blatham wrote:I continue to be amazed at the shift in political discourse in the media over just the last little while. Even Colmes (Hannity and Colmes, Fox) seems to have gained testicles, though he's still allowed only teeny little places to put them.
If you are judging this shift by when liberal commentators on FOX returned to form, it was well before the last little while.
I didn't watch much of FOX before 9/11 and when I first tuned in to Hannity and Colmes I was impressed with the demeanor and comments of Colmes (although frightened by his face), and quickly irritated by Hannity.
Similarly, I had nothing but high regard for Juan Williams (a regular on the FOX Sunday show). I was well acquainted with Williams as a regular listener of NPR.
At some point though there was a marked change in their on-screen personaes as both clearly evidenced a strong leftward slant and began to regularly recite Democratic Party talking points.
I attributed the change to three possible causes:
1) The sobering effect of 9/11 eventually wore off
2) They were under tremendous pressure from the Liberal friends and associates to not allow the Conservative comments of Hannity and Hume to go unchallenged
3) Management at FOX encouraged them to fire up their rhetoric to spice up the shows and provide evidence of fairness and balance
It was probably a mix of all three, but I remain struck by the fact that the Juan Williams on NPR has not changed in the way the Juan Williams on FOX has.
blatham wrote:How abruptly the tables have turned is in itself absolutely mesmerizing. Now, the administration and its PR machine are in constant defense, and they are stumbling each day. They are overwhelmed with the number of defences they have to mount and with the real challenge of defending against them (eg, the recent Brownie 'fashion' emails).
There is definitely something of "in for the kill" in the dynamics here as regards the medias' choices of stories and tone with which those stories are covered. News has developed here in the tabloid/corporate direction and blood in the water means feasting on ratings and advertiser dollars and happy corporate execs and perhaps even shareholders. It's the same phenomenon which led to the daily coverage by the news media of Ken Starr 'revelations'.
Having long ago (perhaps even in utero) decided the Bush Administration was a menace, it's not surprising that you have found the Media to be insufficiently rapid in their editorial policies towards it.
Obviously, those of us on the Right never really shared this view.
It would seem to a matter where perspective strongly influences one's view.
Frankly, I don't really see that much of a change in the Media coverage of Bush & Co. What has changed, in the last little while, is the increased number and compressed frequency of stories which can be said to put the Administration on the defensive: Hurricane Katrina, Scooter Libby, Harriet Miers. All of these stories developed on the backdrop of the overwhelmingly negative coverage of the Iraq war.
I'm not sure there is really a blood in the water effect at play. I do think that reporters and commentators cannot help but frame each new, albeit minor, story within the context of Bush's aggregate of problems. To some extent I think this fuels the general sense and reality of an Administration on the skids.
Irrespective of whatever one's political views may be and what party holds the White House this does seem to be a pattern for two term presidents. Washington is a jungle and any sign of weakness engenders aggressive attention.
It is remarkable how quickly Bush seems to be slipping into lame duck status. This may be unique to his presidency, but it may also be evidence of the overall compression of political cycles - a trend, by the way, which extends well beyond politics.
