The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.
Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don’t provide effective opposition. And the press — on domestic, if not foreign, policy — has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.
Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows. It concludes: “President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”
It could also be that Americans agree with his policies. Samuelson avoids talking about Obama’s leadership style.
There are plenty of reasons to critique Obama’s politics. But to blame the media seems to be another way of saying that the American people are a bunch of idiots.
I think a good bellweather would be to see how Obama handles the Republicans in the administration. Compare how Robert Gates works in Obama’s administration and how he worked in Bush’s.
Perhaps American people respect Obama because he treats them like adults.
Kendall, and I say this with the greatest respect, when you say “I like him personally” unless you actually do know Pres. Obama, you don’t know him at all. You know what he has presented to the media and, given the media’s buy-in to his candidacy and now his presidency, you know what the media wants you to know. And you don’t know what the media on the whole doesn’t want you to know, unless you do your own research outside of the popular media, which for most people is an onerous and lengthy task and so most people rely on what they hear about Pres. Obama in the media.
I think I understood what Kendall intended by saying “I like him personally”, and for all I know, perhaps Kendall does know President Obama personally…..Now – I don’t know the President “personally”, but I, personally, like him…..
The press coverage Obama has received is far more likely because the media are *owned* by people with *certain* agendas.
Good to see this being written about; one hopes it will be widely read. It’s been going on well over a year now, after all! It staggers me that people can’t seem to remember, Michelle said in January 2008 that she could finally be proud of her country for the first time in her adult life…..the first time? (Hello?? What on earth did she think first thing in the morning then? “I’m ashamed of this country, and I want to take it out on the citizens who vote!”, perhaps?) The first victim of the campaign really was Sarah Palin – Hillary Clinton willingly plays the media game so how could she be victimized in it? After the election there was elation all over the world simply because people want the US to be great and assumed if Obama was elected he could make it great, but now that it is clearly coming undone in many parts, it’s more like a sorry spectacle folks want to avert their eyes from. This media fawning is part of that spectacle, now.
Between seeing this post and writing a comment I happened to read a commentary about Obama’s coming address to the Muslim world, from which I learned much new:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6410051.ece
Critical perspective has been lost, and it can be regained only by dis-believing the uncritical media hype, and informing and thinking for oneself.
Lest we forget, the fawning by the media is also about creating the next new “Celeb” to sell, sell,sell.
[blockquote]Perhaps American people respect Obama because he treats them like adults. [/blockquote]
Aaaaaaahahahahaha!! That’s almost as good as the knee-slappers Tim Geithner is [url=http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-students-laugh-at-tim-geithner-2009-6]knocking them dead with in China[/url].
It’s dangerous to start believing your own propaganda, Comrade Wilkins.
It definitely IS NOT because people like his policies. I know of many people who voted for him, and are now saying things like “This isn’t the change I voted for!”
What it is, is that the MEDIA likes his policies, and report on him positively in SPITE of the popular opinion.
Proof? The non-coverage and negative coverage of the Tea Parties.
[blockquote]It could also be that Americans agree with his policies.[/blockquote]
Sorry, but I had to recover from that excellent joke, John. Actually, when asked about the policies Obama is implementing, the American public gives a big thumbs-down. It’s all personality, all image with Obama and the media’s fawning is the perfect vehicle to extend the cult of personality while we get Marxism by the drink.
Gawain #1, Obama’s policies are not nearly as popular as he is. Eventually his the strength of his personality is going to wear thin and he’ll be in trouble, I predict. Seeing Ralph Nader and Ted Rall railing against him can’t give him much comfort at the the other end of the spectrum either….
Well, I have never really that concerned about it. He is a charismatic guy; he’s handsome; he has a beautiful family. That, in itself, only goes so far. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost, and the honeymoon will be over.
But Dee, #3, that’s what I’m saying – you say “I personally like him” but what about him, absent what you have seen in the media, do you know about him? Nothing. So you really should say “I personally like those items about him that I have read/seen/heard from the media. I don’t know anything else about him, and there may be mitigating circumstances that I don’t know about since the media is doing little, if any, discerning reporting on Pres. Obama and his policies/activities.”
I really don’t get the infatuation. I mean, I see it, I know it’s there, but I fail to understand it. What I see is an immature politician who does not seem to comprehend The Office of the President of the United States. He is too infatuated with himself to see much beyond his aura.
But isn’t the existence of this editorial an example of the media [i]not[/i] fawning? Or did the liberal media decide to let this one piece run so as to throw folks off the track? Conspiracies are confusing!
Dan,
The story is from [i]the Washington Post[/i], which, IIRC, has always been a bit more conservative than other media sources.
It’s not a matter of coverage being all or nothing, #14, but of favorable/unfavorable coverage mix. Read the piece, it explains it all.
Oh, and since the MSM, particularly print, are likely to be coming hat in hand to the federal government for some form of bailout, you can bet they’re playing nice with the guy who can make it all happen. Think CNN in Baghdad, squared.
The personality cult around the President and Mrs. Obama is quite alarming. Obama is feeding it. An example is the “date night” in New York. Why was an extra small plane for the press included in what was billed as a personal evening out?
Oh, our great and glorious leader with his handsome family! Let us let the American Pravda extoll the virtues of this wonderful family man while he and the Congress have milked us dry and move us step by step closer to a Socialist regime run by a dictator and his wife.
And the personality cult of a man who is made out to be a faux messiah should be alarming to any decent American who knows the history of countries in an economic freefall who elect someone who promises “hope” and “change”. Who will be the scapegoats this time?
Don’t cry for me, Argentina — er, America.
[comment removed]
#21, I suggest that might be the comment to get you banned here. I’ve seen no evidence that Jeffersonian is a racist. That’s very ugly, and you should retract it.
John,
It is not the “date night” per se. It is the fact that he had another plane just for press people to cover his “personal” night out.
As for policies that are unpopular, try the “stimulus” package which has a 31% approval rating. Try the bailout of GM and Chrysler which are even less popular. Try closing (under the guise of the bailout) the Chrysler dealerships of political opponents while not closing the dealerships of politically connected people. Try re-writing the bankruptcy laws such that politically connected people (e.g. unions) with unsecured debt get paid back before non-politically connected people with secured debt (who are supposed to get paid back first) and using intimidation and threats to get the secured creditors to accept the deal.
If Bush had done these things, you would be crying “fascist!” But, since they are beign done to benefit the politically liberal people, I guess it is OK. Just remember, almost all of the 20th century’s tyrants called themselves “socialist.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Barack Obama was the “perfect” candidate for our time. He was mass-produced to fit the mold of the charming, cool, likeable, gracious candidate, and the MSM -once it bought into his glorious rhetoric and soaring visions of Nirvana- couldnt wait to promote him. He had very little experience, has not had to accept responsibility for his actions, and people literally fell in love with him as they do any pop figure. Now we have him at the helm of what used to be the greatest nation in the world, with much of the world openly laughing at him. Unfortunately he is the product of the personality age. If GWBush had tried some of the stunts he has pulled, it would be a major scandal. (think Chrysler dealer closings based on politics, threatening to withold money from Calif. if they cut the salaries of the union workers) all hell would have broken loose. Frankly I dont care if Obama and Michelle go on a date, his timing is not great, however, when he is talking about sacrifice for others. His fall will come, slowly to be sure, but the American people will eventually turn on him with a vengeance. It will not be a pretty sight. He is basically changing the way the government operates, and I dont recognize it any more. As a child I believed firmly in two institutions to stand on: the Episcopal Church and the government of this country. The sands have changed under both. I no longer trust either one. Unfortunately we will have to dig the truth from resources other than the MSM. I will be watching and praying for sanity in an age of insanity.
# 12 Branford – o.k. you win. You are right. Kendall and I are wrong. Now you should feel better….
#25, Dee – I’m sorry if you took what I said too personally – I really didn’t mean it that way and I don’t think anybody is “right” or “wrong.” But words are important – none of us commenting knows Pres. Obama (as far as I know – there might be a personal acquaintance lurking!). It is important to look at his actions, which we can know, listen to his words, and acknowledge what we see him supporting, but as citizens of this country, it’s very important, with all politicians, that we don’t romanticize their personalities and think that because we see a nice picture that the media shows us, that they themselves are “nice” or “good.” (They may be, they may not be.)
And if we can’t rely on the press to present a somewhat objective understanding of the man and his policies, we are in serious trouble. At this point, we can’t and I think that’s fairly obvious to anyone looking at facts. And it’s very sad for our country.
#23 it IS the date night and ALL that entailed!
Why can’t we have the whole story given to us? I thought Obama was going to be “transparent.” We don’t know the cost; we don’t know WHY it was done on the taxpayer’s dime; we don’t know why a sitting president gets a pass when he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars of OUR money for a “date night!”
And this for a President who is harping on the “worst economic depression” in recent history. And for a Press that fauns over him and his date night and–with the exception of one reporter who asked the Press Secretary about the situation–gives him this remarkable pass!
drjoan, I have to disagree. While it may have been rather insensitive to do a “date night” to New York while we’re awash in debt and unemployment, in all fairness, the President can’t just hop on a train or the air shuttle to get to NY. He has to travel with Secret Service and all the special protection. I hope in the future “date nights” will be in the local area where the Obamas are staying, since this can be done at lower taxpayer expense.
I’d like to see Obama private evenings be that — private, without using taxpayer money to take anyone but security people along.
It seems that in the short 100 + days Obama has been President, he sure has taken a lot of days/time off away from the White House. When President (W) Bush took a vacation, the press criticized him no end for neglect of duties.
During his Presidency, George W. Bush made 77 trips to his Crawford Texas Ranch, and 11 trips to his parent’s vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Allmost all of these trips were made on Airforce One, and press transportation was always arranged.
Sure. when the Obamas go to Chicago, which they did already, the press will go with them. What I want to know is, did the Clintons or the Bushes take press with them when they went to dinner and the theater? Did the Bushes ever go out in Washington, or did they slip off from Crawford to see friends in Dallas, and if so, did they take the press with them for the evening? I really don’t know the answers. I don’t remember seeing photos or hearing stories about evenings out.
And actually, the more I think about it, I don’t care if Clinton or Bush had photographers to record their private evenings out. It’s weird, just weird, even if the others did; it’s narcissist.
Why cant he just rent a movie like the rest of us.
I’m trying to imagine how Obama would actually get to the theater, as president, without protection.
Taxpayers pay for his protection. That’s what we do with our presidents.
Libraryjim, what are you talking about? When has Obama taken a vacation?
I apologize for my comment toward Jefferson. His contempt deserves magnanimity, not retaliation.