The Press and New Presidents: The Media's Double Standard

The conventional wisdom is quite clear: The press always turns skeptical and becomes combative when new presidents come to town. Except, of course, when the press does not.

In truth, the model being touted today by media insiders didn't apply to the previous two administrations. That model didn't apply to Bill Clinton in 1993 because the press wasn't simply skeptical about his administration, the press savaged it. And the model didn't apply to George W. Bush in 2001, because instead of turning combative toward him, the press rolled over for the Republican.

In terms of how the press has treated the last two new presidents, there's the Democratic model (i.e. overly hostile), and the Republican model (overly docile).

The assumption today is that it was a cacophony of missteps made by the new Clinton-led Democratic team that generated the bad press in 1993. That reporters and pundits simply responded to the bungled attempt at transition. What's been erased from that equation, though, is the acknowledgment that with or without the miscues, the press had already adopted an entirely new, contentious, and often disrespectful way of treating an incoming president.

What's also glossed over is the fact that eight years later, the press then radically adjusted its standards -- again -- for the new Republican president.

Read the full Media Matters column here.

Comments

[Iamadog]

There is no check nor balance on the 4th Estate. If we had access to Maureen Dowd's or Anderson Cooper's sexual history, tax records, business dealings, family relationships, how much marijuana they smoked when they were 20 or what shrink they were visiting last month, life would change drastically. There is no tribe where the wagons are circled in such a way. Let us assume that among them there are those for whom Jennifer Flowers is a drop in the bucket. But--they are safe and warmly secure knowing that none of it will ever get spread around in the NYT front pages.

It's a great thing to be a stone thrower when no stone will ever be thrown at you. The only concern they have is when a hue and cry is raised over lazy plaigerizer or some fool like Judy Miller actually pushes a war down our throats. What happens then? A token firing, a mea culpa and we all move on.

Until the people in the main stream press are "vetted" and any one of their lives are made a living hell based on some faulty tidbit or past sin, we will be whistling in the wind wondering if they will ever get better.

[LeftRight]

There is a HUGE check on their power. US! If we don't believe them then they won't sell, and they will quickly go out of business! But I, for one, would like them to go back to the days where they actually came out and threw stones at the govt, because that is the only thing that will keep our govt honest!!

As for the stones thrown for personal reasons..... I don't CARE that Bill Clinton sleeps around on his wife, I don't CARE that bush choked on a pretzel (except that would have made Cheney the POTUS on 9/11..... shudder!)

[Photofarm]

That is funny, just opposite of what I remember, until 9/11 under Bush's watch. The press did change tone and got friendlier on Bush for a little while.

[LeftRight]

Then you remember wrong. In the campaign and until a couple years after 9/11 the press LOVED bush!! The most negative thing that I saw was late-night comedians making fun of him, but the PRESS was fawning!

[LeftRight]

Of COURSE the press was hostile to Clinton and fawning over Bush! The fact of the matter is that the media consolidation that's been taking place under the "conservative" mindset created by Ronald Reagan has made a very small number of outlets controlling a very LARGE majority of the media, and generally by VERY "conservative" owners! The result of this is that the owners choose what gets reported, and the reporters (no matter their own personal political leanings) roll over in order to keep their jobs, just like the rest of us would do!!