Right on cue, the White House press awakens from its Bush slumber

[EV_Ares]

Pulling a collective Rip Van Winkle, the White House press corps has awakened from its extended nap just in time to aggressively press the new Democratic administration, just as it dogged the last Democratic president during his first days in office back in the 1990s. Conveniently skipped over during the press corps' extended bout of shut-eye? The Bush years, of course.

Suddenly revved up and vowing to keep a hawk-like watch on the Obama administration ("I want to hold these guys accountable for what they say and do") and all of a sudden obsessed with trivia, while glomming onto nitpicking, gotcha-style critiques, Beltway reporters have tossed aside the blanket of calm that had descended on them during the previous administration, a blanket of calm that defined their Bush coverage.

Can't say I'm surprised about the sudden change in behavior, though. Taking the long view, I recently went back and contrasted how the press covered the first days and weeks of Clinton's first term in 1993 with its coverage of Bush's arrival in 2001. The difference in tone and substance was startling. (Think bare-knuckled vs. cottony soft.)

One explanation at the time of the Bush lovefest was that reporters and pundits were just so burnt out by the Clinton scandal years that they needed some downtime. They needed to relax; it was human nature. Conversely, the opposite now seems to be true: Because the press dozed for so long -- because it sleepwalked through the Bush years -- it just had to spring back to life with the new administration. It's human nature.

When contrasting the early Clinton and Bush coverage, I noted it would be deeply suspicious if, in 2009, the press managed to turn up the emotional temperature just in time to cover another Democratic administration. But wouldn't you know it, the press corps' alarm went off right on time for Obama's arrival last week, with the Beltway media taking down off the shelf the dusty set of contentious, in-your-face rules of engagement they practiced during the Clinton years and putting into safe storage the docile, somnambulant guidelines from the Bush era. In other words, one set of rules for Clinton and Obama, another for Bush. One standard for the Democrats; a separate, safer one, for the Republican.

"I don't think there is a honeymoon" for Obama, Jon Banner, the executive producer of ABC's World News, announced last week. "The accountability starts immediately." See, accountability suddenly reigns supreme. Just like right after Clinton was sworn in. But Bush in 2001? Not so much.

link to article: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901270006

[eShirl]

1. they realize this White House is not insanely vindictive

like *some White Houses* might have been

[Ikonoklast]

20. Until they piss of the CoS.

I hear that Rahm can be a trifle, um,...negatively persuasive if he needs to be.

[harun]

37. Nor do they have an armada of media outlets jumping at the chance to enact revenge on dissenters

[izzie]

2. Still would it be right to do Obama like they did with Bush?

From my seat I like to know what is going on and it was a job finding it out with Bush but some newsmen were getting it out in the back ground. The people would have been better off if it was in their face with all the people in the govt. at all times. I never saw the press as being in love with Dem. even if they say it over and over. Who runs the papers etc.???? Big business and that means GOP people.

[Uben]

3. They are complicit.....

...as are all republicans. They screwed up our country. I say we pass a tax on republicans. Twenty percent of all they have for being so fucking stupid!

[SpiralHawk]

4. Blow-dry big-time media serves only the republicon-corporate borg

not the truth, and certainly not the American people.

That's why they have lost cred, and market share.

No one trusts them...because they have proven they are unworthy of trust.

[midnight]

5. According to Jon Banner accountability is a fluid thing that is

applied to Democratic leadership, and not to Republican leadership. Why else would the press lie down and do nothing for accountability for war crimes, looting of the treasury, politicizing the judiciary, and terrorizing America.

[dolphinsong285]

6. Apparently, the gag rule on lucid, pertinent questions is suspended n/m

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. with the economy, the reporters might be out of a job soon!

[Cobalt-60]

7. We don't get news in the United States

We get corporate pronouncements.
I stopped listening to it years ago.
They've got republican dick on their breaths.
I recommend the BBC.

[bdamomma]

22. anyone but our media would be better to get information from

BBC is very good.

[spanone]

8. the system is broken

[texas1928]

9. I think it is because from the time the Bush Administration started campaigning in 2000...

They screamed "Liberal Media Bias" and they beat that drum for 8 years. So the media to prove them wrong cowarded to them. Gore got more negative press than bush ever got. Kerry got more negative press than bush. They also made it a point to show the press that if they did negative stories they were cut out of the press corps. rove and company figured out how to hit the press and make them do what they wanted.

[FatDave]

25. I think you hit the nail on the head right there.

The cry of "liberal media" has gone on for so long, they're afraid to portray republicans negatively and democrats positively.

[olegramps]

10. Perhaps you haven't noticed. We don't have an independent press.

Our news is managed by corporations who cater solely to their advertisers whose corporations are run by Republicans. It is as objective in its coverage as Pravda was at its worst. This is not some wild exaggeration. It is the sad truth because we continue in our delusion that it is factual and objective. At least most of the Russians knew it was bull shit.

[lunatica]

11. And President Obama parries their probing with one hand tied behind his back

Let them wake up. After all they should be as accountable as they claim President Obama should be.

[mopinko]

12. he has learned a lot from watching what happened to clinton.

as well as what happened to harold washington, chicago's first black mayor.
thankfully, i do believe you are correct. they brought their knives, but our pres has an uzi.

[lunatica]

16. they brought their knives, but our pres has an uzi.

I like that! It bears repeating for those who only read subject lines.

:fistbump:

[mopinko]

18. they brought their knives, but our pres has an uzi.

when you are right, you are right.

:fistbump:

[FatDave]

26. More of a sniper rifle than an uzi.

Uzi's just spray bullets indiscriminately, from what I understand.

[mopinko]

34. i wouldn't have the slightest.

i just threw that out there thinkin' someone would come along and tell me which one it might be.

[Gregorian]

13. What? "burnt out by the Clinton scandal years".

What kind of bullshit is that statement?

You know, I used to roof houses. With a bad back. Do I need to continue?

The way I see many in the media is the same way I see many of the bankers. Trying to get paid for doing nothing. This is why people like Helen Thomas are so valuable. They know history, they have a sense of what is going on. They're fearless in the face of fascists.

If they're out of their stupor now, then let them start asking what just happened over the last eight years.

They're quickly going to discover that their jobs are about to become a little harder with someone intelligent in the White House.

[loyalsister]

32. But if there are no shingles what do you do?

If the Bush admin simply wouldn't answer Q's what are they going to write about? He did not hold press conferences.
WH insiders, etc were unreliable sources.
There was more crappy reporting coming out than good investigative journalism for sure. But, I believe that is typical given the kind of attention and time those stories may require.

Journalists now have someone who invited them to hold him accountable. They have work to do. I am sure that it is nice to have some shingles.

[Jennicut]

14. I was 17 when Clinton became president. I remember how the press started in on him, right away.

I never understood it or why they were so soft on Bush. But now at 33, I am not so naive. The corps own the news, the corps give more money to Repukes who for years let the wealthiest of Americans get away with not paying their fair share. I get it now. Thankfully, Obama learned from Clinton's mistakes and hurls their crap back at them.

[wroberts189]

15. Its ok...they can handle it and the press is just exposing themselves

bushie set a lot of precedents.


To go back to the old standards will be so blatant it will become a topic of great debate.

They will not get away with it...


Helen will be the first to chime in on the double standard. She was the only one who held the bushie admins feet to the fire.

[tavalon]

17. It's hypocritical but I do want them to do there jobs

That they took an eight year siesta is unconscionable but I don't want them giving anyone a pass ever again.

[Alcibiades]

21. Just like they held Bush accountable on WMDs, Iraq and

"Osama bin Laden, Wanted, Dead or Alive." McClatchy's Washington bureau used to run White House press releases unedited. Judith Miller and Thomas Friedman led the charge at the NYT.

We should never forget the lies these lying liars have told. Whenever they are unfair in the name of "accountability," we need to ask for an apology for how they gave Bush a free ride.

[TwilightGardener]

23. They're not just holding him accountable, though--they're criticizing him

for having "perks" that come with the job of President (because the other Presidents cooked their own mac-n-cheese and drove themselves to appointments), or they criticize his answers at press conferences for being too lengthy and "professorial" instead of being barely coherent and delivered with a drop of drool and blank eyes like the last President. "Nitpicky" doesn't even begin to describe the way they're going after him.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

24. Playing "Devil's Advocate" here...

but maybe they were suffering from Bush Fatigue? Like how there was always the run-around on questions, no accountability/transparency with ANYONE, ect... very different from what the Obama administration has promoted with having more "open debate" and accessibility to officials.

Is there a YouTube video anywhere of a compare and contrast of press conferences?

[FatDave]

28. I think it's a combination of things, and what you say was a big part of it.

Part corporate media, part fear of retribution, part "what's the point?"

[CakeGrrl]

27. It's simple - media is now Corporate-owned and Republican-friendly

I don't believe it's just some intrepid reporters who are now "free" to ask the questions they want; I believe they're getting their marching orders from the top down.

Their Corporate owners don't like Democratic administrations taking $$$ out of their pockets (or so they believe), so they have their employees put heat on Dems and enable Republicans to operate freely.

[Cha]

29. The Honeymoon is with the American People

who got him in..not the craven disingenous mediawhores.

[PM Martin]

30. Break up the media conglomerates.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Gannon/Guckert had hard questions for Bush n/t

[Arugula Latte]

33. We've got the Internet now, you mainstream corporate media motherf@#$ers.

Times have changed, you Bushco. suck-ups.

[tblue37]

35. I think part of the problem is that the media whores fear

Republican administrations, who push back hard an will even try to ruin their careers if they so much as utter mild criticism. But Democratic administrations just don't do that.

Oh, and of course if reporters go after corporofascist Repubs, their corporate owners and bosses will get after them, too.

[dcindian]

36. They did not awaken to say that would to belittle what tools they are of the republican party.

No they never awaken they just continue with their marching orders just like before.