Friedersdorf's lament

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf laments that

the tenures of Presidents Bush and Obama have shown us that supposedly conservative outlets routinely failed to challenge profoundly unconservative policies, and that liberal outlets routinely fail to challenge profoundly illiberal policies. Call it tribalism, call it excessive deference to power, call it the capture of the press by the establishment--just don't try to explain it away by citing liberal or conservative bias. If only that were it.

But that is it--conservative or liberal bias as cordial adaptability; or, as referenced, tribal deference to the establishment.

There was no journalistic commandment that said the Democratic-Republican press could not condemn exorbitant presidential power one day and salute Tom Jefferson's single-handed territorial expansion the next, or that FDR's accommodating Fourth Estate could not support industrial cartels on Monday and worker mobilization on Tuesday. Press bias flows with the bending currents of partisan power--or, if you will, with partisan exigencies.

Some critics will call this hypocritical, while others might prefer to call it pragmatic. Both are correct.

In the matter of Obama's presidency and a favorable press there has been, however, a certain uniqueness--or, at least, a uniqueness comparable to Roosevelt's first term. Both presidents inherited such towering catastrophes from their immensely incompetent predecessors that the press, by and large--that is, excluding Obama's Sean Hannitys and Roosevelt's H.L. Menckens--tended to give them a pass, to consider the enormous damage already done, and to ponder the potential, doable damage which could be done from a recklessly aggressive piling on.

That changed in Roosevelt's second term. I expect it will change again.

Comments

[Turgidson]

I haven't thought the media has been particularly accomodating of Obama in his effort to clear the Utah-sized pile of toxic waste he found when he took office. This mostly stems from the both-sides-do-itism that they feel compelled to partake in. Obama, and the Democrats, while not angels or perfect by any means, have offered policies meant to ameliorate actual, real problems. The post-2008 GOP has basically closed itself off into a separate world where the sky is pink and gravity causes things to fall upward. So they screamed about death panels and Kenyan socialism and how they want their country back at every turn.

And the media reported on much of this as if it was an actual, reasonable, defensible position to have. To our continuing detriment. Because hey, anything's better than looking like you have a liberal bias, amirite?

Back to the point - the drones and kill list issues are the ONE area where the braindead stooges in today's GOP are actually consistent. While they aren't cheering lustily, nor discussing putting Obama on Rushmore, as they would be doing if it was a GOP president carrying these abominations out, it's interesting that they're not spinning in circles pretending to be outraged about it and demanding impeachment hearings. Killing brown people and anti-America Americans is the one thing they'll let Obama do in...cough...peace. It puts the "left" in a bind, too; the entire crowd was outraged by Bush's misdeeds on these fronts, but isn't sure what to do about Obama doing it - most find it abhorrent, I reckon, but savaging a Democratic president when so much work needs to get done domestically and Obama's actually trying to do it, is a pickle. Balance of equities, or some such.

Awesome. Can we haz meteor?

[Marc McKenzie]

@Turgidson: Great points--but no meteor, please...;)