1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obama's negative effect on journalism

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by LongTimeListener, Oct 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I think people were so in love with Obama's story that there was no way his presidency was going to live up to the hype. Supposedly, he cares deeply about his place in history, and he'll always have that because he was the first. But, I have a feeling history will not be kind to President Obama. He's definitely not going to be remembered at the level of Reagan and Clinton, and that probably bothers him.
     
  2. Morris816

    Morris816 Member

    This. And Reagan and Clinton had plenty of flaws too.

    With Obama and George W. Bush, their Presidencies came during a time in which 24/7 networks dominated the news cycle. Plus blogging and social media both rose to prominence while Bush was in the White House and have arguably become more so during Obama's term. It's worth asking ourselves how revered Reagan or Clinton would have been if 24/7 news and Internet-related material had been all over the place during their terms.

    As far as the OP goes, you have a few journalists out there who understand what it means to do their job while the more prominent ones are getting lazy -- as in, it's easier to either to get caught up in the euphoria of victory or grumble that your side didn't win but must find a way to win somehow. It's those few journalists who are becoming targets (unfairly, I will add) while the lazy ones get either a pat on the back or a roll of the eyes, depending on which side they happen to take.
     
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    One journalist who holds up well during The Obama Presidency is Glenn Greenwald.
     
  4. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Honestly and objectively? Not really.

    The right-wing networks are so far to the right -- by design -- that they've pulled candidates to the far right. The Tea Party was the invention of some Jean Teasdale-type in Seattle. FNC made it real and used Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck -- always up for a buck and 15 minutes of fame -- to sell crazy over two years before, more or less, discarding Beck and playing down Palin.

    None of the "left-wing media" is that...invested. It just isn't.
     
  5. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    For the modern era, unless there is a major economic turnaround in the next three years, he will probably land within the GW Bush/Jimmy Carter neighborhood. Superb pre-election narrative, divisive (GW Bush), ineffective leader ala Carter.
     
  6. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    It is, however, far more read/watched and far more influential. And while it might not be as "invested" (and some outlets are), it is nevertheless often carrying the same sort of message as its conservative counterpart -- but with a wider impact.
     
  7. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    No, it's not their <i>fault</i>. The problem is more nuanced than that.

    If you had a college basketball program, for example, that was just hammered on a weekly basis by a few news outlets in particular, you'd better believe the rest of the media would feel the chill and distrust. Practice would be closed. Leaks would be checked. Publishers would be called at the offending outlets.

    The difference, obviously, is the right-wing media has created and nurtured a market of people who want that proverbial basketball program to fail out of sheer ideology. Say the team runs a motion offense. Imagine a group of people so financially invested in the sport that they lobby for the triangle offense mercilessly and relentlessly.

    Obama's weakness -- and it is a weakness -- is that he doesn't really love the game. Some people love this fucking game. Clinton loved the game and was damn good at it, and his fiercest enemies would admit that. JFK, LBJ, Nixon -- they loved the game. LBJ might have been as good as there ever was. Obama acts as if he's above it. And if you're a Democrat, you have to be an operator. Obama, despite all the crap that's been hung on him about his "community organizing" has always been a bit a light touch when it came to work ethic, and the Beltway, quietly, resents that.
     
  8. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Left wing media is more subtle in their approach and more widely accepted
    as "main stream". Cause the NY Times said it carries more weight than if
    Fox said it.
     
  9. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    If work ethic is a problem, they probably should resent that.

    Of all the presidents I can remember (and as old as I am that goes back to about Fillmore), Clinton is the one guy who stands out to me as having really enjoyed being president and all that went with it (even the bad stuff) more than anyone. It's one of the things I really liked about him -- it was what he lived for.
     
  10. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    No, it isn't. It's simply no longer true. All of talk radio -- 99% -- is right-wing. And not because only Republicans like listening to talk radio in the car. That's influential. Right-wing books sell like hot cakes in bookstores and online.

    It's time for people to stop believing FNC is an underdog. It's not. Rush Limbaugh? Not an underdog. Not a lone voice in the wilderness. Mark Levin, who is a quack and a hack, has clout.
     
  11. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    But that subtlety, to the extent that you or anyone could call something "subtle" when it appears on face to be objective -- would by its very nature be less influential than FNC's constant bleating. That the NYT says it and carries more weight...according to whom? 50 percent of America would disown anything that came out of that paper. They've been trained to. The NYT has no influence in red states. None.
     
  12. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    "Love of game" is an interesting way to look at it Alma. I would add Reagan to that list.

    Maybe Obama's his lack of leadership fits as subset of "love of game"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page