Media Treatment

I hung out with F'in Mat today and, as usual, politics came up in the conversation. He observed that the media's treatment of our president has become more negative. Me, being inbetween naps because I haven't been able to sleep according to my third shift schedule as of late, kinda grunted and nodded and admitted that I don't know. Besides Bush's latest plunge in the polls to an under 50% approval rating, I don't think the media's treatment of him has really changed. But I also had to admit that I live in my own little world: I hardly even watch TV and I can't find the time to crack open the newspaper anymore. The news I read comes from my time spent at work combing the news, then after work I have class, then I have to figure out some way to exercise so my ass doesn't get fat again, then sleep. Lately I've had trouble completing all 4 of these tasks. (If you haven't noticed, there's been quite a few big stories I haven't commented on in the past week: monkeyboy's farce of a committee to investigate our "intelligence" in Iraq, Kazaa's offices in Australia getting raided by aussie feds, and Nipplewatch 2004: The Janet Jackson Story.)

So, I'm honestly not sure what to think. I pay attention to the major media as much as I can, but I don't get CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. Even if I did get them, I probably wouldn't have time to watch them. Campaign season is officially underway and Kerry is feeling confident enough to start his attacks before the Democratic prmiaries are over. David Kay opened his mouth right after Bush cited his report in the State of the Union, and Paul O'Neil's book came out, showing us just how clueless the Bush administration is. Michael Moore started the new AWOL parade that's still a story, though the media still seems to drag their feet on it. For instance, Russert questioned Bush begin AWOL on today's Meet the Press, and here's the exchange:

Russert: And we are back in the Oval Office talking to the President of the United States.

Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last week: "I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn't show up when he should have showed up."

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: How do you respond?

President Bush: Political season is here. I was I served in the National Guard. I flew F 102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge. I've heard this I've heard this ever since I started running for office. I I put in my time, proudly so.

I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn't, is because there are a lot of really fine people who served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq. [tasnote: nobody's mentioned peep about the National Guard in general. Well, besides Bush.]

Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of their records and said there’s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.

President Bush: Yeah, they re they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. [tasnote: or you could have been honorably discharged because you were the son of a Congressman, but why split hairs here? Russert certainly doesn't.] In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama. [except, uh, there's no verification, which you just said isn't possible in the military.]

Russert: You did were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason? [gee Tim, thanks for pointing out the contradiction in his last statement.]President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military. [OK, let me get this straight: If I enter the military and, 8 months before my terms of service are up, decide that I'm going to business school, the military will just let me go? Riiiight. I would just work things out with the military. That working things out is really doing wonders for our troops in Iraq who have been put under order to stay in the military past the date their were supposed to be discharged. It's kinda funny that with the Vietnam War and a draft going on, Bush can just leave military duty to goto business school. But Russert continues to treat Bush with kid gloves.]

Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?

President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably you were. And absolutely. I mean, I

Russert: But would you allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?

President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records. [They did? Who is they?]

And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it. What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is is may not be a true service. [Well, seeing that your Daddy got you a position in the Guard to avoid going to Vietnam... Also no mention of this from Russert. It still amazes me that the media lets him get away with all these lies.]

Russert: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way. [Uhm, where is it?]

Russert let Bush get away with an awful lot there. I'm not sure if I should read the rest of the interview when there's no brick wall to bash my head into when I feel the need.

I have noticed that Bush has come under attack from a few people at once, but I haven't noticed the media treating him any differently. Let's face it, Clinton faced many attacks, and the media were more than happy to plaster any Clinton scandal all over the front page. When Clinton bombed the medicine factory in Sudan, the chickenhawks suddenly became pacifists and accused him of "wagging the dog." But when Bush let's the bombs fly on faulty intelligence.. No, let me correct that, no intelligence. The problem isn't a breakdown in the CIA, it's the fact that the Bush administration refused to listen to people like former UN weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and Hans Blix when they came out and said, look, the weapons don't exist. We had very credible evidence which said Saddam had nothing, but Bush and his minions lied to the nation and the world. Now that weapons haven't turned up, Bush is trying to blame the CIA. Before the war, during the war, and after the war, the weapons inspectors who have been to Iraq have one story to tell: There's no weapons. Bush's little committee is a smoke screen; a sham. But have there been front page stories alloted to Ritter or Blix, who were right before the war started? Hell no. In Sunday's interview, Russert didn't even mention Bush's appointment of a highly partisan right wing judge named Laurence Silberman to the committee. The media isn't reporting just how much of a farce this committee is, and how it's not needed because the Bush adminitration already had credible intelligence denying that Iraq had weapons. If a committee should be formed to solve anything, it should be to figure out who in the administration refused to listen to people like Ritter and Blix, and why.

The attacks against Bush have increase and his approval ratings have dropped, but the media continues to drop the ball. Maybe if they reported the truth, Bush would be out of office by now.