Pew Analysis Mostly Shows Obama Has Been A Successful President So Far

by: Mike Lux

Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 18:30


That sound of high pitched whining you hear from Republicans abut the new Pew analysis showing more positive than negative stories about Obama so far is pretty funny, but I have to say it's pretty easy to dismiss. Trends on positive and negative stories about Presidents and Presidential Candidates tend to pretty closely correspond to how well they are actually doing. Here's what I mean historically:

--FDR got very positive coverage because he was a successful President in very tough times. He got virtually everything he wanted through Congress; the economy started to improve; his party won big in the off-year elections in 1934; he won a massive landslide re-election in 1946 and in two more elections after that, he was a successful war President. No surprise he got lots of good press.

Mike Lux :: Pew Analysis Mostly Shows Obama Has Been A Successful President So Far
--Truman, even though he was of the same party and followed many of the same policies, generally got worse coverage because he didn't succeed as much. Few of his domestic initiatives were enacted; he got bogged down in the Korean War; Republicans capitalized on his unpopularity to win congressional elections in 1946; his party lost in the 1952 landslide to Eisenhower.

--Eisenhower got mixed coverage because his record was, well, mixed. He got some big things done, got stalemated on others and generally didn't have a big agenda.

You get the idea. Presidents generally get about the media coverage they deserve. Carter and the first President Bush got pretty bad press coverage because they really weren't very good Presidents, and Reagan - who passed many of his biggest legislative initiatives and was generally quite popular - got better coverage.

A lot has been made of Pew's mentioning that Obama did a lot better in his first couple of months than Clinton or GW Bush, but look at each of their first two months:

--Clinton mishandled the gays in the military fight and he got beat in the stimulus debate in his fist two months.

--GW Bush came off a hotly disputed election and got very little accomplished in the first two months. His tax cut bill got passed, and his popularity didn't go high until after 9-11.

--Obama, in his first two months got the biggest stimulus bill in American history passed, along with the popular Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the SCHIP reauthorization, plus he reversed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research.

I'm reminded of Kevin Costner in Bull Durham: baseball is a pretty simple game, you hit the ball, you pitch the ball, you catch the ball. Politics is the same: if you succeed, the media tends to write good stories about you. If not, they don't.

And frankly, campaigns tend to be much the same. Candidates that run ahead in the polls, raise more money, get bigger crowds, and do better in debates in the polls, tend to - amazingly enough! - garner more positive stories. That may or may not be a good thing, but it's a fact.

I know both progressives and conservatives have things we complain about, and I happen to think the media is far more biased towards conservative point of views on issues and candidates. But in terms of baseline studies like Pew on positive vs. negative coverage, it's pretty easy to figure out the formula.  


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Typo alert: 1936 vs 1946 n/t (0.00 / 0)


Media goes easy on pro-corporate sycophants (4.00 / 2)
I guess I thought it worked the other way around for people like Reagan and George W. Bush: both got incredibly good media coverage despite that they had little to say, they made massive mistakes, and their policies were not very popular. Very little attention was paid to the massive deficits that Reagan ran up. "Borrow and spend" worked fine for him since the media ignored it and everyone likes it when the government hands out money. The Iran-Contra scandal pretty much disappeared without a trace after not a very long time. The Star Wars boondoggle got a free ride. Check out Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future to see how Reagan's image was burnished after the fact.

Under George W. Bush, the Downing Street Memo, the missing WMDs in Iraq, the federal prosecutor scandal, and the massive deficits all slipped by with hardly a notice by the corporate media. The Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court decision was hardly mentioned. Again, given what a poor President he was, W got awfully good media coverage. It was only after Bush fought hard to keep Schiavo alive and ignored the devastation that Hurricane Katrina brought to New Orleans and it was obvious how poor a president he was that the media finally challenged his incompetence and corruption.

Because Reagan and Bush got such positive media coverage, they were able to get a lot done. Congress was intimidated into going along.

I disagree with many of Obama's centrist/hawkish policies, but he deserves to get far better media coverage just for the fact that he is clearly more competent and is far less likely to send the country into a tailspin than Reagan or W. But it is true that he has pretty much gotten a free ride on his policies that are unpopular and may lead to disaster, but which support the power elite: bailing out Wall Street, ramping up the war in Afghanistan, and supporting free trade deals. If he actually challenges the healthcare insurance companies, the fossil fuel industry, or other powerful players, I expect his media coverage will suffer significantly.


Since they've already been "pre-approved" by the corporate media, (4.00 / 1)
.
I  would expect the press to go along with any successful candidate for office, once he or she is in power. Unless, of course the office-holder somehow disappoints his or her corporate masters, in which case the media may then rain fire down on him or her.

As to what all this has to do with us, the voters and taxpayers, I'd say zilch. Either Obama delivers for us, or he doesn't. But based on his corporate media rating I'd say it's mixed, it's too early to tell, but it doesn't look good, if they like him. Most corporate interests are diametrically opposed to most of our interests, down here in the trenches. The corps love it when our government screws us on their behalf. That's prob'ly what the press is praising the new Prez for now.
.


A modest correction: (0.00 / 0)
Presidents generally get about the media coverage the corporatists think they deserve.

Fixed.


And how about all the broken campaign promises (0.00 / 0)
that would have wrought serious damage on another President for whom the media was not in the tank?

How about what Obama might have done on, say, civil liberties that he has pointedly not done?

Your article is just a repeat of the same stupid crap we heard in the primaries, where Obama likewise got much better press than any other candidate, and his acolytes claimed it was because he was just so much better than any other candidate, and had essentially nothing to criticize.

Spare us the hagiography OK?


Oh, and how about Obama's (0.00 / 0)
bailouts of Wall Street at the expense of every other voter in the country? You really think that another kind of press covering another candidate couldn't make all the negative hay they might ever want out of such a disgraceful move, and one so out of keeping with everything he promised to be?

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search