There's a new poll out, and Bush's Iraq policy isn't looking too good. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23564-2003Jan21.html If you read the article and the headline, and have a short attention span, you'll learn all about how support for Bush is weakening. Which by any objective standard is a legitimate story. But then, buried in paragraph 10, is this my emphasis To me, this information should be up near the front of the article. I think it brings up important ameliorating facts, it gives context to the polling data. But I would also point out that the media is reflecting its bias toward the rich. To me, the findings regarding Bush's tax plan and economic stewardship are more important than the data on Iraq. But the media finds talking about Iraq more "fun," so the economic stuff gets relegated to second billing. :::sigh:::
"But the media finds talking about Iraq more "fun," so the economic stuff gets relegated to second billing." War makes for better headlines than domestic tax policies.
Well, just look at the Politics forum here. See how many threads there are about war and how many are about the economy.
Speaking of misleading leads... what does your post (and a pretty good one at that) have to do with your heading? This isn't an example of the "iberal" media. It's an example of the "commercial" media. It's the oldest journalism axiom at work: If it bleeds, it leads. Nothing more, nothing less.
The president has his fate directly tied to the war in Iraq. People realize the economy is more cyclical and that a president has, relatively speaking, less ability to affect the economic outcomes. Stewardship of foreign policy, on the other hand, is almost directly tied to a president's ability as a leader.
Re: Re: liberal news media (and I'm not being ironic) This was on NPR today as well. I just can't believe this is going so public. When it comes down to it, is this really a war for poll points? Bush made his bed... People do? We have a few economic gurus in this very forum but even they are influenced by various schools of thought. Many economist types can't even agree. Even if I agree with you here, most Americans hold the head guy accountable. If all politics are local, then you had better believe that if you feel lighter in the wallet, most people will claim the President had his hand in it. By this same thinking, many GOPers claimed that the policies of Bush I actually set into motion the "good times" Clinton rode on into the greatest growth period in US history. I guess when it suits people, the President can (or can't) do much. I would guess it is more complicated than either of us are ready to address. Jimmy Carter needs to run again, I guess.
Re: Re: Re: liberal news media (and I'm not being ironic) Jimmy Carter was a foreign policy (and domestic, for that matter) failure, hence his defeat.
Yeah, Jimmy Carter was such a failure that he won the Nobel Peace Prize, continues to mediate strains between countries and their peoples. That's funny I'd call selling arms to our enemies a foreign policy failure I think YOU have FAILED in taking your blinders off. It's obviously a reference to getting someone in office who's not going to tell you that you can have your cake and eat it too. By running up huge deficits and cutting taxes for the weatlthy. Keep passin' the buck! PS. Yeah there's a lot of talk about war, but I don't see N.Korea with the same popularity as Iraq... I'm just curious, using your stellar logic Ian, since Bush #1 was a one term twit, does that make him a failure as well? (Both in Domestic and Foreign policy)
Since you're talking about media bias... Did anyone see reports of the Israeli attack yesterday that killed 12 Palestinians? On CNN, the anchor merely said, "12 Dead in the Mid East today as Israeli forces engaged blah blah blah..." It never once mentioned that it was all Palestinians who had been killed. The Toledo Blade front page had the EXACT same headline. I've document similar consistent bias on NPR as well, to which they even admitted fault when FAIR called them on it.