Ah, "The Obama Squandered An Opportunity" Corporate Narrative - Deja Vu!

[TomCADem]

The funny thing is that Jonah Goldberg in late 2008 started pushing this narrative. Back in 2008! Yet, on this board, even so-called "liberals" buy into the same corporate media fed narrative again and again, and adopt it as their own. Where have I heard this before?

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200811190014

One quick example: On January 31, 1993, 12 days after Clinton had been sworn into office, Sam Donaldson appeared on ABC and made this jarring announcement: "Last week, we could talk about, 'Is the honeymoon over?' This week, we can talk about, 'Is the presidency over?' " (At the time, Clinton's approval rating hovered around 65 percent.)

By contrast, on February 10, 2001, three weeks after Bush had been sworn into office, The New York Times' Frank Bruni penned a gentle, honeymoon-mode review about how authentic and at ease Bush seemed with his new role. "George W. Bush is establishing a no-fuss, no-sweat, 'look-Ma-no-hands' presidency, his exertions ever measured, his outlook always mirthful," wrote Bruni. "The gilded robes of the presidency have not obscured Mr. Bush's innate goofiness -- or, for that matter, his insistent folksiness."

Bruni's piece was a classic example of what in journalism is called a "beat-sweetener." It's where a reporter assigned to a new beat ingratiates himself with key sources by writing flattering profiles. There were precious few White House beat-sweeteners published in 1993.

"Perhaps never in our nation's history -- certainly not in its recent history -- has a President so early in his term been subjected to a greater barrage of negative media coverage than Bill Clinton," wrote the Los Angeles Times' late media critic David Shaw in 1993. (The headline to Shaw's piece: "Not Even Getting a 1st Chance; Early Coverage of the President Seemed More Like An Autopsy.

Look back in early 2009, and you will find many, many stories proclaiming the honeymoon over, even as Obama's approval ratings hovered near 60 percent. Worse, the corporate media and right wing pundits began to push the meme that liberals are disappointed with the President as early as late 2008. You would think that we would have learned from such past manipulation.

[Oregone]

1. "even so-called "liberals" buy into the same corporate media fed narrative again and again"

It seems you love to define the chicken and the egg as it suites your arguments.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the media ran with a narrative that had legs, because so-called "liberals" were already believing it?

I don't need to read the opinion page to see opportunities Obama is pissing away, thank you very much.

Good luck with your brand new narrative you are trying to weave here against these so-called "liberals".

[TomCADem]

2. Your post alone shows the corporate brainwashing! GOP Gets a Free Pass!

Jonah Goldberg? Is that you?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-gop-20100713,0,4930254.column

It wasn't supposed to be like this.
The Obama administration came into power with the political winds at its back, the media at its feet and Americans open to major change. The White House even had a slogan: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
The logic behind the axiom is unassailable. As Robert Higgs documented in his libertarian classic, "Crisis and Leviathan," it's crisis — not merely war — that is the health of the state. Crises melt frozen politics. They create opportunities. They give the government room to maneuver and grow.
And for a while, it worked that way. Democrats steamrolled the most ambitiously liberal agenda in at least a generation. Yet liberals are miserable. Their lamentations over what they see as President Obama's lack of audacity punctuate the din, like ululating matrons at an Arab politician's funeral.

I am sorry. But for all your so-called independence, you are simply reciting the corporate media talking points with liberal sounding jargon.

When Bush was president, whenever his proposals encountered opposition among Democrats, the Democrats were portrayed as obstructionist. It was never Bush’s fault for failing to reach out to Democrats. It was the Democrat’s fault or Congress’s fault. If you opposed the President, you were attacked as obstructionist or even unpatriotic. Remember the Kerry campaign when the media mindlessly recycled the talking points about Kerry voting for hundreds of tax increases simply by opposing certain Bush supported policies?

Now, with Obama as president, you say Obama squandered many opportunities, but make no mention of the GOP. Oddly, despite your so-called independence from the media, you are saying the exact same thing as the headline that I see on Fox New and other corporate media outlets, which are fed with corporate sponsorship dollars.

The Republicans have set new records in terms of filibustering legislation. They have broken a system of Government that has stood for over 200 years. Yet, you and most members of the media give them a free pass, and recite the talking point that President Obama has squandered an opportunity.

[Oregone]

3. If thats how you want to construct reality to beat back dissent, all the power to you

Im sure that you, living in the States, are a bit more exposed to the evil corporate media than I am, to be absolutely honest.

I can just as easily stone-wall a constructive debate by casting your comments as regurgitated talking points issued by the Democratic elite. But alas, where would that get anyone at the end of the day?

As I said, enjoy pushing your narrative. Im not going to play that game.

[TomCADem]

4. The Democratic "Elite"? So, An Agenda That Is Opposed By The Chamber Is Now Elitist?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes virtually every Democratic initiative, yet we are to believe that the Democrats, not the Republicans are elitist? The Democrats are trying to pass an unemployment benefits bill, and are opposed by Republicans, so is that elitist?

This is what I mean about the corporate media narrative. We are even coopting and using the language of Frank Lutz in deriding Democratic policies as elitist.