Media infatuation with Obama

Yes, so? Like we didn't know that, right?

How about the fact that
the observation comes from Robertt Samuelson in IDB - an old line liberal who, in recent weeks, has really started to go after Obama for his economic policies.

Here, the long time Washington Post columnist looks at the media treatment of the president:

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means.

The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press - on domestic, if not foreign, policy - has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.

Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows.

It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."

The study examined 1,261 stories by the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the "NewsHour" on PBS. Favorable stories (42%) were double the unfavorable (20%), while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed."

About the only thing in the entire article I would disagree with is Samuelson's characterization of the press as "silent ally." That's being charitable in the extreme. There is nothing "silent" about the media's open cheerleading for Obama. All Samuelson would have to do to discover this is read his own newspaper, the Washington Post.

Still a good piece overall. Read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky



Yes, so? Like we didn't know that, right?

How about the fact that
the observation comes from Robertt Samuelson in IDB - an old line liberal who, in recent weeks, has really started to go after Obama for his economic policies.

Here, the long time Washington Post columnist looks at the media treatment of the president:

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means.

The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press - on domestic, if not foreign, policy - has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.

Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows.

It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."

The study examined 1,261 stories by the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the "NewsHour" on PBS. Favorable stories (42%) were double the unfavorable (20%), while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed."

About the only thing in the entire article I would disagree with is Samuelson's characterization of the press as "silent ally." That's being charitable in the extreme. There is nothing "silent" about the media's open cheerleading for Obama. All Samuelson would have to do to discover this is read his own newspaper, the Washington Post.

Still a good piece overall. Read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky