If a Lame Duck Quacks, Does the Media Hear It?
In a week where the sitting president was telling us how the country is doing, and a former president was campaigning for his wife/candidate, who do you think the press paid more attention to?
If you said "George W. Bush," you don't watch enough news. But Media Matters' Eric Boehlert nails it:
Read his post here. My guess is ten years from now, Clinton will continue to get more coverage than Bush.
If you said "George W. Bush," you don't watch enough news. But Media Matters' Eric Boehlert nails it:
When it comes to Bush's two-year decline, the press has remained oddly detached. By contrast, the recent coverage of Clinton has been dripping with emotion; with disdain and contempt that bordered on vitriol.
Bush literally drives the country into a ditch while erecting new standards for secrecy and incompetence (Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed Hospital, Hurricane Katrina, staggering national debt, etc.), and the press yawns. But Clinton makes ill-advised and insensitive unscripted comments on the campaign trail, and that's what really gets the Beltway press upset -- enrages them, really, as they scramble to find just the right adjective to describe Clinton's allegedly deceitful, abhorrent behavior...
...For the media, it's simple: The suggestion that Bill Clinton has an oversized ego is far more upsetting and newsworthy than George Bush's proven track record of incompetence.
Read his post here. My guess is ten years from now, Clinton will continue to get more coverage than Bush.
Comments