Alright -- I know this'll be even less popular than the last post, but since I've already sprayed flame-retardant on, let's do it: Is Bush really that popular with the press corps? Shakes, Mannion, and Paul all say he is. But I'm not sure where they're seeing it. I get three papers in my inbox each morning and, I've got to tell you, not one of them shakes my faith in liberalism. All I seem to read about are a) Iraq going to hell, b) gas prices rocketing towards the heavens, c) protesters on Bush's doorstep, d) John Roberts mocking women, and e) the health care system crumbling.
So when Shakes says the media is afraid to criticize him, what does she mean? The folks who do supposed "objective reporting" are certainly giving ample time to everything going wrong in the country, they're certainly not buying the spin on Iraq, they're certainly not glossing over gas prices. I mean, granted, I'd like to see the New York Times put "BUSH A DOUCHE FOR GOING ON VACATION" in 48-point type in tomorrow's edition, but that's not really how they do things, so far as I know.
In the election, coverage seemed pretty good. The media certainly gave Kerry the debates, or at least followed Bush's lead in doing so. The last week was packed with stories about all the weapons that the Bush administration's allergy to postwar planning had let slip into the hands of terrorists. The nation's editorial pages overwhelmingly backed Kerry, just as they now spend their time criticizing Bush. So what's the deal here? What're we upset about?
