Bob Schieffer of CBS News described
President Obama’s recent opening remarks at the gun control press conference
as, “one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard him deliver”. Schieffer went on to
praise the President’s cause as similar to the ten year hunt for Osama bin
Laden and Lyndon Johnson’s successful attempt to pass civil rights legislation. Although Schieffer indicated that more than
an Obama speech would be required, this wasn’t objective journalism but
slobbering praise for a man with a checkered record of accomplishment.
Mr. Schieffer’s kudos was a reminder of the stunning
assessment that David Brooks
bestowed upon the President immediately following his re-election. Mr. Brooks, the self-described “conservative”
New York Times’ journalist, stated
that Obama was a man of “high
integrity” and had run a “very clean administration” during his first
term. He concluded that Obama would
avoid the scandals that plagued many Presidents during their second terms. Brooks said very directly, “there have been signs
of insularity and arrogance, but there have been no scandals”. Huh?
Fast and Furious and Benghazi apparently do not reach Mr. Brook’s
threshold for scandal.
Then there is coverage of President Obama’s economy. If the monthly unemployment rate drops Obama
receives credit even if hundreds of thousands exited the job market in despair. In November of 2012, 540,000 dropped out as
the unemployment rate
declined from 7.9% to 7.7%. Workforce
dropouts accounted for more than the .2% rate drop but that fact went largely without
mention in the media. Conversely if
the rate increases the media will emphasize the jobs created even if the amount
is insufficient to keep up with population growth.
Obama’s first term has been marred by political tactics bordering
on thuggery. He claimed he wanted not
red states or blue states, but the United States. He claimed he would be a unifier, that he
would be open and transparent and that if elected he would bring civility to
the oval office. Simply put he
lied. With an assist from the mainstream media (MSM) he and
the left have discarded any pretense of civility. Obama’s promises of bringing to the table a
range of views and seeking the best solutions was also quickly replaced with
labeling those that disagreed with his actions or initiatives as morally deficient,
racist, or lacking some other important character trait. Has the media (MSM) reported these divisive tactics even infrequently?
This approach has been frequently used by the liberal left
in the past. But the use of racism,
class warfare and sexism has been taken to new heights by this President and
the power of his office. He brow-beats the
opposition and blatantly use allies in the mainstream media (MSM), academia and
Hollywood to reemphasize and trumpet his rightness. The alliance has been so effective that
conversation and the art of the possible, politics, has devolved into demagoguery. And has the media ever suggested that being less confrontational might be more effective?
The media, in particular, has repeatedly given Obama a pass
on his actions, programs and tactics.
While George Bush was ridiculed and pilloried for his positions on the
Patriot Act, the use of wiretaps, rendition, Guantanamo and many other aspects
of “his” war on terror. Obama has
maintained and extended/expanded these policies virtually without media comment. And scandals that generally
bring intense media scrutiny when linked to a president have gone largely unreported or have been soft
pedaled no matter the seriousness. Why
didn’t the MSM profess the outrage that rained down on previous administrations for similar actions?
The Obama administration has been rife with scandal since
its inception in 2009. Within weeks of
the President’s inaugural both Timothy Geithner and Kathleen Sebelius both
nominated to important cabinet posts, Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary
of Health and Human Services respectively, were discovered to have income tax problems
requiring rectification. Additionally Mrs. Sebelius
was more recently found to be in violation of Federal campaign laws which received
very limited media attention. So why didn’t
the media question Obama’s selection process or the qualifications of these individuals?
The ”minor” scandals metamorphosed into larger wrong doing
such as green
energy cronyism, the EPA-Lisa Jackson record
masking activities and Eric Holder’s actions that undermined the rule of
law; no prosecution of the New
Black Panther’s for voter intimidation in Philadelphia and the reopening of
cases against already cleared federal agents for
torture. Then Fast and Furious
and Benghazi
materialized elevating Obama’s scandal plagued administration into the major
leagues (executive
privilege was also used, a major heresy when implemented by previous presidents). So why
the media's silence?
With few exceptions the media has not covered, has down
played or made excuses for these significant Obama administration failures in
judgment, honesty, leadership, and administrative control. The media’s lack of interest in the failings
of Obama’s first term leads to two obvious and important questions; first, why?...and second,
will this MSM pattern of behavior change in his second term?
Causes?…first, the media and key journalists may fear losing
access to the President and his subordinates if their scrutiny or reporting becomes
notably critical even when warranted. This
concern certainly has a basis in fact since Obama attempted to severely limit Fox
News’ access and coverage in the past.
Second, the media can be described as quite liberal/progressive in both
persuasion and as measured
by scholarly studies
and may not feel comfortable criticizing/questioning their own beliefs and
biases.
Third, journalists may be attempting to avoid being targeted
by administration bullies; a tactic that has been successfully employed to
silence other critics (e.g. conservatives, Republicans). This tactic could bring them to the attention
of their liberal community and serve to at least temporarily cause personal
discomfort. Fourth, a trepidation that
race could be employed to silence a pattern of open and persistent negative
measurement of Obama’s decisions warrants consideration. Again, the past suggests that a racist charge
is possible given the treatment
Mayor Cory Booker (and others) received from Obama’s minions.
Yet the reasons for such favorable treatment may go well
beyond those mentioned. Obama has been
treated almost as a god-like figure by some and gingerly by a majority in the
media. The MSM’s coverage of the President
has been so obviously prejudiced
in his favor that polling surfaces an appreciable decline in the media’s credibility/standing
with the public. Additionally traditional
MSM outlets have suffered financially due to the emergence of alternative news sources
(e.g. internet, Twitter) and their clearly biased content.
Thus if the past is predictive, little will change in the media’s
sentiment toward Obama in his second term.
The media does not seem repentant for their past coverage of Obama and
in fact some narratives have moved to cheer-leading/positing
(e.g. J. Dickerson-CBS) the goals of future Presidential attacks on his
political opposition and other dissenters.
The memes that insinuate or directly portray Republicans and
conservatives as unpatriotic, insensitive, morally deficient, liars, racists
and corrupt have continued. The media’s
examination of Obama’s activities and decisions has been shameful and has
progressed to shameless. The material
bias in favor of Obama will remain with high probability during his second term.
