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."Is it because the media has shifted further towards the Left (as compared to the days of Clinton -- and possibly in reaction to Bush)? Is it possible that people don't want to be critical and have the race card played against them? Or is it something else?
The study examined 1,261 stories by The Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, NEWSWEEK magazine and the NewsHouron PBS. Favorable articles (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent), while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed." Obama's treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent) presidencies.
Monday, June 01, 2009
I wonder why ...
... this is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
could be that he's just really bloody good
I considered that, but no. No matter what he does, there should be some sort of criticism from somewhere (other than the extreme Right), and there just isn't any.
He's already overextended the taxpayers (we're already running in the red for the rest of the fiscal year, and have been since April ... the earliest that has ever happened) and not a peep. Surely that should have elicited some criticism.
I'm afraid we've become a country of lemmings. If Obama threw himself off a cliff, we'd go too, cheerfully discussing it the entire way to the bottom.
Post a Comment