Does anyone think it's possible media is bringing Bush down in 03

[AP]

Poll question: Does anyone think it's possible media is bringing Bush down in 03

so that they can bring him up in 04?

I think it's obvious that one Bush strategy with the economy has been to bring it WAY down from 01-03 so that they can bring it up a little in 04 and say, hey, we're making progress -- and they're counting on the media not complaining about the economy at all from 01-03, which it hasn't, and they're counting on the media realy making a big hoopla out of any tiny incremental improvements in 04 (even though, compared to Clinton's years, America is a much crappier place).

So, do you think they're doing the same with Bush's popularity viz the war too? Bush lives off the oxygen of beating low expectations -- he may be the stupidest President we ever had, but, since he's not as stupid as you thought he was, he's a big success.

I can see the media bringing down Bush until about next April or May, and then, wow, look at him step into the shoes of being a leader! Look at the decrease in the increasing rate of general crappiness! What a great guy! Maybe we should give him four more years.

I just don't understand why else the media whores suddenly look like they're doing their job (viz Iraq, but definitely not viz the economy).

[ShaneGR]

1. Wish you would have worded the poll better

Do I think the media is going to be hard on Bush in 04? Yes.

[AP]

5. I'm push-polling. I'm trying to be ironic, or whatever.

I'm actually editorializing.

But I'd love to discuss.

[AWD]

6. Hee hee

You said "hard on"

You also said "Bush"

That's cool.

[pmbryant]

2. Neither of the choices is accurate

The media is only pouncing on Bush now because his popularity is down. The media love to kick people when they're down. And Bush has made himself such an easy target that lazy journalists (the vast majority, it seems) find it easy to join in.

This has no connection to what they will do with him next year.

--Peter

[AP]

11. No. I think his popularity is down BECAUSE the media started to pounce.

I think Bush needs an upward trend in popularity to win in 04, so the media is coordinating its effort to bring him down, so that they can bring him up.

I think if the people were winning the battle with the Bush administration, the media would be telling the truth about the economy, and not the war. Iraq is something totally within Bush's control. He can manipulate Iraq the way Nixon manipulated Vietnam to win. He can't win if people talk about how bad the economy is (because Bush's intention is, actually, to create an economy which is crappy for the middle class because it shifts all their wealth to the Bush cronies at the top of the wealth ladder). When I start hearing stories about how that's what's going on in America, I'll start thinking the media might have turned the corner. But, you know what, big media is NEVER going to turn the corner. If they're pumping up Arnold in one breath, and criticizing Bush's Iraq strategy in the other, there's some bigger pro-Republican strategy which many of us seem to be missing.

[AP]

3. For those who are answering 'No," could you please explain why

the media is only criticizing Bush about Iraq, but won't tell the truth about the economy?

[mistertrickster]

16. They don't see it as sexy--they're visually oriented, not cerebral.

A smoldering wreck of a Humvee is the perfect TV news image--the smoldering wreck of the economy is purely abstract, numbers and polls.

[AP]

19. No. They do what hurts Democrats. They loved talking about the economy

when there was an internet bubble, because it got people to imprudently buy stocks at inflated prices (which only made Wall St insiders, and Enron exiters wealthier).

From 98-01, the ONLY story on the news was "how high can this economy go? The skies the limit!!" They didn't need visuals to sell it.

And I think the Iraq war coverage is being sold to us in a way that will ultimately help Bush.

The media in the last 10 years hasn't done a damn thing that wasn't designed to increase their profits.

[hippiechick]

4. How about 'other' - they'll bring down anyone for ratings and $$ ?

:hippie:

[AP]

12. Clearly, with an impoverished middle class, the only $$ big media can make

is the kind that is delivered to them through Republican legislation.

That's why they're lying for Arnold in CA. And I can't imagine they'd prefer a Democrat to Bush in 04, unless it was a Democrat who wasn't worth having as President.

[GCP]

7. Why does everything seem to be a massive conspiracy to you?

On just about every thread you post on, there's a huge conspiracy involved whether it's Bush bringing down his only ally in Europe, Tony Blair, so that the Tories can win, to Mugabe being sabotaged by Britain.

Maybe the press are actually doing what they always do, following the news rather than reporting on it.

[AP]

13. You have to be kidding if you thing Viacom, GE, and Disney don't have

an agenda in the way they present the news.

There's just too much wealth at stake that they wouldn't have plans which are elaborate in proportion to the wealth they can reap.

[Minstrel Boy]

8. Neither, I think.

I still don't see the US media doing the job it ought to, but insofar as it's even mildly critical of Bush these days, I think it's merely bending with the wind. Plenty of time and inclination for it to bend back.

[gully]

9. Im gonna say no because the media likes ratings...

and because Bush blamed them for some stuff. But, they'll go where the ratings are mee thinks.

The Saddam statues coming down, were only interesting for about a day, now they will have to tell the truth as we knew it all along.

[AndyTiedye]

10. They Feel No Obligation to Tell the Truth Ever

[AP]

Ratings? Five companies control 80% of the media. If you're watching

or reading something, chances are very good that you're contributing to their ratings. And they've pushed out any dissenting opinions to the point that they're not worried about the truth getting a toe hold.

[AP]

15. Ratings? Five companies control 80% of the media. If you're watching

or reading something, chances are very good that you're contributing to their ratings. And they've pushed out any dissenting opinions to the point that they're not worried about the truth getting a toe hold.

[fla nocount]

14. Tough one here, not enough options. I'm afraid we're trading

the Industrial for the Military side of Ike's complex. If the media seems to line up heavily for Clark I'll feel pretty certain we're trading a pup for a wolf from the same pack.

Don't trust Clark.........just don't. I didn't trust Bush either and see....I was right.

[Cheesehead]

17. Depends on which "media" you're talking about:

TeeVee is just starting to turn the corner
Radio (with a few notable exceptions) is still freeper heaven
Print is developing a real hard-on for Whistle Ass. My local daily has been chewing Shrub a new one regularly lately, and this is generally a pretty conservative area.

[AP]

21. I'm talking about Viacom-GE-Disney-Fox-TimeWarner

[snooper2]

18. How about a third option?

They are just stupid media whores looking for the latest headline?

Jesus, people really think the GOP has everyone bought and paid for. They are just stupid media whores, except for Faux who are right wing media whores. They are going to cover whatever and whoever they think the most people will watch.

RATINGS RATINGS RATINGS...

Which every way the "polls" go, their coverage goes. They try to appeal the the average sheeple.

Just stupid sound bite media whores looking for the next "story" they can cover with the most (WOW BAMN BOOM POW BANG!!!) for the cheapest dollar amount.

[AP]

Uh, when you have as much $ at stake as big media does, you don't

leave anything to chance.

Doesn't anyone read MediaWhoresOnline? Doesn't anyone read Blinded By the Right, or Lying Liars..., or Big Lies.

Why, suddenly, are all those commentaries wrong? I don't think they are. I think this is part of a bigger strategy to keep America's attention focused on something which is going to be used to help Bush next November.

[AP]

20. Uh, when you have as much $ at stake as big media does, you don't

leave anything to chance.

Doesn't anyone read MediaWhoresOnline? Doesn't anyone read Blinded By the Right, or Lying Liars..., or Big Lies.

Why, suddenly, are all those commentaries wrong? I don't think they are. I think this is part of a bigger strategy to keep America's attention focused on something which is going to be used to help Bush next November.

[jackcgt]

29. Exactly. It's not all a conspiracy. When a Dem gets elected in

'04, the media isn't going to keep praising Bush. Just wait, and watch.

[elfin]

22. They like close contests

For the ratings - if that means dumping on somebody or artificially making them look good - that's what they will do.

Close to the end they will make their corporate bosses happy and tilt strongly to the right.

Let's hope it's too late.

[AP]

24. Bush will raise and spend maybe 250 mil in 04, and maybe half

will go to buying network time. The difference in spending between a close race and a not so close race might be as little as 75 million bucks.

Although I agree the media loves close contests, and I strongly feel the media really wanted the LA Senate runoff, so they could double their money.

However, I strongly suspect the big media companies have way more to gain in terms of profits from Republican-driven monopolization and FCC deregulation than they stand to gain from extra media buys in the presidential election.

Nonetheless, I think candidates should get more free air time.

[Brian Sweat]

23. I just think the media smells blood in the water and they are

going after it. When Bushes numbers were high, they were afraid to go after him because the though that they would turn off viewers. Now that his number are down around 50%, they fell more emboldened to go after him.

[AP]

25. I'll say it again...I think the numbers are going down BECAUSE the media

is intentionally, and in a coordinated effort with the WH, letting a little air out through critical Iraq stories.

ALL I HEAR ON THE MEDIA ALL DAY IS ABOUT IRAQ. Nothing about the middle-aged homeless couple living out of their car who just moved into the parking lot across down the street in my neighborhood of 500K homes.

I can't help but think that focusing the talk on Iraq, regardless of what it's about, helps Bush. Nixon won with Vietnam. I think Bush can do it with Iraq.

[jenk]

26. it would be nice, I do sense the tide may be turning a little

we'll get a better feel for it by christmas time, then we'll know for sure if the media is setting shrub up...

[AP]

27. The media is only setting Bush up for victory.

[janekat]

28. When I heard Nachtman sincerely waxing poetic about Clark....

I began to think something could be afoot.

What I've been hearing a few media people saying is that they're really tired of being intimidated by Bush & Co. They have been under their thumbs for the last 2 years. They've had to "self-censor" and
they've seen many colleagues who have been fired due to this.

Now that it is "ok" to criticize Bush all hell is breaking loose.

Jon Stewart said something to this effect on his 9/11 show. "Is it appropriate to criticize the President on 9/11? Hell Yes. All hell is breaking loose!" He then proceeded to slash Bush to smithereens.