Bill Ayers speaks out! An In These Times exclusive.

PrintDiscuss
Views » August 25, 2005

Nose-Ringed No More

By Susan J. Douglas

The Bush media management methods--speaking before only pre-selected audiences, stonewalling in the face of criticism--finally appear to be wearing thin.
Tags   

This is the summer of Bush’s discontent. The more he tries to project that everything is just A-OK, the more ridiculous he looks. His bike ride with members of the press on his beloved ranch in Crawford, in which he said he had thought about Cindy Sheehan’s request to see him but that now “it’s also important for me to go on with my life,” has moved alongside Tom Cruise’s sofa-jumping as one of the summer’s more embarrassing public moments. It then got out that while Iraqis missed the deadline for agreeing on a constitution, and more Americans were dying there, Bush was going to attend a Little League game, fish, hang with Condi and take a nap.

The Bush media management methods—speaking before only pre-selected audiences, stonewalling in the face of criticism, trying to change the subject by showing the president clearing brush—finally appear to be wearing thin. Some of this stems from long-simmering exasperation among journalists about Team Bush’s media manipulation. But some of it is also “The Daily Show” effect, which has played a key role in moving us from a post-9/11 media environment to, for lack of a better term, a post-post-9/11 media milieu.

The post-9/11 era of cowed, ring-in-the-nose journalism lasted until the summer of 2003, when it was clear that “shock and awe” had not been a lasting success and no WMDs had been found. The major turning point may have occurred on May 1, 2003, when Bush flew in, Top Gun style, onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major combat in Iraq with the “Mission Accomplished” banner as a backdrop. It was too much—too obviously choreographed, down to the jumpsuit and the camera angles designed not to show how close the carrier was to San Diego. Like a magic trick that defies perception, the spectacle was so bald that viewers wanted to know how it was done—and thus it contained the seeds of its own undoing.

The post-9/11 media environment further evolved into the post-post-9/11 milieu in the summer of 2004, when the 9/11 hearings and a spate of anti-Bush exposés further emphasized the gap between Team Bush assertions and the facts. This summer’s press briefing about Karl Rove’s possible role in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, in which the White House press corps savaged Scott McClellan, prompted Jon Stewart to quip that the press corps had been replaced by real journalists.

Witness the recent changes on CNN. Now even Lou Dobbs, who rants regularly about illegal immigration and political correctness, has begun to express outrage over presidential incompetence and corporate greed. On August 8, when reporting on the signing of the energy bill, Dobbs noted that “While energy companies are set to receive those massive tax breaks and reap what are nothing less than windfall profits, American consumers are being squeezed by the rising price of gasoline.” On August 11, he denounced the “abject failure” of the command staff of the military in Iraq and asked, “How is it that this—that the top Pentagon officials are allowed to continue, if you will, to speak in such circular and obfuscatory terms?”

Dobbs interviewed Dick Gephardt about the future of America’s labor unions and actually said, “The ironic and tragic thing to me is that at a time when employees need every kind of help they can find in this country, in nearly every industry at all levels, organized labor cannot find traction or a way in which to engage them, or to find a role for itself in a relationship with employers.” This was followed by “And as we see jobs being outsourced in this country, wages have been static in this country for just about three decades, as you well know.”

Dobbs is no fool—he has grasped the post-post-9/11 media milieu and appears to be cobbling together a conservative populism that blends right wing cultural values with an anti-corporate and, increasingly, anti-Bush stance.

The Bush PR machine is continuing to win, so far, on some spin games, especially on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, whom we are repeatedly told was merely working for others, so we can’t possibly know what he might do on his own on the court. But putting Bush out there is no longer working so well (especially with Cindy Sheehan just down the road). According to an August Gallup poll, his approval rating is 45 percent, the lowest at this point in his term of any president since WWII. Nearly six in 10 oppose the war in Iraq.

The post-post-9/11 media milieu has been fueled by, but has also helped bring about these shifts. But we are in a new phase of the standoff between this increasingly unpopular presidency and an embattled and discredited news media. It will be interesting to see where the new milieu takes us.

Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and author of The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How it Has Undermined Women.

More information about Susan J. Douglas
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Ms. Douglas -

    While I appreciate the content of your message let me humbly suggest some improvements -

    -Commas are passive. You should construct in active. I don’t think I’ve read an article that has this much passive construction in years.

    -Run-on sentences are not exactly the hallmark of pros. “His bike ride with members of the press on his beloved ranch in Crawford, in which he said he had thought about Cindy Sheehan’s request to see him but that now “it’s also important for me to go on with my life,” has moved alongside Tom Cruise’s sofa-jumping as one of the summer’s more embarrassing public moments.”.

    “but that now”?! Second grade english Ms. Douglas. You are intelligent and devoted. But please, let’s at least write at the collegiate level.

    Sincerely, MOR

    ps- “The post-post-9/11 media milieu has been fueled by, but has also helped bring about these shifts.” Hee-Hee. It’s funny ‘cause you wrote it.

    Posted by MiddleRoad on Aug 25, 2005 at 8:34 AM

    I’m sorry if I seem overtly critical. I am finding myself to be increasingly conservative (in the mold of Dennis Miller) but I will always read left-wing publications like yours to help me define my views (only an idiot doesn’t expose himself to all sides of every issue- besides, my girlfriend makes me).

    But in the last month you have published-
    -A bizarre caricature of a big-titted Hawaiian (well, don’t get me wrong, she was hot)
    -Stated that Iranians were Arab
    -Stated that weapons proliferation in the Middle East was a good idea
    -Stated that Wi-Fi access was a racist issue (as opposed to an economic one)
    etc. etc.

    I’m certainly no genius (that is probably obvious to all). But your paper was even ragged on at Myopic the other day (note to all non-Chicagoans - that is our Bucktown book store hang out).

    I’m just saying - if it’s true that my High School weekly had a greater distribution than ITT - fogget about it.

    Posted by MiddleRoad on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:08 AM

    bush is still a idot no matter how you write it.

    Posted by brian28 on Aug 25, 2005 at 9:55 AM

    well done brian28. Perfect idiocy. ITT readership keeps on giving.

    Posted by MiddleRoad on Aug 25, 2005 at 10:31 AM

    MiddleRoad, some of your criticisms of ITT are just based on the fact that you disagree with their opinions, not that what they siad was patently false. Take the issue of weapons proliferation in Iran. You seem to say that because ITT ran an article that suggested it might be a good idea that Iran have nukes, they are wrong. Well, what ITT did was run an OPINION, that you just happen to disagree with, because YOUR opinion is different. That does not make ITT objectively “wrong.” At any rate, there is no indication that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon at this point, and even if they were, there is not a whole lot the U.S. government can do about it, what with Iran being a strong military power in the region and the U.S. being too bogged down in Iraq to start another offensive military engagement without the need for a draft.

    Back to the article. I just wanted to comment on the aircraft carrier incident in May 2003. Clearly that was the beginning of election 2004 propoganda. However, subsequent incidents in Iraq made showing that footage look VERY bad for Bush. What Douglas does not mention is that Bush’s little dress-up stint kept the Abraham Lincoln out at sea for an extra day, at a cost of $3.3. million to U.S. taxpayers. So much for fiscally responsible. The American people subsidized right-wing propoganda. How does that rub you MiddleRoad? Finally, even worse was that Bush kept weary servicemen and women away from their families for an extra day just to make himslef look macho. It doesn’t get much lower than that.

    Posted by Liberal on Aug 25, 2005 at 11:32 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 24 posts.

Appeared in the September 19, 2005 Issue
Also by Susan J. Douglas
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS