MarcATL
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2009
- 40,681
- 19,954
- 2,290
Interesting comment by one of the media elite.
Reporter On Obama?s ?Amateurish? Press Corps: ?When They?re Near Him, They Lose Their Minds? | Mediaite
I have no choice but to compare the media during the Bush Regime and during Obama's Administration.
The media failed miserably during the Bush Regime due to his rule on fear, they were simply afraid to call him to task since he was politically popular from the aftermath of 9/11, they never let up until at least 2 years before his 2nd term was up. (think "If you're not with us, you're against us.")
Bush had 6 years of unfettered rule of fear and political propaganda with the media giving him a green light.
Let's look at Obama today, they love him, yes, he's lovable, but they still vette him, they give credence to many of the RW anti-Obama propaganda which ends up hurting him, but yet he's loved.
So we have almost two extremes, a rule under fear and rule of love.
Personally, I opt for love.
What say you?
Reporter On Obama?s ?Amateurish? Press Corps: ?When They?re Near Him, They Lose Their Minds? | Mediaite
I have no choice but to compare the media during the Bush Regime and during Obama's Administration.
The media failed miserably during the Bush Regime due to his rule on fear, they were simply afraid to call him to task since he was politically popular from the aftermath of 9/11, they never let up until at least 2 years before his 2nd term was up. (think "If you're not with us, you're against us.")
Bush had 6 years of unfettered rule of fear and political propaganda with the media giving him a green light.
Let's look at Obama today, they love him, yes, he's lovable, but they still vette him, they give credence to many of the RW anti-Obama propaganda which ends up hurting him, but yet he's loved.
So we have almost two extremes, a rule under fear and rule of love.
Personally, I opt for love.
What say you?