Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson Endorses Kucinich for Pres
From:
GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 07:14 AM
Dead on perception there, CarolC. The media has made no attempt to hide the fact that they all MUCH preferred Bush to Gore in 2000. They found him more entertaining in that Texas good ole boy sort of way. And in the American media nowadays, the media does a good job of hiding their partisan preferences under their bullshit guise of objectivity. In fact, there is a good article here about that very thing:
Are US Journalists Truly Spineless?
However, Bush has taken on the persona of the grim reaper since 9/11. He is stiff, rarely candid because he is so scripted, and kept far away from the media (for good reason, obviously--can you say "bring it on"?). How many press conferences has he had in his presidency--two or three? No, I know it is more than that, but it is probably about the lowest of any president in memory.
Bush has become a cartoon caricature. He is scripted and spun to the point where his handlers are trying to make him appear as a patriot deity of some dark sort. The image they've crafted of him since 9/11 is a gloomy, threatening, and stern patriarch. Not the good ole boy the media celebrated and Supreme Court put in the White House.
But even though a gloomy, threatening, stern patriarch obviously makes many Americans feel safe and secure, it isn't a very electable image. Rather like voting for a Bible Belt fire and brimstone preacher. So it will be interesting to see who the media backs. My guess is it will still be Bush, not only because the conservatives now have the run of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches, but because the media who cover the Washington political beat feel secure being around people like themselves too--ie, conservatives. As you said, media ownership does determine who gets the most and best coverage.
|
sj
