Hundreds of Days of False Premises

I’m one of those clueless Midwestern rubes who thinks most reporters are ridiculously biased towards Democrats. You could view as an example anything about Obama’s first 100 days in office that wasn’t produced by Fox News, The New York Post, or the Wall Street Journal. Joe Klein’s contribution in Time, for instance:

But in prose that was spare and clear and compelling, the President proceeded…


The combination of candor and vision and the patient explanation of complex issues was Obama at his best — and more than any other moment of his first 100 days in office, it summed up the purpose of his presidency: a radical change of course not just from his predecessor, not just from the 30-year Reagan era but also from the quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society of the postmodern age.

Press coverage of President Obama – like coverage of Obama the candidate – is glowing and supportive because reporters agree with Obama. No conspiracy required. The premise we’re supposed to accept from Fox News and CNN alike is that reporters can talk about politics objectively day in and out. False.

Joe Klein doesn’t even have the excuse of talking for hours a day on some 24-hour cable news channel. But he can’t help using a first and a second and a third complimentary adjective when reporting on Obama’s speech. Even when he suggests the possiblity of Obama’s policies being wrong, it’s only to jab at President Bush:

Whether you agree with him or not — whether you think he is too ambitious or just plain wrong — his is as serious and challenging a presidency as we have had in quite some time.

Because nothing about 9/11, al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc prompted seriousness from President Bush. If Joe Klein wants to assert that President Bush was unserious about a number of domestic issues, I’d agree with him there. But not for the same reasons, if I were to make a wild guess.

The piece continues as expected – Obama’s first 100 days as wonderful as FDR’s, unlikeable Republicans, glorious post-Dubya diplomacy  – and nothing else seems worth mention until the end.

There are those who mistake his quiet, deliberative style for softness. There is the fear that he won’t have the strength to stand up to the Israelis (or the Iranians) or to the left wing of his party on health care or to the porkers on the defense budget.

Emphasis mine. This sentence sums up so much of what’s wrong with Progressive thinking. Who in their right mind lists a failure to stand up to Israel as a concern, and then lists Iran as an afterthought? As for “the left wing of his party” – Dear Joe: Obama is obviously the left wing of his party, if you pay a little less attention to his words and a little more attention to his actions. Oh, and the defense budget! Earmarks and special interest funding by the billions in the stimulus and domestic budget are no concern, but America’s doomed if we buy too many F-22As!

Leave a Reply