that you'll be forced to pay
attention to us. We have real power, you know."
In other words, what we've been viewing is a power struggle between the
president and the MSM.
Interestingly, there's every reason to believe that the MSM is losing it. In
their ongoing attempts to try to cause as much trouble for Bush as they possibly
can, they've been degrading their own reputation steadily. The press's
reputation has been fading for decades anyway, but in the last five years it's
taken a nose dive. Their ongoing attempts to force Bush to give them obeisance
is a significant part of the reason why.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Guest on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows — Comments (10) »
Why does the MSM hate President Bush? 86 Comments (0 topical, 86 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The high point of MSM power was Watergate, when the press was instrumental in bringing down the president.
But the power of the MSM has been fading since then, for a variety of reasons. They yearn back to the good old days when they were not only acknowledged as being the Fourth Estate, but were actually the most powerful of the four.
But it isn't the good old days, and in their attempts to prove their power by trying to take down another president, their pretensions to power have instead resulted in a plurality of own-goals.
Than say, oh, I don't know...He doesn't trust them to get his word out cuae he thinks they're biased scumbags? That, maybe, he prefers to take his message to the people directly.
Ya, that's not likely at all is it?
((Please note copious doses of sarcasm))
How does he get his word out directly without the MSM? We don't have a Whitehouse news channel.
Going out and giving speeches. He talks directly to the nation that way without the media bias to filter his message when he gives press conferences to a room full of sharks and Bush haters.
Did you miss the part where he turned his approval ratings from somewhere around 34% to around 56% now just by going around the country and giving a half dozen speeches....
((steele, this is why I gave the sarcasm disclaimer :( ))
Not a bad idea actually. The Pentagon has one, why not the Whitehouse. On satellite and streaming on the Internet.
I should have said that I also had the sarchasm turned up to 9 when I posted that.
Still, when Bush gives a speech, how many people see it live? 500? Now how many see it on the nightly news? millions? He couldn't get his message out without the MSM.
They can't stand him because he responds to realities in the world that they don't want to face.
Freud once explained hyteria in this manner, and his model does seem to fit the MSM, in my opinion.
That post should read "hysteria". Sorry!
Note - Bush is responsible for all my typos, and yours too, plus the weather, the aches in our bones and the fact that the sun will go Red Giant in a few billion years, thus vaporizing the earth.
It's nice to have a causal explanation for Everything!
I think you are giving Bush and Co. too much credit for the demise of the MSM. The MSM has faced a decline in readership over the past 20 years for a variety of reasons, the least of which being a White House agenda not to talk to them. Fact is, the MSM does not need to White House to hold press conferences to report the news. They can do that by sniffing out a story and then going to independent sources to either confirm or deny. In fact, the relevancy of the story is secondary. The MSM could write "Bush Sends Eleventy Billion Aztlans To The Moon," tag it somewhere around the 18th paragrpah "The White House declined to comment on the rumor," cite a bunch of unidentified sources, and still sell papers.
This leads to why MSM has faced a decline in readership: Americans don't trust what the MSM prints. The "Fourth Estate" did it too themselves with the likes of Jason Blair who made up travel expenses and datelined articles from places he could find on a map. Ironically, the believe the way to win back American readers is to do more editorilizing rather than just straight reporting. Of course, this only continues to drive people away.
In turn, new sources have opened up for Americans to get thier news. Sites such as this one, news radio, television, etc. Rather than ignore the media, the Bush administration has turned to these mediums to get their message out. For example, I can't remember a president holding more addresses than Bush, and historically, I believe only FDR did more of this direct communication, and he served four terms! Sure the MSM is dying a slow, painful death, but it is not at the hands of the government. More so, the people have spoken. God Bless Democracy!
A lepaord can't change his spots and a newsroom full of liberals can't produce anything besides left biased news so there isn't much they can do about it one way or another.
They also do think a lot of themselves (witness all the self-analysis and self-congratulating on a job well done in 2005 going on right now) and I am sure they are offended that the Bush administration doesn't share their view. That is hardly a newsflash.
You know the Bush is a moron thing is all played out, right? He is an evil genius now who wants to read your emails to your grandma so he can use them as part of a diabolical plan to take over the universe. You should keep up on your talking points.
I think a few people watch his speeches.
I've been to presidential events where there were THOUSANDS of people there. and I wouldn't be overestimating that presidential speeches draw 5000, no sweat.
Add that to live coverage on TV (i.e. no filter) and that is how I would define going to the people. Now they can also be presidential addresses to the nation via the Oval office, etc. That too is unfiltered information from teh President.
You had your Sarcasm Meter to 9! Rog!! :)
I woke up with a cold this morning, I'm blaming it on Bush, not the fact that my father was sick over Christmas.
Just remember It's All Bush's Fault™
hehe
Bush won't play in the MSM's alternate reality world. The new media stops them from fully constructing the farce before it's taken apart at the seams. MSM power outage is the result.
A staple for overseas viewing by AFRTS viewers and on cable stations on military bases.
Did you miss the part where he turned his approval ratings from somewhere around 34% to around 56% now just by going around the country and giving a half dozen speeches....
56% approval rating?
What? Where? Who? How?
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2005/12/28/180508.htm
l
Such nostalgia is understandable given the culture these men grew up in. In the post-World War II era, television journalism was almost a quasi-governmental institution. There were only three networks, and their news broadcasts set the national debate and drew the nation together in a way that had never happened before. Eventually, the establishment felt entitled to this arrangement. They forgot that this system was the unintended offspring of WWII and the Cold War and the advent of television. Before TV, American journalism was more boisterous and less revered.
Today's technological glitz notwithstanding, we are returning to the norm, and the guild-mentality consensus we've "enjoyed" this last half-century is evaporating and will likely never return.
What was this supposed to mean then?
And as far as Bush holding less press conferences than other Presidents, let's be honest, it's not to avoid the media, it's so America doesn't have to learn yet another little fact like Mexico is part of South America or that Africa is a Country.
Not a bad channel. Lot of news for the military man kinda thing goin on. Info on the good stuff like Space A flights or PCS info. Branch specific news as well.
Back in the day before cable there was just AFRTS and local channels overseas, so this is a nice change of pace from military channel that played bits and pieces of this or that show or japanese language news :/
Of course it's his fault. Everyone knows that the Bush regime gave Halliburton a contract to spread germs all over the USA, and that they get a kickback on each box of tissues, which yields them even more obscene wealth because of the obscene tax cuts, which benefit the rich who never get colds, and the colds would stop anyway if Bush would just fund embryonic research, after which we would live forever, which doesn't happen because Bush is Evil Personified...
yadda, yadda, yadda...
But their hate for Dubya does seem to have exceeded even the hate for Nixon for the reasons you cite. Nixon exposed the connection between communism and liberalism and Dubya has forced the libs to admit the bully exists and must be dealt with. And not with a cold war, but with a good vs evil hot war that destroys their world view and their self worth.
And, unlike Clinton, this Christian takes his faith seriously and doesnt just use it for sound bites to argue for soaking the rich.
also check out the goldberg column
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2005/12/28/180508.htm
l
I could list a hundred more like that. Never called him a moron. Some people say he's just not good a public speaking.
I don't know. I think bad public speaking is when you say something like "I want to thank all my citizens for coming" when giving a speech. But when you get the continents mixed up or can't name world leaders, what do you call that?
Didn't call him a moron though.
I think Bush's handlers are doing the right thing by not having him on camera unscripted more often. If possible, always control the environment.
Who do think owns NBC/CNBC/MSNBC ? NBC Brings Good Things to GE like new orders for more weapons.....Liberal media, I dont think so.
Reagan changed the laws about ownership, but not anymore.
actually, I own GE (as well as other shareholders). Now how about you conduct a review of the on-air people?
So you are just continually implying that he is a moron? You just made the same implication.
I don't know. I think bad public speaking is when you say something like "I want to thank all my citizens for coming" when giving a speech. But when you get the continents mixed up or can't name world leaders, what do you call that?
Call it what you will but that is what you are doing there.
The big three networks that air nightly newscasts are owned by true behemoths of American media. All three owners - Viacom, Disney and General Electric - were among the top five media companies in the country in overall revenue in 2002.
journalism.org
he's a bad public speaker....He's made some amazing speeches.
I'm not so sure he's a bad UNscripted speaker either. His words atop the firetruck after 9/11 are the most inspiring since Reagan.
are publicly traded companies. Do you have an actual point? Do you plan on continuing this nonsense?
The Earth is flat, the moon is mad of green cheese and, etc etc.
Denial of the obvious is the liberals best trick. I like Steel's comment on the 'Because I said so.' argument. That applies here
jepordize their holdings in weapons manufacturing to hurt the war mongers in office?
Bush41 gave lots of speeches...and eventually gave one the networks didn't carry live for him, and so far his son has been lucky to receive media coverage for every one...especially in light of the fact that some of his Iraq Victory speeches this month were somewhat thin on content.
People want to hear the president speak, but they also want to see him do something. Right now, he's in Crawford, and a visit to some vets in a hospital in San Antonio may score some heartfelt points, but he's still got a plateful of issues to address--and this NSA thing isn't just going to 'go away' by itself...
bush can give a dozen speeches a month, but that won't get him very far...he needs to accomplish something tangible--and the Iraqi elections ain't it...especially when the two people we were backing--Alawi and Chalabi--both got diddly-squat at the polls.
What weapons contracts do Viacom and Disney have? Your talking-point-o-matic seems to be on the fritz.
if you take of the blinkers.....they wouldnt. I'm not saying that there are no liberal jounalists, but they dont decide what is aired and what isnt.
and use the "Reply to" link instead of post new comment. How about GE makes jet engines so they don't want to see another 9/11 and another slump in the airline industry?
Please
I sense that some of us (not Steven Den Beste) feel that, if the MSM would just listen more, they would comprehend how biased they appear, and change. They'd do something about it.
I'm reading 1776 , David McCullough's excellent book on the beginning of the Revolutionary War. In it, General Nathaniel Greene remarks on how many colonists had hoped at first that Lexington and Concord would cause the Crown to rethink the way it was governing the colonies--a hope dashed when America received copies of King George III's speech, which proclaimed the colonies in rebellion. In a letter to a friend, Greene wrote "We have consulted our wishes rather than our reason, in the indulgence of an idea of accommodation."
The MSM has listened for years to charges that it is biased. Yet, they blew Abu Gharaib out of all proportion and ignored the SwiftBoat vets as long as they could. When American generals came back from Iraq and told how the negative MSM coverage of Iraq was damaging the morale of our troops in combat, the WaPo responded with the Dana Priest secret prisons story and the NYT told of the NSA's domestic intercepts program. Now, the WaPo fires a shot at Bill Roggio. When it looks for fresh faces and voices, it turns to Dan Froomkin. When it bestows awards, it gives a Peabody to Mary Mapes and denies a Pulitzer to Claudia Rosett, who brought the Oil-for-Food scandal to international attention. If the NYT was concerned of being viewed as biased, would it have fired the NSA eavesdropping story on the very day the Senate voted on the Patriot Act?
Not too long ago, Hugh Hewitt visited Columbia Journalism School. (I'm hoping I remember this vignette correctly). In a class of sixteen students, when asked how many of them have voted for Kerry, thirteen raised their hands. And, the other three were foreign nationals.
Time to stop wishing for the MSM to change. It does not wish accommodation. It has chosen sides. We should give up any wishes that the MSM will change, and instead patronize the alternate sources of media (FoxNews, Weekly Standard, NRO, blogosphere) which have risen to fill the need that the MSM willfully refuses to fill.
They've made their choice. We should all move on.
on a scoop blog "reply to this" at the bottom of each comment lets people know what you are responding to.
The liberal editors and publishers do. They've an agenda to concern themselves with. Not with petty things like stock prices of their parent company
But a matter of 24 hour news coverage. From cable news to the blogs, anything the Pres says in regards to the war or current scandal (real or imagined) or any other subject is going to be covered from cover to cover, so to speak. Even then the President can make an address to the nation from the White House and lacking that there's the State of the Union as well.
I put to you that there's a huge difference in how the news was covered in the the George HW Bush administration and the current Bush administration.
I would also say that there is LOTS being done for progress in Iraq. From infrastructure, to elections to the handover of Iraqi defense to the Iraqis. The media filter prevents the good news though.
I'm not saying he's a moron. I will say however that I expect more from the person we elect to represent us (The United States). And before someone gets their liberal branding iron out, there are lots of Republicans I would vote for in a heartbeat.
I've had this discussion with several conservative co-workers and it usually goes something like this..
I point out something that the President said as I did above to which they reply "public speaking isn't a requirement to be President".
Fair enough, let's remove that from the list.
Then I mention a speech where the President calls Africa a country and they say "well, lot's of people aren't that well versed in Geography".
So let's take that off the list.
Then during the Katrina disaster the President remarks that he'd like to better learn how the Federal and State government work together (This,after having been President and a state governor) and so on and so on.
So what's left? If we take all those off the board, I know several people in my neighborhood that are more than qualified to be President. I keep hearing that it's his resolve or his faith that people like. Me? I think the guy on top should be better than 99.9% of the people he represents but I'm just a dreamer that way.
So I'm not going to call him a moron, I don't know him outside of what he says in public.
Sorry.
that they are co-equal with the other branches of government, rather it's that they think the branches of government are not co equal with them. They regard themselves as the natural leaders of the nation, the thinkers, interpreters, and shepherds of a misguided flock. Breathing the hothouse air and living in the brain dead but incestuous media social circle it is incomprehensible that anyone would question the collective disaster that goes by way of informed opinion. Think of an ugly, senile woman like Helen Thomas or an ape like Terry Moran and judge for yourselves whether or not these dunces regard elected and appointed officials as their equals. And of course intelligence is measured entirely by your politics, a clear indication of the breadth of their thought.
Did anyone ever find out how many people watched the President's last speech to the nation from the Oval Office?
It would be interesting to know. I suspect (though very well could be wrong) that the share of audience for his prime time speech was substantially lower than other primetime programming.
That's not a shot at Bush specifically. I just think that the majority of Americans don't care to listen to their politicians deliver speeches unless it's something truly dramatic.
Case in point: Hugh Hewitt visited the Columbia School of Journalism, one of the nation's top J schools, this year. In a class of 16 students, he asked how many voted for Kerry
13 raised their hands
The other three were foreign nationals.
And, we are a fifty-fifty nation in most Presidential elections.
The MSM is a commercial entity...they get paid by advertisers based on the number of viewers they have. Give them shock and awe, and they're your best friend. Start bragging about changes in Iraqi education, and people will say, "Great, but why can't the gal at Taco Bell count out $1.45 in change without making it look so painful?"
And we're still losing an average of two US soldiers per day (59 in December)...those are real lives with real families back here at home...and it's really important to those who are related to the soldiers, as well as their extended family and friends...it's one of the crappy things about war...good news out of an ugly, awful, evil situation will always take second place...and it doesn't matter how bad Saddam was or is...he's on stage getting his say in court(though he's guaranteed a conviction and execution as we all know) but at what daily cost?
Fox News averaged 2.28 million viewers between 9:01 p.m.-9:18 p.m. Dec. 18, versus 946,000 for Cable News Network from 9 p.m.-9:18 p.m. and 222,000 for MSNBC from 9:02 p.m.-9:18 p.m., according to Nielsen Media Research data.
As for the analysis that followed, Fox News scored with some 2.22 million viewers from 9:18 p.m.-9:29 p.m., while MSNBC garnered some 432,000 viewers on average from 9:18 p.m.-10 p.m. CNN's Larry King Live, which immediately followed the address through 10 p.m. Sunday, notched 946,000 viewers on average, according to Nielsen data.
That is 3.5m just from cable news networks. The number must be several times higher with all the broadcast networks added in. Seems like it would have to end up being the number one rated "show" for that week, though they don't seem to count it in those rankings.
Ah yes, mid 40% sounds a little more in the ballpark.
I suspect President Bush will bounc around in the mid 40% approval rating range for much of the rest of his presidency - barring something dramatic in either direction.
In the case of Iraq, which I think will always drive his poll numbers more than any other factor, most of the public reaction will be a result of events on the ground.
Bush can give as many speeches as he wants and the Dems can attack him as much as they want, but in the end, whether Iraq continues to make progress towards legitimate government, whether insurgent attacks continue, whether American loss of lives continues - those will be the driving factors.
So, for instance, the Iraqi elections just happened, and Bush justifiably got a little bounce in the polls. But if the insurgency continues to rage and/or Americans continue to lose lives, it will bounce back down.
And there's not much anyone can say - either pro or anti Bush - that will do much in terms of long term poll trends.
Just wanted to piont out that the
administrations not attempting to put a US puppet at the helm of the Iraqi government. They are looking to establish a representative democracy entirely chosen by the people, with ballots not bullets. I honestly believe that it does not matter, and may even be better, that Alawi and Chalabi did poorly at the polls. It just helps support the idea that those who win the elections were honestly chosen by the people and not by the US. What I am extremely suprised about is how fast and trouble free the process has been. You might be gasping at this moment going, "Did he say fast and trouble free?" Yes I did, if you go back in history and do a little research you will find out how long and hard the road to democracy was in Germany and especially Japan.
And as to the NSA matter. As the polls have shown, this is no "WaterGate" for the Dems and is backfiring on them. If they are smart they would just let it go away because it is hurting them. Of course that would be " If they were smart".
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe if you compared those numbers to, say, for the Fox News audience (2.3 million), they're right in line or maybe slightly higher than a typical Bill O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes show.
I believe O'Reilly gets around 2.1 million people watching a night.
Granted, one audience is a Sunday night primetime audience and the other is a weekday audience.
But if you compare the two, it's fairly clear that the audience watching Bush's speech on Fox News was nearly identical to a typical top rated Fox News program.
And in short, 2.5 million people watching Bush's speech is a mere drop in the bucket compared to an overall American TV audience.
What would actually be more interesting would be to compare how Bush's speeche on the Networks (the aforementioned dreaded MSM) did against comparable Sunday primetime programming.
Like, say, Desperate Housewives or Grey's Anatomy. Or even a highly rated cable show like ESPN' Sunday Night Football game.
My hunch is that it received a significantly smaller audience share than any of those shows. Suggesting that a relatively small percentage of Americans bothered to watch.
Though I could be wrong. Please post any
Bad news sells idea has become a 'Known Fact'. When was the last time this theory was tested out? Has anyone tried of late to see what happens when they accentuate the positive? Maybe once a week say, this is what REALLY heppened in Iraq and talk about schools and homes and electricity, etc. You hear talking heads say, why isn't good news reported and that people are sick of hearing bad news. But no one has the courage to test it out. I bet they'd be pleasantly surprised......
FoxNews is currently the only one of the three 24-hour cable news networks that seems to accentuate positive events in Iraq on a regular basis. I'd say that their news is "selling" pretty well.
His last Oval Office address was carried by not only the 24 hour channels but the network stations as well. The White House had requested Air time for that speech if I'm remebering
Since no one else called you on it, I'll bite. You said this regarding the media:
They care about one thing, ratings.
If that were true, they would appeal to conservatives more often since there are currently more conservatives than liberals in our country. Fox News appeals to conservatives and look what its done for their ratings.
Seriously, if you think news stories are drafted simply to improve ratings, there must be some really stupid people running the MSM.
This isn't a question of bad news/good news. It is a question of slanted news/omitted news.
For those who are crying the "There's no liberal media; all media cares about is ratings!"... um... no.
Just as a point of comparison:
Network TV News during Katrina week shows:
The ratings numbers for the week of Sept. 5-9 are based on four days, with Labor Day excluded. For the week, NBC posted a 6.8 household rating and 14 share, ABC a 6.3/13, and CBS, a 4.5/9. Among adults 25-54, ABC was the leader with a 2.7 rating, NBC was second with a 2.6, followed by CBS with a 1.7.
The key there is the highlighted portion: Adults 25-54. So we have:
ABC 2.7
NBC 2.6
CBS 1.7
Got that? Each point is worth about a million households.
Okay, now... let's take a look-see at the Top 100 TV shows, shall we?
Top 100 TV shows from September 2004 to August 2005.
Let me list the BOTTOM 10 and their 25-54 rating:
Trading Spouses 2.9
AMW: America Fights Back 2.9
8 Simple Rules 2.5
Hit Me Baby One More Time 3.6
That '70s Show 3.0
The O.C. 2.5
Family Guy 2.9
Cops 2.9
Extreme Makeover 2.2
Hope & Faith 2.5
According to this data, the top broadcast TV News during one of the most compelling bad news weeks in recent memory (Katrina) would come in at #98 in the Top 100 ratings list. CBS wouldn't even make the Top 100 during that week.
Now... there's more:
Dateline 2.9
Primetime Live 2.7
America's Funniest Home Videos 3.0
Dateline and Primetime Live, which specialize in silly 'news magazine' stories about unsolved crimes or wives killing husbands or whatever, match or outdo on an average week the #1 broadcast news in one of its best weeks. America's Funniest Home Videos outdoes all three broadcast news programs.
So what, you say? Well, if the media only cared about ratings, all three news programs would be off the air today, replaced by America's Funniest Home Videos (infinitely cheaper to produce). If they wanted to keep the news division employed, but enjoy higher ratings, the broadcast news would be replaced by more news magazines sensationalizing some lurid crime or sex scandal or some such thing. None of those news magazine programs requires keeping highly-paid reporters and anchors on payroll, incidentally, not to mention the global news operations.
Face it: the news divisions are not run in order to make money. They are a perennial ratings loser. Even the supposedly high total viewership numbers mask the fact that most of the audience is in the over 55 crowd -- potentially the least attractive audience for advertisers. Now you know why the nightly news has one drug commercial after another. The news divisions are kept around for the same reason that Bertelsmann keeps around the Knopf publishing brand: PRESTIGE.
And not prestige in the public's eye, mind you, but prestige among the cognoscenti -- the writers, the 'serious auteurs' like Joan Didion, the editors of literary journals, and academics -- the people that the folks at Bertelsmann want to go to cocktail parties with.
Similarly, the news divisions are run as a prestige operation of the media conglomerates. If the editors want to hire only liberals, who cares? They're not contributing much to the bottom line after all, and one would much rather go to a cocktail party with Diane Sawyer and Ted Koppel and the intelligentsia they hang with than with the riffraff from So You Think You Can Dance....
So the next time you think that there's no such thing as a liberal media because the only thing media cares about is ratings... look again. The news media is no longer run really as a business.
-TS
If that were true, they would appeal to conservatives more often since there are currently more conservatives than liberals in our country.
Wow--sounds like a great opportunity for massive advertising revenue!
And yet, even with this money-making bonanza sitting there staring a million freemarket Republican businessmen in the face, no one is stepping up to the plate to cash in.
So curious!
I'm sure they'd be keen to see your financial analysis of the situation.
You're right--it's an oversimplification to say all they care about is ratings.
All they care about is revenue and increasing shareholder value. If they do something that purposefully doesn't increase shareholder value, the shareholders have a tendency to sue them.
America's Funniest Home Videos outdoes all three broadcast news programs.
And I'll bet a box of donuts its ad space is worth less than that of the news.
I think you've set your Known Fact™ blower on high. You really ought to turn it down before you experience the embarrassment of running out of DNC talking points in the middle of a response.
Perhaps, in addition to properly responding to posts, Florida Moderate could begin to inject an original thought or two to complement his discredited Known Facts™.
Just a suggestion.
1. If all the media cared about was ratings, they would have taken corrective action ten to twenty years ago rather than leaving a ratings vacuum for Fox to capitalize on. The market was always there, they just refused to give the market what it demanded.
2. The press doesn't drone on about nothing other than bad news during every presidency. During the late 1990s it was one good news story after another regarding the economy, setting the Clinton administration up to take credit day in and day out. A stark contrast to the current coverage of an economy that is as solid as any and arguably more solid than the tech bubble economy of the late 1990s.
3. Pathetic cheap shot that is disproved by the fact that Bush's poll numbers are back up now that he's back on offense and if front of the cameras.
4. If public perception were easier to control by staying away from the camera, Bush's poll numbers would not have dropped to 35% while he was laying low and giving the media a free pass, only to rise towards 50% when he got back in front of the camera on his terms.
Please keep the arrogant belief that Bush is stupid and your "superiority" will carry the day for you. Bush's ability to rope-a-dope you through your blind arrogance is one of his strengths.
Did you not read the parent comment and my reply or did you just not understand the exchange?
These are the most recent numbers. Still doesn't look like a 46% average to me.
Survey
Approve Disapprove Unsure Spread
Gallup 12/19-22/05 43 53 4 -10
.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup 12/16-18/05 41 56 3 -15
.
ABC/Washington Post 12/15-18/05 47 52 1 -5
.
NPR LV 12/15, 17-18/05 44 54 2 -10
.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 12/13-14/05 42 51 7 -9
.
Diageo/Hotline RV 12/12-13/05 50 47 3 +3
Is that why newspapers across the country have been losing circulation at a precipitous rate? Because they are busy maximizing shareholder value? The media is it's own worst enemy. If you have a newsroom full of liberals you will get left biased news every time. I don't think there is a way to fix that other than by starting over from scratch. It's been tried.
agree on is that the media is biased.
The media must really be unbiased? Is that what you are getting at?
I thought you were suggesting that the news could further maximize revenue by appealing to a more conservative readership, but I guess I misunderstood. Sorry!
Is that why newspapers across the country have been losing circulation at a precipitous rate?
I personally don't think so. My money's on the news format being antiquated. Fewer people want to sit down with the paper in the traditional sense, or want to sit and watch the news. One poll found that the old newsreader segment was dying, and the young newsreader segment wouldn't take papers (even for free) because they didn't want them piling up around the house, of all reasons. That's not exactly something you can work around with clever consumer incentives.
Traditional news: not easily searchable, not on-demand, limited in scope, and television news is not random access. I'm sure I could think of more reasons why it's not as good as the Internet, but this is already a big start.
I'll bet another box of donuts that in 10 years the New York Times is no longer distributing a paper paper, and is still happily in business.
I would be intrested in knowing how would you rate your own public speaking abilities?
As for the Africa comment: There are many countries on the continent of Africa but there is only one country named South Africa, as there is no country named North Africa it would not be that much of a stretch to figure out what "country" the president was referring to.
Then during the Katrina disaster the President remarks that he'd like to better learn how the Federal and State government work together (This,after having been President and a state governor) and so on and so on.
By this statement one could assume that by your insinuation you believe that if you were elected as state governor and then elected President of the United States you would know exactly down to the last detail how FEMA works with the state government all the way down to the local level. Thats laughable. For one thing there are many variables regarding the type of Federal Relief that are dependent on what state you were elected governor in.
So what's left? If we take all those off the board, I know several people in my neighborhood that are more than qualified to be President. I keep hearing that it's his resolve or his faith that people like. Me? I think the guy on top should be better than 99.9% of the people he represents but I'm just a dreamer that way.
So the truth is when all is said and done maybe those liberal branding irons actually are in order. Or is it that you actually do live in the state of Utopia?
Box of donuts it is.
30 second slot on America's Funniest Home Videos vs. 30 second slot on NBC Nightly News.
I'm pretty darn sure AFHV's ad space would cost more; it's a top 100, and its demos are better.
How shall we resolve this? Anyone work at a media buying agency?
-TS
but think it's incomplete.
The exemplar of the MSM is the New York Times, and the Times is an instance of the culture we shorthand today as "blue state" -- Europhilic, largely "liberal" by today's standards, admiring of the professoriate, faux-pacifist, atheist or rejectionist agnostic. That culture has declared that the other major subculture of the country, the "red state" one, is not merely bad but vile, anathema to all Good Thinking™ persons.
George Bush should (by their thinking) have been a member of the blue-state culture. His parents are both from the right families -- his mother's a Pierce -- and he went to all the right schools and did all the right things as a boy and young man. There was every reasonable expectation that he would turn out to be, for all practical purposes, John Kerry.
Instead, and unaccountably by their thinking, Bush abandoned all that to adopt the rhetoric, practices, and customs of the red-staters. Apostates are always the toughest challenge to True Believers, because they call their mental security into question. Could that happen to me? To my kids? Quelle horreur!
The result is what always happens, namely frightened, indeed horrified violence and rejection. Death to the infidel! Unclean! Unclean! The MSM's hate is just an example.
Regards,
Ric
I could not find anything regarding what commercial time sells for during the halfhour news broadcast but the above links will give you the cost for primetime shows during the fall of 2003 and 2004.
The cost of a 30 second slot in the fall of 2003 on AFHV was over $91,000 - it droped to just over $81,000 in the fall of 2004. That is the latest info I could find.
And now, for the News side:
The average 30-second spot on the CBS Evening News runs about $30,000, according to estimates from Nielsen Monitor-Plus. That sum is considerably less than the $39,000 ABC World News Tonight and the $42,000 NBC Nightly News command. (All the evening newscasts get far lower ad rates than other dayparts, due to viewer demos.)
I think I win a box of donuts. Instead of sending me some donuts, how about you send the price of a box of donuts to this guy, NeitherParty.
-TS
Seriously, I think you're crediting the media with alot more power than they have. They care about one thing, ratings.
Does bad news get better ratings? Probably, but that will never change regardless of who's in office.
And as far as Bush holding less press conferences than other Presidents, let's be honest, it's not to avoid the media, it's so America doesn't have to learn yet another little fact like Mexico is part of South America or that Africa is a Country.
Public perception of any President is shaped the more they're in front of the camera. Take them out of the limelight and it's easier to control.