The Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz wonders how long the Democrats’ honeymoon with the press will last — a significant question, although it seems a bit early, given that so far the post-election honeymoon has been less than a week.
He also raises the tantalizing question of whether liberal commentators and bloggers could find themselves morphed a bit into conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who recently declared himself “liberated” from having to “carry the water” for people who didn’t deserve it (the Republican party and White House officials who he ceaselessly defended, praised and interviewed on his show). Kurtz:
Now the question is whether a press corps that has been openly at odds with the president will hold the newly empowered Democrats to the same tough standards.
As with any new regime, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi are enjoying a media honeymoon for the moment — especially Pelosi, because of her status as the first woman in line to become House speaker and her grandmother-of-five persona. That may not last long. But where will journalists set the performance bar?
One answer may be that many journalists will be (a) watching the Democrats and holding their feet to the flame and (b) watching the Bush administration to see if there is indeed any shift in administration content and style or if nothing has changed. MORE:
If the Democrats don’t pass much legislation, or if they craft bills that Bush vetoes, will the press blame them for gridlock? If they start rejecting one Bush nominee after another, will the press say they are obstructionist? If, after railing against Republican corruption, they pass only cosmetic ethics reform, will the press say they were all talk and no action?
Of course “the press” isn’t going to do that kind of story in most news stories. You’ll get reports of what the votes were which will contain reaction quotes from both sides. Then a conventional wisdom emerges from the quotes, the votes, columnists and what the interpretation seems to be in analytical pieces in the Post, New York Times and other news outlets.
When Democratic committee chairmen issue subpoenas and conduct oversight hearings, will news accounts portray them as harassing the White House? Or will journalists recognize that aggressive congressional inquiries were a normal practice until the GOP Congress, which loved to investigate the Clinton White House, essentially stopped scrutinizing the Bush administration? And if Senate Republicans who denounced Democratic filibusters start trying to talk things to death, will journalists call them on the double standard?
While Bush retains the biggest megaphone, Democratic leaders will be getting more television time now that they control the House and Senate. In a media-drenched culture, the sound-bite warfare may prove as important as the legislative maneuvering.
And that’s the BIGGEST SHIFT. During the past several years the Democrats have been deficient in television time, which has been a handicap. Conservative talkers work from a much larger, more financially-stable, and higher profile than the fledgling progressive talk show industry. News and talking head programs on television more than ever will have to ensure they also get countervailing Democratic voices.
The biggest change may be in store for liberal commentators, radio hosts and bloggers, some of whom enjoyed a good long gloat last week. For years now, they have been on offense against the administration and the war, and taking potshots is plenty of fun, as conservative pundits learned during the height of the Clinton scandals. But now the lefties will have to spend time defending the Democratic leadership for any missteps and failures. And if Reid and Pelosi compromise with their more moderate colleagues, will hard-driving liberal bloggers turn on them?
GOOD QUESTION. The key criticism of Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and some others is that they defended their party no matter what, rationalized problems no matter what, and went on the counterattack to demonize administration foes and critics, using the old adage “the best defense is a good offense.” Will the liberal info network do the same with an eye on the high-stakes 2008 elections?
For much of his tenure, Bush has used the media as a foil, limiting access, criticizing news organizations for disclosing national security secrets, and mocking the “prognosticators” who said the Republicans were headed for defeat. But as his popularity has declined, he has held more news conferences and invited more journalists over for White House chats. If the president can mend fences with his Democratic antagonists, maybe peace with the Fourth Estate is also at hand.
Right now, it’s a big IF. One tip-off has been the seeming contrast between the words of President Bush on the meaning of the election (acknowleding voters voted for some changes) and the words of political bigwig Karl Rove (who essentially says no change really took place and the Democratic triumph was almost an accident).
If you have “good cop/bad cop” with Bush and Rove, the betting is that the past few days HAVE been a honeymoon — in more ways than one.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.