–“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it.”— Isn’t this the same thing Limbaugh said about McNabb? (I’m just saying…)

—”decisions piggy-backed on previously made disastrous decisions like not evacuating New Orleans properly ahead of a hurricane.”—- Isn’t it the responsibility of the LOCAL government to evacuate? If the Feds had stepped in, people would have been screaming from the rooftops about ‘BIG BROTHER’ stepping in and circumventing the local government.

Ah, I see the amnesia has set in. The press didn’t even regularly ask Bush follow up questions at press conferences until about 2005. As pointed out, his treatment thereafter was due to disastrous decisions, as well as a contempt for anyone in the press that didn’t act as a stenographer.

I have noticed the press doesn’t do a lot of warrantless wiretap stories these days.

It is past time that the media – - and everyone else as well, particularly politicians – - finally realize that an objective and factually accurate national political colloquy must be the bedrock of a healthy republic like the USA. This was strongly emphasized by the founding fathers, especially John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who experienced terrible invective, lies, and distortions by fledgling newespapers – - and even Jefferson, unfortunately engaged in initiating some clandestine poisoning of the debate between him and Adams during the second presidential election by collaborating with a newspaper opposing Adams’ candidacy.
Today, as never before, our national political “conversation” is being nearly fatally poisoned by the vicious, lunatic howlings of maniacs like Rush Limbaugh on hate radio and the Fox “News” insane TV motormouths.
These are not simply benign expressions of opposition to the administration in Washington or addressed to anyone who disagrees with their deranged, extremist positions – - on anything and everything. Such gutter political and social “commentary” would not have been accepted or perhaps even allowed not very long ago. They are vicious and unreasoned and wildly inaccurate attacks on our government, their imagined enemies, and anyone else who stands in their way. It is evodent by now that “anything goes” on TV and hate radio. And the indifference, even acceptance, by our corporate media to these poisonous antics is a very bad sign indicating the hapless loss of influence of responsible journalistic sources.
Since TV and radio are the predominant influences on our natrional political and social colloquy, their corruption of our national dialog is doing immeasurable harm to our republic.
It is a relief to see President Obama speaking out about the the fact free nonsense posing as news;
something that the G W Bush administration seems to have not only tolerated but encouraged. G W Bush himself seems oblivious to the harm he has done to the normally moderate expressions of opinion in our the national debates that characterize a healthy republic. Obama has every right, even an obligation, to “call out” the violators of moderation and cool down the conversation.

Is this a serious statement by Glynnis:

“disastrous decisions like not evacuating New Orleans properly ahead of a hurricane.”

Is Glynnis finally acknowledging that the democrat Governor of the State (Ms. Blanco) was a complete and total imbecile, along with the Mayor (Nagin). It is NOT the responsibility of the Federal Government to evacuate a state Glynnis. President Bush declared a State of Emergency PRIOR to Katrina making land fall and encouraged all the folks to evacuate. It wasn’t his job to do that, that responsibility laid at the feet of Blanco and Nagin. Time for you to grow up and recognize the failure was on the LOCAL Government and not the President. Egads, I’m shocked at your statement.

President Obama is being treated differently by the media, just like all dems are. I recall seeing hours of tape of President Bush holding hands with the Saudi (then prince) King. Yet when Obama BOWED to him, the film was spiked by all news media, and some even claimed he didn’t even bow.

The media hated Bush, not because of Iraq and not because of Katrina; the liberal media hated him for no other reason than he is a republican.

Of the five states that were harmed by Katrina (Mississippi took the direct hit) the only state to completely failed it’s people was the only one that had a sitting Democratic Governor.

I notice the Katrina apologists always fail to mention Bush took FEMA out of a full cabinet position, appointed a horse association lawyer to head it, then Bush himself was out in Arizona playing guitar joyfully three days after the levees broke, that HE WAS WARNED ABOUT.

Kind of like “Bin Laden determined to strike U.S.” PDB, to which he responded “okay, you’ve covered your ass now”. Heck of a job, Bushie.

Typical Republican selective memory. Did FDR create the Great Depression or only extend it? I can’t remember, I better check Fox News.

hadashito says:
October 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm

A few points…
(1) As you almost recognize in your first paragraph, critical media has been around in the United States since before it’s official founding. Public discourse that is nasty, highly skeptical, and often times unfair is nothing new… and to say “Such gutter political and social “commentary” would not have been accepted or perhaps even allowed not very long ago.” is simply false. Political media is able to reach more people faster today, but the tactics are hardly new. Furthermore, are you suggesting that free speech needn’t apply to people who disagree passionately with a Democratic Administration? Are you suggesting that we have speech codes, and “acceptable speech” laws to limit criticism?

(2) “…our national political “conversation” is being nearly fatally poisoned by the vicious, lunatic howlings of maniacs…” Where do you put “maniacs” like Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and Rep. Grayson? I suspect (as based upon your other statements) that it’s not the “viciousness” you oppose, rather the target of said “viciousness” and the fact that those folks inherently disagree with you politically. See, you dislike the idea that someone doesn’t agree with you, therefore whatever they say is “wrong.” This most recent attack from the White House, just furthers that opinion, even if it’s easily proven hypocritical. In short, it’s not the tactics you dislike, rather it’s the content for ideological reasons.

(3) G W Bush himself seems oblivious to the harm he has done to the normally moderate expressions of opinion in our the national debates that characterize a healthy republic.
Tell me more about the “moderate expressions of opinion” that happened during the Bush Administration… expressions like this:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
Do you consider them moderate?

Jim R says:
October 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Jim… your definition of “Katrina apologist” is simply anyone who doesn’t exclusively blame Bush for everything that happened. Bush screwed up big time… but only as much as the federal government is responsible for. Nagin and Blanco blew it as well, and it was their responsibilities to begin with. You inability to blame anyone other than Bush, shows your true mindset… that being, “Bush = bad”… the situation has nothing to do with it, only to serve as a backdrop to your hatred of all things GWB.

Is this some kind of news alert???????

Yes, the media has been much friendlier to Obama than to Bush. Doesn’t take a genius to see that.