May 27, 2001

8:08 PM

So far, G-Dubya's first 100 or so days in office have been a media party. (What happened to all that liberal media bias Rush Limbaugh was talking about, anyway?) Is it time for the hangover? Reporters are starting to realize that a photo-op at alternative fuels production facilities can't hide the fact that he's paying off his energy business cronies, that different skin colors and genders among Appeals Court nominees doesn't necessarily equal "diversity", and that Bush is generally not walking the walk for all his "compassionate Conservative" talk.
posted by RylandDotNet (21 comments total)

Maybe it's because the media is finally showing its bias.
posted by gyc at 8:11 PM on May 27, 2001

Brilliant insight, gyc. So what you're trying to say is "I know you are but what am I?"
posted by jpoulos at 8:49 PM on May 27, 2001

gyc: why didn't they show their bias up to now? Were they just being polite while the new guy gets his presidential legs under him?
posted by RylandDotNet at 8:52 PM on May 27, 2001

Maybe the media is just biased towards whoever happens to be in power at the time.

Kinda figures, don't it?
posted by lagado at 8:56 PM on May 27, 2001

It's all the liberal media; those are the ones who cause the problems in this country! gyc you need to be deprogrammed.

Perhaps Bush is showing his true colors and the media is reporting it.
posted by Bag Man at 9:44 PM on May 27, 2001

First of all, this is a rather blatant anti-Bush thread based on one article from the New Republic which basically bases its premise of the changing of the tone of the press based on the coverage of one policy, that being the energy proposal.

The news media realized that they can very easily play up news of the President's energy proposal by being lazy and typecasting Bush and Cheney as "the two oil men" and stirring up a lot of anti-Bush emotions. This was not as easy to do when they were covering the tax cut debate as "the wealthiest 1 percent" argument didn't really pan out during the campaign and when Bush was able to peel off a few conservative Democrats. Therefore, some in the news media see the energy policy as their way to stick it to Bush.
posted by gyc at 10:09 PM on May 27, 2001

GYC, can you actually define a Bush presidential action that wasn't overtly spun by his camp to appear less divisive? This ain't just about energy. Please keep in mind abortion rhetoric, the kyoto treaty, and a tax plan with huge perks for the wealthy. How complacent the right has become in forgetting that the majority of America didn't vote for this silver spoon under-achiever. The media isn't just waking up, they are waking up on the wrong side of the bed. Damn I wish McCain had a better campaign.
posted by machaus at 10:57 PM on May 27, 2001

hincandenza:
Bush had far fewer stories reported about him than Clinton in his first 60 days, and a smaller percentage negative and a higher percentage positive. Indeed, part of the cause might be the continued obsession of the media on a man who wasn't even president anymore.


It has something to do with Bush not trying to hog the spotlight at all times. Plus, Clinton had more problems getting his controversial appointments through Congress.


It's not bias, for example, to point out the wealthiest 1% do receive a disproportionate and majority amount of the tax break. Yet the so-called liberal media deigned not to press that point, instead spending countless hours discussing whether Bush scored political points with his completely disingenuous "fuzzy math" comment

It is bias, or at least sloppy reporting if they point out the 1% fact without reporting what percentage of taxes the richest 1% pays.

Conservatives tend to benefit more from these biases than do liberals, most especially if they- as in the Arkansas Project- manipulate this gullibility of the press to push rumors and innuendo knowing that fact checking and discretion are not the strong suits of FOX or MSNBC.

Oh really, the Clinton investigations did turn up something, while the rumors and innuendos about Bush's possible drug use continued even though no one had any proof or a shred of evidence to back up any claims.

machaus:
No matter how you put it, any administration spins its programs to appeal to as many people as possible. Are you saying the previous president or any other president or politician have never done this?
I love how people like to bring up the popular vote. It's totally irrelevant as the point was to get the most electoral votes and not getting the most total votes. It's like someone playing a game of chess who gets checkmated but then claims to have won because he captured more pieces than his opponent.
posted by gyc at 11:31 PM on May 27, 2001

gyc said: Oh really, the Clinton investigations did turn up something[...]

Yeah, everything except what they were commissioned to find, oddly enough.

No matter how you put it, any administration spins its programs to appeal to as many people as possible. Are you saying the previous president or any other president or politician have never done this?

No administration that I can think of has so blatantly paid off big-money supporters with tax breaks, political appointments, and favorable new regulations or relaxing of old, unfavorable ones, and then tried to spin it as "compassionate."
posted by RylandDotNet at 4:52 AM on May 28, 2001

gyc:

It is bias, or at least sloppy reporting if they point out the 1% fact without reporting what percentage of taxes the richest 1% pays.

I notice that you don't report how much the richest 1% pays either. I don't know how much it is. Why not? Why haven't the Republicans been hammering on this point all year? Is the monolithic press so biased that even Rupert Murdoch conspires to keep this number in the dark? Or does Bush not want it public because he knows it will not help him?

It's totally irrelevant as the point was to get the most electoral votes and not getting the most total votes.

It's relevant if your goal is real democracy -- one person, one vote -- and not to preserve a back-room deal done two hundred years ago to bribe the small states by giving them a disproportionate influence in the Presidential election. It stunk then and it stinks now.

posted by anewc2 at 6:13 AM on May 28, 2001

I notice that you don't report how much the richest 1% pays either. I don't know how much it is. Why not?

In 1997, the top 1 percent reported 17.4 percent of all income and paid 33.2 percent of the total income tax, according to the Spring 2000 Statistics and Income Bulletin for the IRS.

The percentage of wealth owned by the richest one percent jumped every year from 1993 to 1997 while Clinton was president (and I expect we'll see the same from 1998 to 2000 when those numbers are analyzed).

It's ludicrous to give them several hundred million dollars of the surplus when Social Security's future is in trouble, public schools are underfunded and prescription drug costs are throttling seniors.
posted by rcade at 6:52 AM on May 28, 2001

GYC:

Yes, Clinton, though fundamentally flawed, was not so transparent to do something like a photo op at an alternative energy plant, while behind the scenes scheming about expanding eminent domain to allow for his big business cronies to expand their infrastructure at the hands of Joe Landowner's liberty.

And in terms of electoral versus popular vote, that was not the distinction I was trying to make. What is important here is that the guy does not have a mandate.
posted by machaus at 9:13 AM on May 28, 2001

Listen... even the Washington Post admits Bush has been getting an easier time of it from the media than most people in his position.

Hincandenza is correct when he wrote that "The major media outlets at this point are neither liberal nor conservative, but lazy, fattened, pompous, and corporate- owned." For literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of evidence to support this point, read this book, this book, this book, and even, to a lesser extent, this book. I have, and while I don't agree with all of what they say, in general the picture they paint is undeniable.

Until you've read these, or other major pieces of research on the structure of the mass media in this country, be careful what you assume about the nature of the media and their political coverage. You want honest, researched coverage on the Bush energy plan, from either side? You're not going to find it in the mass media. You're going to find it here... and maybe (though less likely) here.

Generally speaking it's not a good idea to form opinions without plenty of facts. Unfortunately, it's hard to divine reliable, balanced facts from today's media. Hence, most Americans don't have particularly strong opinions, and wind up moderates or simply abstain from the political process entirely (witness our voter turnout numbers).

Having opinions is a start, and that's what I love about MeFi, whether I agree with those opinions or not. But the next step is learning to support them with more than rhetoric. I know I'm still learning how to do that... we all should.
posted by drywall at 3:46 PM on May 28, 2001

It has something to do with Bush not trying to hog the spotlight at all times.

bwahahahahah! Bush is as scared of the "spotlight" as a deer is of a semi's headlights.
posted by jpoulos at 9:22 PM on May 28, 2001

Drywall,

I enjoyed reading your post; it was well-reasoned, thoughful and not inflammatory. One problem, though. You self linked. I would have gone to that page via your profile anyway, as I found your post to be well written. That's the standard way to guide people to your page in the future. It's a minor gaffe, but it does break one of the few rules that Metafilter has.

Keep posting, Drywall! Or should that be //// ///////, ///////! (obscure comic book joke)
posted by JDC8 at 3:52 AM on May 29, 2001

JDC8, self-linking is allowed inside a thread, per the guidelines. (Drink, Kottke, drink!) It's front-page self-linking that's a major no-no.
posted by snarkout at 8:46 AM on May 29, 2001

While it's not required under the guidelines, I feel that MeFi ettiquette dictates that anyone who self-links in a comment point out that it is, in fact, a self-link.
posted by jpoulos at 10:45 AM on May 29, 2001

Okay, my apologies, it was indeed a self-link, but I thought it extremely relevent. It was buried at the end of a long post at the end of a long discussion, but next time I'll label it as such.

Don't worry, it's not going to become a habit anyway.

JDC8 - way to follow your indie comics, you Grittite. ;)
posted by drywall at 1:21 PM on May 29, 2001

Hmmm. Is it a violation of MeFi etiquette to improperly invoke MeFi etiquette? next time, I'll read the guidelines more closely.

Thanks to snarkout, jpoulos and drywall.

Jason
posted by JDC8 at 5:00 PM on May 31, 2001