I did recall the whining and sniveling from the left about the costs incurred with the Bush inauguration... costs now hugely dwarfed by the coronation of The One.
Yet, when it comes to THOSE costs... why, the leftist MSM seems.... well.... utterly silent... or is it, "utterly hypocritical?"
Some media pegs the cost of this soirée at around $160 million or so. For a party.
That type of rampant cost would have resulted in complete hysteria on the part of, say, the women of "The View," or any of the media outlets that were so totally in the tank for The Messiah, if the beneficiary had been a Republican.
My God, we never would have heard the end of it.
Now, it would seem, if we were to hear anything about it at all, we have to rely on the British Press to keep us informed.
Why am I not surprised?
So, here it is.... a delightful flashback to the 2005 reeking hypocrisy that is the left. Enjoy!
Giving Bush a pass -- again
The D.C. press corps failed to ask hard questions about the inauguration's huge cost and its unprecedented security.
By Eric Boehlert
Jan 20, 2005 In Sunday's New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. Tierney wrote that inaugurations "become even trickier during times of war, particularly when television images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed with soldiers in body armor."
Tierney must be confusing the D.C. press corps as it might be expected to function -- posing uncomfortable questions to those in power -- with the press corps that exists in Washington today. Because the notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive. During the nearly 24 months of war coverage of Iraq, many American news outlets have remained steadfastly allergic to relaying disturbing images of war, particularly anything that shows Americans being wounded or killed. So the idea that broadcast journalists would use this celebration, of all things, as a time to press President Bush on Iraq simply does not reflect the modus operandi of today's mainstream media.
This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.
Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans -- 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans -- would have preferred a "smaller, more subdued" inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush's overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on -- a phenomenon the press ignored.
Yet, when it comes to THOSE costs... why, the leftist MSM seems.... well.... utterly silent... or is it, "utterly hypocritical?"
Some media pegs the cost of this soirée at around $160 million or so. For a party.
That type of rampant cost would have resulted in complete hysteria on the part of, say, the women of "The View," or any of the media outlets that were so totally in the tank for The Messiah, if the beneficiary had been a Republican.
My God, we never would have heard the end of it.
Now, it would seem, if we were to hear anything about it at all, we have to rely on the British Press to keep us informed.
Why am I not surprised?
So, here it is.... a delightful flashback to the 2005 reeking hypocrisy that is the left. Enjoy!
Giving Bush a pass -- againThe D.C. press corps failed to ask hard questions about the inauguration's huge cost and its unprecedented security.
By Eric Boehlert
Jan 20, 2005 In Sunday's New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. Tierney wrote that inaugurations "become even trickier during times of war, particularly when television images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed with soldiers in body armor."
Tierney must be confusing the D.C. press corps as it might be expected to function -- posing uncomfortable questions to those in power -- with the press corps that exists in Washington today. Because the notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive. During the nearly 24 months of war coverage of Iraq, many American news outlets have remained steadfastly allergic to relaying disturbing images of war, particularly anything that shows Americans being wounded or killed. So the idea that broadcast journalists would use this celebration, of all things, as a time to press President Bush on Iraq simply does not reflect the modus operandi of today's mainstream media.
This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.
Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans -- 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans -- would have preferred a "smaller, more subdued" inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush's overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on -- a phenomenon the press ignored.
No comments:
Post a Comment