Will the press ever give Obama tough coverage?
Bush was also hassled for so-called signing statements citing provisions of a bill he might not enforce. Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe, won a Pulitzer Prize for “his revelations” about Bush’s practice. And, not surprisingly, Obama promised not to do signing statements. Yet he has continued the practice, eliciting some coverage, but none of the outrage that was directed at Bush.
In his efforts to combat terrorism, Bush was accused of exceeding presidential authority. But Obama has made recess appointments when the Senate wasn’t in recess and rewritten parts of immigration and welfare law by executive order, clearly stretching his authority beyond constitutional limits. The press praised the immigration change and winked at the others.
It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with actions that would have aroused the press if committed by Bush, but didn’t with Obama. The list is long. Both the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal and the Benghazi -killings would have led to months of stories, investigative reports, and outraged commentary. But the media proved to be largely incurious in Obama’s case.
Hurricane Sandy created damage in the billions in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The role of Obama and his administration in handling the emergency was scarcely addressed. It’s doubtful Bush would have been let off so easily. He certainly wasn’t in 2005 after Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Trick Question?
Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM
No – their brains are intoxicated from his sh*t. They assumed it was Beluga caviar.
Schadenfreude on January 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM
The “press” work for Obama…so, no.
Rational Thought on January 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM
He still thinks there’s an independent media? How quaint.
forest on January 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM
Oh man, this Barnes chap is about four years ahead of his time.
Jeddite on January 5, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Ha ha ha ha
The Affirmative Action President is covered with premium ultra super teflon.
CW on January 5, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Here’s a great example of Democrat Media Dear Leader-fluffing!
The “1,000 Bush vacation days” myth was totally debunked years ago, as it included segments of days, some as short as an hour, and then actually counted them as “full Bush vacation days”. “1,000 days” is the same as 2 3/4 years, and only a rabid, deluded BDSer like the “author” of this steaming heap would claim Bush took nearly 3 years of his Presidency off.
Had Dear Leader run for pResident as a Senator from Hawai’i, many folks would not mind him going back there on vacay as Dear Leader. But he didn’t-he ran for pResident as a US Senator from
ChicagoIllinois.Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2013 at 4:52 PM
“Aren’t you being too soft on the Republicans?”
MetaThought on January 5, 2013 at 4:53 PM
No. Spousal privilege.
Kataklysmic on January 5, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Be nice. He just came out of a decade long coma.
kim roy on January 5, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Only if he’s found in bed with a dead woman or a live boy, and even then it wouldn’t amount to much with press corps..
Tim Zank on January 5, 2013 at 4:57 PM
No. They are his PR firm, why on earth would anyone get tough coverage from their own PR people?!
besser tot als rot on January 5, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Just tough enough to support the facade.
elfman on January 5, 2013 at 4:58 PM
No.
Revenant on January 5, 2013 at 5:02 PM
He could shoot someone in cold blood in the Oval Office and not only would they praise and/or downplay it, they would still help him push for gun control.
JeffWeimer on January 5, 2013 at 5:05 PM
You think they’ll continue to cover for his sorry a**?
Here’s the AP latest jobs “salad tossing”…you think these jobs numbers results would be worded the same way for anybody else than Dear Leader?
” By Christopher S. Rugaber of The Associated Press
Friday, January 4, 2013 – 11:38 am
WASHINGTON — U.S. employers added 155,000 jobs in December, a steady gain that shows hiring held up during the tense negotiations to resolve the fiscal cliff.
The solid job growth wasn’t enough to push down the unemployment rate, which remained 7.8 percent last month, the Labor Department said Friday.”
steady gain solid job growth
On what planet????
Tim Zank on January 5, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Want to do something about it? Use the House Ethics Committee to forbid the hiring of any former employee of a large media corporation for a period of five years after said employee leaves the employ of said media company. This alone will eliminate at least half the jobs Democrats dangle in front of burned-out journalists. And once Congressman Libby Mc Gungrabber can’t hire anybody from the media, there’s no more point in kissing up to 0bama as an indirect way of auditioning for the job.
Sekhmet on January 5, 2013 at 5:08 PM
Kind of like asking if the Chicago Cubs will win a World Series in our lifetime. Possible, but not probable.
CTSherman on January 5, 2013 at 5:17 PM
I’ve seen some daft questions in my time, but, jeez, Louise!
OldEnglish on January 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM
Now several years old, but still as relevant now as it was then. When it comes to The One, the media sure is consistent in its adoration.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/media-having-trouble-finding-right-angle-on-obamas,2703/
Meredith on January 5, 2013 at 5:20 PM
Once in a while there will be mild criticism, but it will always be from the left.
Wigglesworth on January 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM
no
29Victor on January 5, 2013 at 5:28 PM
He’s shooting our Republic in the temple at point blank range.
The press?
Not a peep.
turfmann on January 5, 2013 at 5:31 PM
One of the biggest reasons the Right can’t compete with the Left’s media is because just about every community that can support a newspaper, television station, and radio, also usually has at least one Democrat Congressman locally.
The newspaper(s), television stations, and radio stations have journalists who often compete for press office jobs with the local Democrat Congressman. This Congressman may make his choice based on how “friendly” the various media outlets from which his candidates hail have been towards him and his Party’s agenda. So even if Joe Journalist has no ambition to work for Congressman Libby McGungrabber, Libby can make it very clear that the radio guy was chosen instead of Joe’s coworker because of Joe’s “unfriendly” expose’s of corruption in McGungrabber’s office.
Moreover, some of the more egregious examples of media bias are often done as “auditions” for a job with some liberal’s press office or another—usually a Congressman’s. This is why we can do a lot by effectively closing the doors of House members’ offices to media employees.
Sekhmet on January 5, 2013 at 5:38 PM
Uh, unlikely.
Pork-Chop on January 5, 2013 at 5:38 PM
No
Joey24007 on January 5, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Stupid question.
JustTruth101 on January 5, 2013 at 5:51 PM
No revelation, of course, but Freddy’s a fairly typical lightweight Beltway sort. Thus the outrageous – so bad it amounts to distortion in itself – under-playing of the complete distortion that has replaced “coverage” since the early Dubya years.
Fred states it as a contrast, but so understates the case that his comparison of press reaction to Bush initiatives related to the GWOT and the recent recess appointment outrage mostly just reinforces the media’s distorted message.
Notwithstanding the knee-jerk and often hysterical reaction of many – incl. many “conservative” types in the DOJ, academia, and the punditocracy – Bush’s initiatives were right down the mainstream of historical presidential authority WRT war-making and security. Pretty mild by comparison to Civil War and WWII actions, too. And almost all of the criticism assumed/pretended there wasn’t/isn’t a vast unseen system of checks and balances on most of the “controversial” initiatives, from the FISA court to the congressional intel oversight committees. Most people have no idea how many eyes and hands have access or some influence on almost all executive actions – since the 1970s it has grown to the point of making operations and security a problem in many cases.
The recess appointments, by contrast – while actually lying in the area of established practice or customary behavior rather than clear and judicially confirmed constitutional behavior – is in itself a stunning and alarming thing. Why? Not because the constitutional checks on the appointment power, in themselves, are the key to an open and accountable system. But because a key unspoken element of the constitutional system – the jealous defense of various branches’ prerogatives against encroachment by the others – IS a key element in the constitutional design.
By rolling over for this outrage, the Senate and even the House showed a collapse of institutional integrity and responsibility that has no recent precedent I can think of (inter-branch responsibility – the stunning misbehavior of the Congress in having no budget for 3 cycles, and of course the Third World nature of the Obamacare debacle).
Almost literally not believing what you are seeing has become commonplace, of course, for those with knowledge and experience of what was once the American system. It’s far, far worse than Fred seems to realize, but then again in a way he’s part of the problem.
IceCold on January 5, 2013 at 6:51 PM
How depressing that people like Barnes still don’t get it. I mean, we are really facing a losing battle folks. This party is so effed that it really is without hope.
SuperBunny on January 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM