Obama Promised Change -- Change from Bush and Cheney: So Why Do the Media Foment Faux Controversy?

I'm getting a little -- make that a lot -- annoyed at the well-paid pundits around the TV dial, who continue to poke holes at Obama for surrounding himself with a lot of people who've served in previous Democratic administrations.

Their rationale is that Obama promised a new order and that his taking counsel from many whose names are very familiar means he has somehow fibbed or at best is backtracking on pledges made to the American people.

I've written before how the media seem intent on doing whatever they must to justify the huge salaries many of them enjoy -- especially those in the stables of the broadcast networks and the major cable news services. They're on the air almost daily and have to say something to avoid the ever increasing presumption that maybe they're not all that necessary. So, they pump up McCain after the third debate when it's clear he pretty much imploded. They inflate Palin after her bout with Joe Biden, because she was able to string coherent sentences together. They just as venally and perhaps unfairly tear her to shreds using unnamed McCain campaign workers as their sources.

And now they try to taint Obama by implying he has reneged at least in part on his change philosophy. Yet, according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, change is defined as "To make radically different. The act, process or result of changing."

To my mind, Obama wants to radically disassociate this country from the habits and policies of the past eight years. To put into place acts, processes and results far different from those we have experienced under the administration of George W. Bush.

To accomplish this, he has surrounded himself with people who are familiar with how to make that happen. Many were part of the Clinton administration, which left us with high employment and a huge economic surplus. Obama never delineated his definition of change to mean that he wanted no one to join him who had ever served in Washington or government at all. This is why it was rubbish when the media deflated Obama's choice of the highly qualified Joe Biden by suggesting that the selection was hardly an indication of change. All this while they pointed to the real "change" exemplified by the inexperienced Sarah Palin, a pick which made no sense at all irrespective of your political views.

Obama wants change in our economy so that there are more employed, more people don't lose their homes and investments remain secure for the future. Obama wants change in our health care system so that everyone is covered or has a chance to have reasonable options with efficiencies built into the medical care conundrum. He wants a change in our foreign policy, first and foremost to get us out of the morass in Iraq. He wants to bring a sense of equilibrium to Afghanistan so that we can get out of that mess, too. And he wants to restore the esteem and respect we had among the world democracies. His election has already achieved this last point in striking numbers.

To effect these goals he needs people who have been tested, who know the territory and who have proven for the most part that they can deliver positive results as they have in past administrations. True, everything didn't go swimmingly in all instances, such as health care and equality for our gay brothers and sisters. However, in direct comparison I believe most would be relieved to have the kind of personnel in place just prior to when Bush took office than the sort of greedy and insensitive people with whom the current president and vice president have surrounded themselves over the past two terms.

Change is coming no thanks to many in the media, who, perhaps looking at the gloomy economic forecasts, are more concerned at being downsized themselves. That's why I believe they keep yapping along in the hope of keeping their inflated paychecks, getting tenured university professorships and securing lucrative book deals.

Change is coming to our society, but I'd also like to see a bit of change in the media's behavior to one that is not so transparently self-motivated.

Comments

[behindthescene]

THIS SADLY WONT POST....BUT I WILL TRY...

IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS VOTE OF CHANGE WAS ABOUT HEALTHCARE AND BUSH....
THEN IT SHOULD"VE BEEN HILARYS NITE..

THIS VOTE WAS NOT ABOUT THOSE ISSUES...
.THIS WAS ABOUT CHANGE OF FACE....IT MIGHT TAKE SOME TIME TO ABSORB EMOTIONALLY BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS!!!

[XME]

Perhaps they've confused "Change" with "Opposite Day"...seems to be that's what they expected!

[XME]

Thank you. The Clinton's 3rd term" discussion is so ridiculous. Do they really think we all expected him to come in and appoint people we'd NEVER heard of to all his positions? And if he did, they'd be questioning his judgement for selecting inexperienced people!

Change doesn't mean making EVERY single thing different than it's ever been before...just changing everything Bush has screwed up!

[NowWhatFolks]

Been over ten years since I had cable TV. Been over five since I've had a TV set up in my house (we wheel it out for special occasions, like the elections). Haven't missed it, and the severe decline in the quality of television news is a large reason why. I get so much more from the internet and print media, without as much of the drama.

[Yarrr]

Let them rant and rave. They're preaching to the long converted. Who cares about the lot of them.

[Bitsko]

Shouting pundits = audience

Audience = ratings

Ratings = ad revenues

[Dots]

A big part of the joy I feel is that President-Elect Obama won in spite of the media and the corrupt and antiquated voting mechanism. I was so afaid that a fair election was no longer possible in America.

[mommadona]

I would suggest with a very straight face that most of the Corporate Media is still sipping vintage Koolaide, in denial, and not willing to "give up the good fight" - much like the Confederate hanger oners after the Civil War.

I would suggest the old "southern stratergery" is alive and well in those dark, dank little cubicles.

Name ONE mainstream corporate media-type you would consider would vote Democratic...
go on...I'll wait.

And, here's the kicker -
THEY WILL ALL STILL HAVE JOBS AND BULLY PULPITS to spout their koolaide out the nose....
"Look what I can do!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcqs-6424E

[PumaJ]

Oh, I so know what you mean. That is why I am very, very picky about who and what I will watch. Infact, I so rarely watch my TV that I'm thinking of canceling my cable.

Don't get me wrong. I still watch some MSM news, including some pundit commentary. However, I do so via my FIOS internet connection. Most of the MSM have video clips galore of all of their pundits and news broadcasts, so I can pick and choose to my hearts content, or not. Plus, there are other non-MSM sites that have video available. In addition there is just such wonderful written commentary available. Really, from all over the world. So, who needs the blah-blah heads on the TV?

Their bottom line is that they are getting paid to sit there and spew their own opinions then discuss such with others who have expressed their opinions. Gee, sounds like a rather cool job if you ask me.

Let them yak a way. You don't have to watch them, after all.

[dexxjones]

they only seem to want to nitpick and micro-focus on democrats. we just lived through 8 years of an administration who did biblically evil things with our dollars and in our names and they went mute.

thank god for the internet.

[Bitsko]

darn straight.

[SpoxLogic]

I think they expected him to bring in untried, green and young people. People who the system would eat up and spit out, thereby, ensuring he fails. They are just pissed that he's not doing that. But it's expected. Everyone knows that as a Black person, you have to be twice as good as the best white person and that everyone expects you to fail. The media is just perpetuating that old stereotype.

[zanzig]

Plus, the change he promised, was a change from Bush and the Republicans. At no time did he promise a change from the Democrats.

[blaqntelligence]

Mr. Russnow,
I'm glad you addressed this topic. As I hear these "nattering nabobs" (love the term) blathering endlessly on this subject I want to shake them and ask "'Exactly who is Obama supposed to pick to help him lead this country?
The gas station owner for his "energy experience"?
Or the bus driver as head of DOT?
How about the guy who delivers newspapers as press secretary?

Then again the majority, if not all, of these charges are coming from the republican camp.
And look who THEY picked for VP.

[allonfla]

I totally totally agree with you. Not two seconds after Obama won and it was rumored that Rahm Emanuel would be on board, I started seeing articles about Obama being like Clinton, Clinton 2.0 and other nonsense. I was even disappointed with Rachel Maddow when she had to be talked down and a couple of bloggers from TPM. I have complete faith in Obama and he will do what is best and what is right. He wants the best people, with the best ideas to implement change. People shouldn't automatically dismiss his picks because of how they feel the applicant has performed in the past. People make mistakes, but they learn and these people have probably approached Obama with some great ideas. Haven't any of you learned from the GE? Obama was called Adlai, Gore, Kerry, Mondale and over and over he proved you wrong. He Turned 8-9 states blue, he got a landslide, a mandate, helped downticket races, he beat The Clintons, he beat the Republicans, he beat Fear and Hate, He broke down the door of the Good Ole Boys Club abd STILL his judgement is questioned.