You didn’t mind the objections of the media against a Republican regime when it came to the immigration debate, did you? You in fact approved, when talk radio generated opposition to Bush’s policy.

K., I haven’t listened to talk radio for more than a year, and was listening to less and less of it prior to when I stopped completely. I also didn’t really pay much attention to the press’s attitude toward the bill, but wanted to just know if it met the fate that it deserved (which it did) in the end. I have defended the Bush administration against bogus and unwarranted criticism numerous times, but I have also been critical of it for the past several months and have not required press statements to make my own criticism of it. The Bush administration has been inept and at times wrongful, and is currently a political liability to GOP candidates seeking the Presidency (and Congressional seats), and it’s an open question whether any candidate wants Bush to appear with him and her, or seeks an endorsement. (I’m assuming it’s next to impossible to count on Cheney appearing on anybody’s behalf even if Cheney were sought.)

The press has been battered into submission by the present administration who constantly attacks it and questions its watchdog role. If you had been around DC during the Clinton and Carter administrations you would have seen that the press was equally unsympathetic towards Democratic administrations.

Clinton got a free ride, especially during his early years, and was frequently defended during his impeachment.

The Bush administration haven’t cowed the press — they’ve largely avoided the press. (They have avoided everyone else, too, with their excessive secrecy.)

After 9/11 the press gave the BA a pass, coming together patriotically as one to support the president and his actions. Most of the post 9/11 coverage and coverage leading up to the war in Iraq was uncritical.

Nearly everyone initially supported the war, for we knew Hussein was an already-demonstrated, proven threat in the region. And yes, having everyone on television wear US-flag lapel pins was silly — anyone who didn’t wear one risked being perceived the way the first person in a group to stop applauding a speech by Lenin was arrested and whisked away in Solzhenitsyn’s account of the early days in the USSR.

After 9/11 the press gave the BA a pass, coming together patriotically as one to support the president and his actions. Most of the post 9/11 coverage and coverage leading up to the war in Iraq was uncritical. When Bush invaded Iraq and mismanaged the occupation, the media (except for the conservative media) began to find fault- as they should. Their role is not to coddle presidential incompetence, but to shed light on the way our democratic government works.

You didn’t mind the objections of the media against a Republican regime when it came to the immigration debate, did you? You in fact approved, when talk radio generated opposition to Bush’s policy. That, somehow was justified- while the anti war coverage generated by the MSM, somehow is not.

Do Recent Supreme Court Rulings Mean Historical Rulings Are Danger?

Illegitimate activist rulings? I certainly hope so.

the American press essentially takes government info and prints it without questioning it

If it’s a Democratically-controlled government…

In the Watergate and immediate post-Watergate scandal days, the press was like a young boxer coming out itching for the next round; now it’s like an old, battered fighter who may come out and do a good round, but it has seen better days.

Liberal journalists have been as antagonistic toward Republicans in government as the Bush administration has been toward Congress, if not at times more so. The press is battered now because its obvious liberal bias has left it discredited among many Americans, and many of us have chosen also not to deal with poor quality — newspapers are poorly written and Time Lite, Newspeak, and US Wooze and Knurled Report, etc., are not only still biased leftward but they are flippant and tabloidish.

It’s easier just to get news from a multitude of Web sites (to learn as much as possible and to adjust for bias), and faster as well. We can even enjoy the “more critical” (and often worse leftist biased) foreign Web sites like the BBC and “Al-Guardian” (both notorious for wrongful bias against Israel).