But I hope it matched this review by Fred Barnes:
WATCHING PRESIDENT BUSH'S PRESS CONFERENCE Tuesday night, you could see why he drives the press crazy. No matter what they asked, his answer was invariably the same: We're staying the course in Iraq. It's important to gaining freedom for Iraqis and winning the war on terror.
Not only that, he began the session with reporters by gobbling up 17 minutes of time they consider theirs. He devoted it to an opening statement--it was actually a speech--in which he said basically one thing: We're not flinching in Iraq. He was heroically on message, relentlessly repetitive, but effective in his own way.
Washington hates this type of public performance, which is characteristic of Bush. The press, the political community, the inside-the-Beltway lifers--they prefer a rich display of details, a bit of nuance, and some wit. Reporters, particularly, are soft on presidents who seem to like them or at least pretend to--or who pander to them.
Bush, of course, gives them none of that. He's not aiming to please the Washington crowd--the political elite. His audience is outside the Beltway--the mass--and he does surprisingly well in appealing to it. How does he do it? By being plain spoken and amiable and down to earth. By sounding more like Midland, Texas, than like Georgetown or Chevy Chase. By honing in on a single message and not giving reporters much else to write about. Bush tried Tuesday night to dictate the lead of stories.
If I just call Fred Barnes biased can I disregard anything he has to say, or is that a uniquely conservative tool? I noticed that he and the rest of the conservative media missed the semanitcs change of admitting that this was an occupation. This is the first time I have heard this from Bush after a year of claiming that we were a liberating and not occupying force. Meaningless really, but intersting from an administration that came in so derisive (legimately) of the argument over the meaning of "is", that has become so enamored of semantic arguments. It's not a plan, it's a list of actionable items. 'nuff said.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at April 15, 2004 10:41 AMFred Barnes is certainly biased. And I certainly question his review of a press conference, trusting that he will put the best face on the President's performance.
The Weekly Standard, however, is an admittedly ideological publication; the BBC claims impartiality. To have its head invest 3 million "quid" to unseat the current PM is worrisome. In light of other accusations about BBC war coverage, it is scandalous.
Posted by: jk at April 15, 2004 11:00 AMOh, I don't know, how much to Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch give to our political parties?
I think the main bias in our media is toward sensationalism. Its not about fair and accurate, it is about what piques viewer interest. If there is there a death and destruction or good sex angle, then go with it!
Posted by: Silence Dogood at April 15, 2004 12:43 PMTed and Rupert run private companies. The BBC is funded by everyone in the UK who owns a television set.
As bad as our worst media was, the relentless, one-sided, anti-war coverage of the BBC has been a million times worse. Check out The Hutton Report at http://www.theinternetforum.co.uk/bbc/gilligan1.html
Posted by: jk at April 15, 2004 01:06 PM