Obama's negative effect on journalism

The scary part to me is I could see such behavior becoming the new normal -- and getting worse -- in future White House administrations, regardless of political party.

 

No one said anything about an underdog. All those you mentioned undoubtedly have clout. But as much as CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and their offshoots, as well as NYT, Washington Post, etc.?

Nope.

 

Ed Snowden kind of spoiled the master plan a bit.

 

Tell you what, when the whole Snowden leaks thing came up and the big debate was raging about whether he was a hero/patriot or criminal/traitor, I wasn't real sure what to think. But the longer this has gone on and the more information has come out, the more I've leaned to hero/patriot, to the point that I am now solidly in that camp.

There are now conversations being had and changes either being made or being considered that never would have happened without him. And a lot of the stuff we've found out is for the most part stuff U.S. citizens rightfully should know.

 

"It's not true. It simply isn't. That isn't the case. There simply is no truth in that. It's not. Nope, it's simply not."

This passes for persuasion here? FNC, some cloistered bloggers and a handful of correspondents-less talk radio shows are on par as a media force and message shapers as the major newspapers and national radio and TV networks? At a time when the latter group feels less obligation than ever to uphold values of objectivity, fairness and equally aggressive reporting regardless of party affiliation?

No effin' chance. Wait ... simply no effin' chance.

A list of this WH administration's fail would gouge way too deep into a Friday night.

I'll just leave it at this: I have worked for and around people who were good at getting jobs, but had little interest and a serious capability shortfall in terms of doing the jobs. They want the trappings, the prestige, the privileges, the power, without rolling up their sleeves and tackling the tough stuff in a mature way. That is the man in the WH, the campaigner-in-chief, eternal candidate, the most partisan President in US history, who doesn't feel an obligation to lead when he can go for political points and who on only rare occasions acts as if he is all Americans' President rather than merely those who have voted or will continue to vote for him.

His personality explains a lot of what this thread started to be about: inability to accept responsibility, certainly to take blame, for failings. The proverbial buck never stops with him. No wonder he wants to control the message and messengers. There's also the sense of betrayal and push-back that results when some of the palace guard media stray from campus -- he and his had gotten comfy with less serious scrutiny from the outlets that most matter than any administration in the past 50 years.

I expect the jerkoffs in Congress on both sides of the aisle to be as partisan as they possibly can without getting voted out. But I expect the nation's chief executive to rise above that and I expect the same of the Fourth Estate, who are derelict in their duty if they don't.

Jimmy Carter's legacy is the biggest winner of the Obama WH.

 

In other words, high-information voters skew strongly to the right.

 

Actually, the difference is that the President of the United States isn't a fucking basketball coach so your analogy isn't worth shit.

John Calipari doesn't have the power to sic the IRS on writers he doesn't like. Or use the Justice Department to intimidate reporters.

Again, please explain how journalists are in any way at fault for the crimes of this administration.

 

Reagan or Clinton? Heck, imagine if today's media technology was around during any other time in our history.

Le Olde TMZ would be poking fun at Washington's wooden teeth and we would be hearing cries of "If he can't chop down a cherry tree correctly, how can we trust him as our president?"