Why the change in The Media?

I have seen the absolute prostrate Media for three years, starting with the complete whitewash of dissent associated with Bush's inauguration through the Dixie Chicks (it's a metaphor for stifling dissent) and cheering invasion and occupation all the way till just a few months ago. For some reason, they have decided to either abandon the Bush Administration or have simply felt like they were grifted.

I know America likes to build 'em up and knock 'em down but I can't see where this penchant is responsible. Was it the WMD report that did it?

I don't know. Ever since AWOL (a bullshit political smear from the Democrats) it seems Bush has lost his media mojo. I just wish they would have been as critical starting in February of '02 when the "Get Saddam" rhetoric started replacing the "Get Osama."

They were correct to bring up his failure to do his duty during a war, particularly when he started one for no good reason.

There is nothing BS about his AWOL. It is a very valid topic, especially when he is determined to send over our young into Iraq.

It failed to work as a means to erode his popularity. It was very important to bring up, and I feel it wasn't paid enough attention, however, as a tactic it failed to achieve its desired goals.

They figure b*sh is a loss - and, hopefully, they also realize he is dangerous to them, too - and are backing someone less likely to wake up the populace to the crimes they commit with our government's help.

the real wealthy & powerful dont wish to be seen as openly antagonistic to democracy as the busheviks do. not only is it bad form, it is bad for business.

was the major shift. and how much bush didnt do. and the women who lost there husbands, they were good. the 9/11 commissions seemed to get the media to ask a few more questions

...not all of a sudden...two steps forward, one step back...a burst of activity here, and then some counter-intel there...but it's not been all of the sudden, and we are no were near done yet. Oh, and "bullshit political smear"? Whatever...

I tend to agree with another poster that the dirth of WMD's was the tipping point. I remember Tweety being very aggressive after the Kaye report in his questioning of the Bush propagandists.

BTW, that how I see the AWOL nonsense. It is in the same league as the current "Kerry is an admitted war criminal" nonsense being tossed around by the Kool-Aid drinkers and Bush Davidians.

If you're saying AWOl is irrelevent, you're entitled, but if you're saying Bush never failed to show up for National Guard service, I disagree.

The pay records Bush released in his defense showed a gap of over 6 months.

For more information, read this article I wrote:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_02_15_is_bush_a_deserter.asp

It is in the same league as ribbon/medals, "I didn't inhale," Dukakis in the tank, and Ford's gaffe about Poland.

What was more galling about it (for me, anyway) was that the little more than a week of hammering the White House took from the press corps on it was the same week that they should have been hammering the Executive Branch over the Kaye Report.

Everything just reached a critical mass--No WMD, No tie to Terrorism, people coming and going in this administration like there's a revolving door, then writing books about all the nastiness and political hackery, prisoner abuse, withholding the true cost of Medicare prescription drug bill from Congress, outing a CIA employee, on and on and on. And even now they still ache to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

They are not on our side and probably never will be.
But they are trying to hold on to some of there credibility, which is necessary if they are to influence the election and policies in the future.

They need to make it look like a fair fight for now. In a few months the tone will be become more mono.

AWOL incident. Peter Jennings was trying to do a 'gotcha' on Clark during one of the primary debates. It led where he never intended. The lies about the WMD's started the turn and they seem to have been putting 2 and 2 together for once. Seems like they don't like having been lied to either.

sez somethin like "hitchin' yer star to the wrong wagon".

risk coming across like Baghdad Bob (gosh I miss him). Not that it's a point of principle or honor -- they just don't want to risk the advertising revenue.

Now they call him Scott McClellan.

When the election was years away, jounalists felt they had to be subservient to Bush, or they would lose access and couldn't do their jobs.

Now that there is the hope of getting a new President soon, they're willing to risk reporting the truth.

which supports the "War on Terror" and the Iraq War almost unanimously. The Bush Administration's recklessness and stupidity in pursuing these wars have alarmed some sections of the ruling class, who more and more see Bush as a liability. Meanwhile Kerry seems like an increasingly attractive alternative. This is why we're seeing a change in the media's attitude towards both.

...were asked about this a couple of weeks ago. (They made life hell for a couple of other presidents.)

They said that the press will not jump a popular president. But as soon as the numbers slip, the press will go after him.

Of course, the conundrum of Bush's popularity owing to their reticence is not explained.

There is so much bad news for the administration. Some of the bad news gets legs and are stories for quite a while.

Other issues that come to light seem important at the time, but never get momentum and fade away from the evening news and talk shows rather quickly.

Bad poll numbers are probably the result of the bad news that has staying power...people are getting hit over the head for weeks by showy major issues.

However, I'm guessing that MEDIA RETREAT away from the administration and some of the REPUBLICAN RETREAT we've seen may be a combination of concern over the big obvious problems AND over latent problems that are still out there. There may be a sense that as soon as one issue is resolved (economy, for instance), another problem will surface. Looks like there are plenty of these to last until the election or beyond.

Dean's book outlines a lot of these, especially with regard to Cheney.

But I'm trying to remember some of these other loose ends that we paid attention to for a brief time but may still be lurking in the shadows...I may not be up to date on some....what is status:

1) The administration moved 700 million to Irag planning without Congress authorization. Will this surface as a durable problem?

2) Representatives of a foreign nation, Saudi Arabia, were shown the classified war plan early in planning. Isn't this a problem? Shouldn't we be unhappy about this?

3) An FBI translator has important information about warnings of 9/11 and perhaps about a new trail of responsibility. Is the Justice Dept going to sit on this forever?

4) The 9/11 commission received only about 1/3 of the thousands of documents Clinton gave to the current administration for use by the commission. What is happening to the remainder?

5) Plame

6) Harken insider trading by Bush, Halliburton insider trading by Cheney

7) Bush lied to Congress regarding Medicare costs. This is an impeachable crime as established in post Nixon hearings. What's up with this?

8) Republicans bribed one of their own on the Medicare vote. Isn't this illegal?

9) Deficit spending will increase. Interest rates will go up

10) Energy task force secrecy. Even if SCOTUS sides with Cheney, this will not look good. If SCOTUS sides with Sierra Club, a whole new slew of problems could arise, especially in light of high gas prices. Decision due next month?

11) Guantanamo detainee rights. If this goes against the administration, a bunch of interesting information may result. If the SCOTUS decision is for more secrecy, then our imaginations may do just as much damage. Decision due next month.

12) 9/11 Commission reports are due in summer. I can't image this will help Bush.

13) Iraq Commission starts soon (when?). If McCain is hot now, what will he be saying in the Chairman's spot when that starts? More daily interviews...more daily problems... unlike 9/11, commission will focus only on current administration.

I'm sure there are more. But the bottom line is, there is a hell of a lot of stuff we're dealing with now...but more is on the way. By Novemeber, Sean, Rush, Ann, Peggy, and Baghdad Bob may be the only ones with the stomach to stand up and spin bad news into good.

I think the shift happened when it became clear that we could not win Fallujah.

The media wants to be on the side of the winning team, and once they realize Bushco is a losing team, they're gonna turn on them.

Lets face it, they whitewashed Clarke pretty well. Most people, after the media was done with him, believed he was a disgruntled employee just trying to get even. Disgusting!

is blowin' in the wind

As soon as * appeared vulnerable, the media did what it always does, it began pandering to the majority. Now they have a virtual banquet of his incompetence to feast on. It ain't gonna be a pretty sight.

Hard to believe it's taken them this long to figure it out. And I used to think journalists were smart. (Sy Hersh, however, will always be held in high esteem.)

It's gonna be effin beautiful!

Go, sharks, go!

you don't think L'il George is the boss, do you?

was the tipping point for all the media. He showed them what they should have been doing all along.

at the right time

The Oligarchy doesn't back obvious losers. Bushco with all of their
macho talk are bunglers. They may be good for their buddie's businesses but not for world business. That deficit doesn't sit well with the Oligarchy and Iraq is becoming a liability instead of an assest. J. Kerry seems like a better choice for business. He is savy and Special Interest and Mulit-Corp friendly.

seems like the same old shilling to me. a few here and there have owned up that they think the war is a "bad idea" but by and large they still aren't asking any tough questiosn. just think if clinton was in office now and had done exactly everything bush has done-- what do you think the media reaction would be?

They would be dutifully covering the public flogging of Clinton, that would be taking place on the Mall in Washington.

Bush was fucking AWOL during war time. He is a deserter.

It's not a "bullshit charge".