Why is the media so deferential to Bush and his minions?

[Catfish]

I read this in Krugman's latest column:

"Mr. Bush has, of course, literally promised us the Moon — and Mars, too. And the ever-deferential media have managed to keep a straight face."

I really can't explain why he gets this treatment, even with the corporate concentration of the major media. What are your theories?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. The maladministration uses...

Media access like a Sword of Damocles. Go off their message, and the sword drops. That's why.

[Catfish]

2. Yes

I've thought about this and I know they are very vindictive with reporters who anger them. It is a very effective technique.

[NewJeffCT]

23. correct

Joe Wilson (remember him?) wrote a critical article and his wife, a key counter-terrorism undercover agent, was outed by a vindictive White House.

And, who can forget that reporter that was outed for being both gay and (worse) Canadian?

Not to mention the anthrax scares...

[T Wolf]

3. it's all about the Benjamins

The first comment is right - if the media question they lose access, and that costs dollars.

A line in a movie explains it all - if you want to know the truth about any criminal organization, look for the rich white guy.

The only question is who the real don of BushCo is. But it is always, and only, about accumulating more wealth. controlling other people's lives is only a bonus for them.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. It's simple really....

They used to talk of a liberal media bias, but that was not the case. The truth of the matter is the bias sways to whomever has the power.

You see, journalists are ever in search of furthering their careers and nailing down a Pulitzer Prize. However, in order to do so, one must get the scoop before his peers do. In order to get the scoop, you usually need to know someone on the inside (unless you're doing good investigative journalism, but that takes a lot of work and risks a lot.) In order to know and make nice with someone on the inside, you need to kiss their ass. And that's exactly what the media does - kiss ass so when a juicy story comes, they're the ones who get the first whiff. The trend can't be broken unless there's an opposing surge of power threatening to take over, as they have to pre-emptively kiss someone else's ass now. This is because to criticize the insider means to never have access again, and that can effectively ruin one's career, unless new, friendly insiders were to take their place.

It's a vicious cycle that will never end, and it's the American people that are the victims.

[Skittles]

5. remember when reporters were targetted with anthrax

that was their way of telling reporters to shut the f*** up. It worked.

[PATRICK]

6. An easy sucker punch

A lot of people who should know better can be easily led like this, besides just the media, though I noted some papers juxtaposed critical budget stories next to the Mars announcement byline. Their main failure is again blindness to longstanding policy groups like PNAC where the Bushites hail from that speak in open clarity of their enthusiastic and only goals for space- much worse than any exploitation the Pentagon normally conceives of.

They dropped the ball on the fact that by Bush's past record this "Leave No Astronaut Behind" is but another Trojan shuttle loaded with American Empire war goodies. It's all they ever fund. Pinkerton of Newsday crawled back to this partly which means no one has yet gotten to the gaping hole American pride won't look into. Namely, that, like Antarctica before it, our solar system should be a global, international project or it shouldn't probably couldn't happen at all. Instead we are ENCOURAGING the notion of racing to be the ones with the highest placed space lasers- pointed down at us, with our backs to the stars.

Even if they were critical of Bush the media still doesn't get the big picture(intentionally or not, I don't really care which)- which means they have grown incapable of performing their job. Are we supposed to support corporate media in its senility? They don't support us or the pursuit of the truth.

[LeahMira]

8. Is there a choice?

Are we supposed to support corporate media in its senility? They don't support us or the pursuit of the truth.

Corporations of any sort aren't supposed to be in pursuit of truth. Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders. That's all they exist for.

The news media has pretty much abandoned its role as the unbiased reporter of facts and has sold out for the money. Maybe unbiased reporting of facts isn't as profitable as manufacturing scandal? One gets what one pays for in capitalistic America. In a real sense, by refusing to support public radio and TV as well as the NEH and the NEA, we have sold out too. We sold out our rights for MTV.

Once gone, it's going to be damn hard to get it back.

[Catfish]

10. It's more profitable to go along with lies?

You're probably right and that might say more about the audience than the media. It seems that to criticize is to be "negative" and viewers don't want this?

[kentuck]

7. Money, ads, taxes....

taxes, ads, money....and money.

[dennis4868]

9. Read....

Paul Waldman's new book called, Fraud. It expalins all of this in detail....

[Killarney]

11. If you "wrong" the administration, they cut you off.

The media stays on their good side out of fear.

[kskiska]

12. Will they continue to be deferential

if a Dem is elected? I'll bet they go right back into their Clinton mode.

[Catfish]

13. I was also thinking this

Is it that Democratic administrations won't play hardball with access?

[dennis4868]

14. I'll bet they go right back into their Clinton mode =

going back 30 years to find anything that could bring down the Democratic President, and if that is not good enough look into their private lives.

Sometimes I think how much fun the media and congress would be having now if a Democrat was in office and led us into a dishonest war, outed a CIA agent and is hiding information about 911. There would be impeachment hearings everywhere and special prosecutors coming out of every hole!

[lovedems]

15. Look what the WH did to Helen Thomas. She asked the chimp

in his first days of the WH, "why are you completely ignoring the constitution with your faith-based funding initiative?" The idiot couldn't answer and from then on she was placed in the back row and has never been called upon for another question!

I saw an interview with Auelleta (who has a book out about the WH press) and he said this administration "parents" the press. That is, if they ask tough questions or write bad articles, they get punished. I guess in order to get ANY resemblence of news, they have to play the role of the child and do what their parents expect of them, right or wrong.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Why? Because they all work for the same corporate bosses, who

give both the White House & the press their marching orders.

[el_gato]

17. exactly Jackpine

the real purpose of the media is to create support
for the corporate establishment, and they are less
concerned with money made via advertisement than they
are about creating a power structure that is controlled
by the corporate elite.

[hippiegranny]

18. reporters and journalists are mostly liberal

but the editors and management are not. they are beholden to their fcc monopoly conglomerate friendly masters. it's that simple, really.

[TyroneStryker]

19. They have the ability to control access to the Pres.

That is power.

[Orangeone]

20. I'm so tired of

the excuse that if they report negative stuff, they'll lose access. Don't they realize that when you are forced to report only what the White House feeds them, you already don't have access?

[grasswire]

21. another problem...

...the networks hire young beautiful people who look good on camera but who do not have the experience to understand their role in a democracy. They are dazzled by their proximity to power and the glamour of Washington society. They (in this administration particularly) are easily led by the nose.

We would be a lot better off with grizzled journeyman level journalists in the White House Correspondents Association, rather than kids with pretty teeth.

[midnight armadillo]

22. media consolidation needs the FCC

The handful of huge corporations are butting up against ownership rules. They need the FCC to change them, therefore they give BushCo the most favorable coverage possible so that he doesn't turn on them.

Also the heads of these companies are buddies with lots of others in the CEO club and they cross-promote each other's interests...which means they give BushCo very favorable coverage since they know no other administration will put corporation's interests so far ahead of the people's.