KRUGMAN: "the straight shooter never existed"

<snip>

People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.

But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?

The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for various reasons, presented as reality.

The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush's "infallibility complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being original.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28KRUG.html

to get the xians to realize that Bu$h is not the second coming?

better late than never. Krugman was one of so very few that never bought into the faux patriotism crap spewed by so many of his counterparts.

resides in the character of the Media reporting on the fictitious character; as well as, in the Falwell/Robertson/others posing under the pretense of "Christianity" enabling the fictitious character ...

is it a paradox? an enigma?

the riddle of the Sphinx? the Oedipus Complex?

surely, the Greeks must have written a tragedy based upon this tragedy ... nothing is really new under the sun ...



it's a dilemma for them ... hopefully, healthy for our country

is hubris.

and there's never been anything noble about the Bush Administration.

I'm curious in knowing what Krugman thinks are the media's motivations behind creating the false image of a straight shooter.

:shrug:

"And some journalists just couldn't bring themselves to believe that the president of the United States was being dishonest about such grave matters."

:-)

Can it be so superficial? Are reporters that naive? I'm simply having trouble believing it.

fuck his paper and the rest of the media with it.

Where does the Times get the gall to call for Rummy's resignation when they won't hold their own lying shills (Judy Miller, I mean you) accountable? These people shouldn't be allowed to deliver the paper, let alone write it.

I'm glad Krugman has been shooting straight from the start of this thing. I'm glad 55% of his colleagues are starting to come around. But it's not nearly enough.

... he is still lying!

The attitude of the media giving *Bush* a free pass began long before 9/11.
It began during the 2000 campaign. And probably way before that.

While it's certainly refreshing to see these people finally taking *Bush* to task, using 9/11 as the excuse for keeping the gloves off is just more Bullshit.

However, maybe it's OK. Better late than never...

He may be mistaken, he may be just as incredulous at the sheer scope of media capitulation to the Right as other reporters were about Chim-Chim, but he's not lying.

With very few exceptions, the press is only one arm of the PR machine that put Bush in office.

Media is conglomerate tied, they do what the corporate bosses want.

The change of heart has more to do with saving their "investment" than true deliverance.

If the balance of power begins to shift in a direction that could affect their ability to maintain, let alone increase, the consolidation of media, they perceive a problem.

Best at that point to begin to "act" like they know what their responsibilites are so that perhaps they can slide by without notice, until another chance at control under one flagship.

Goodness knows they don't want anyone lowering the ownership cap again, controlling cross ownership, or, heaven forbid, bringing back the fairness doctrine.

he is not a liar.

'Once you learn to fake that, you're all set.' Same thing for 'straight shooting' in politics--a media/candidate invention.

"...One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.

Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither haters nor irrational — and whose critiques look pretty mild."
===================================================================

"a collective decision"?? They gave a free ride to a leader with paranoid and fascist tendencies..

What else needs to be said? Actually, plenty! The praise for this man should never stop!

who believe that it has been too critical."

That quote is also from the Krugman article.

"A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the national media believing that the press has not been critical enough of Mr. Bush, compared with only 8 percent who believe that it has been too critical. More important, journalists seem to be acting on that belief."