●America Tunes Out. Why is Obama such a bore? One historian_自考专本|专升本|高升专|高升本|在职研究生-学历教育网

Message from discussion

View parsed - Show only message text

Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!u28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Joe Snodgrass <joe.s...@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,alt.politics.usa,alt.news-media Subject: Re: America Tunes Out. Why is Obama such a bore? One historian blames Reagan.. Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Lines: 143 Message-ID: <ef04c0fc-8021-4d63-8067-4adf1074bdf4@u28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> References: <yKqdnR2k9sCPK4PTnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.226.96.173 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1310645839 12325 127.0.0.1 (14 Jul 2011 12:17:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:17:19 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: u28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.226.96.173; posting-account=9QAC6QoAAAAzuHuC9e_PYiXCW3Uf2Pex User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0,gzip(gfe) On Jul 14, 5:25=A0am, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote: > Michael Goodwin of the New York Post "watched intently" President > Obama's Monday press conference, but only "for 15 minutes or so." That's > 15 minutes or so longer than the duration of our own intentness, but we > did listen falteringly to the whole thing. By contrast, as the president > "droned on," Goodwin reveals that he "did something I never did before > during an Obama appearance: I turned off the TV." > > "Enough," writes Goodwin. "He is the Man Who Won't Listen to Anybody, so > why should anybody listen to him? . . . I will leave that unhappy duty > to others. I am tired of Barack Obama. There's nothing new there. His > speeches are like 'Groundhog Day.' " > > Goodwin is dead wrong about that last point, and he owes Bill Murray an > apology. "Groundhog Day" was a terrific movie. Apart from that quibble, > though, we feel Goodwin's pain, and we suspect most Americans do. The > World's Greatest Orator is almost always uninspiring, condescending, > self-aggrandizing, peevish and grim. > > =A0.He is also, as Goodwin notes, ideologically inflexible: "There is not > a single example on domestic issues where he voluntarily staked out a > spot in the American middle. . . . Obama's default statist position > remains unmolested by facts or last year's landslide that was a rebuke > to his first two years. He continues to push bigger and bigger > government, higher and higher taxes and more and more welfare programs." > > And we are stuck with him for another year and a half. Goodwin and this > columnist are professionally obliged to pay a certain amount of > attention, but the rest of America can tune him out. And Obama himself > suggested on Monday that they are doing just that, in answer to a > question by CBS News's Chip Reid: > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Reid: The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24% of > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Americans said you should raise the debt limit to avoid > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 an economic catastrophe. There are still 69% who oppose > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 raising the debt limit. So isn't the problem that you and > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 others have failed to convince the American people that > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 we have a crisis here, and how are you going to change th= at? > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Obama: Well, let me distinguish between professional > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 politicians and the public at large. The public is not > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treas= ury > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 option goes. They shouldn't. They're worrying about their > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 family; they're worrying about their jobs; they're worryi= ng > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 about their neighborhood. They've got a lot of other thin= gs > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 on their plate. We're paid to worry about it. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I think, depending on how you phrase the question, if you > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 said to the American people, is it a good idea for the > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 United States not to pay its bills and potentially create > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 another recession that could throw millions of more peopl= e > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 out of work, I feel pretty confident I can get a majority > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 on my side on that one. > > Yet as blogger Ed Morrissey notes, Gallup found that even people who are > paying "very close attention" oppose raising the debt ceiling, albeit by > a narrower margin (53% against, 37% for). > > One must make a crucial distinction here. People, even well-informed > people, strongly dislike the _idea_ of authorizing more debt. Obama is > surely right to suggest that most would dislike even more the disruption > he claims would result from failing to raise the ceiling. But that > reinforces our point, and Goodwin's. "The public is not paying close > attention," as Obama concedes, and even the segment that is, doesn't > believe what he's saying. America has tuned this guy out. > > Not everyone agrees Obama's troubles are the result of bad ideas and > poor political skills. Writing at CNN.com, Princeton historian Julian > Zelizer blames . . . Ronald Reagan--or, to be specific, a regulatory > decision made late in Reagan's presidency: > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 But the current structure of the media has emasculated > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the bully pulpit. Regardless of how good a president is > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 on the stump, it is almost impossible for him to command > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 public attention, because there is no singular "media" > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 to speak of. Instead, Americans receive their media > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 through countless television stations and websites. . . . > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 With the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the media > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 were also able to shed the appearance of neutrality and > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 objectivity. Every perspective did not have to receive > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 equal time. On many television and radio stations, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 objective reporters have been replaced with openly partis= an > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 commentators. Any presidential message is quickly surroun= ded > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 by polemical instant commentary that diminishes the power > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 of what he says. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Making matters worse, on the Internet, presidents can't > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 even fully control the time they have as they must compet= e > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 with live blogs and video commentary as they try to share > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 their message. Even within most households, the era of th= e > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 single family television is gone. Now in many middle-clas= s > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 families everyone has their own media and is watching the= ir > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 own thing. > > There are several problems with this argument. For one, the Fairness > Doctrine applied only to broadcast TV and radio. The Supreme Court > upheld the doctrine's constitutionality, in Red Lion v. FCC (1969), on > the ground that broadcast airwaves are scarce public property and a > license to use them is a privilege, not a right. > > New media--cable, satellite, Internet--would have developed anyway, and > the Fairness Doctrine would not have applied to them. What's more, > broadcast TV networks have been remarkably resistant to changing the way > they cover news and public affairs. The only medium that was transformed > by the Fairness Doctrine's demise, it seems to us, is AM radio, now > vibrant with political talk. > > Zelizer also evinces an unattractively authoritarian attitude in > bemoaning rather than celebrating the proliferation of media outlets > challenging the president. One suspects his true motives here are > partisan. His CNN bio notes that he is "editor of a book assessing > former President George W. Bush's administration"--a book that, > according to the Publishers Weekly review (quoted by Amazon), deals > "almost exclusively" with Bush's "failures." Zelizer never mentions Bush > in his CNN essay, but one suspects he is far less inclined to blame the > 43rd president's shortcomings on the media as he is the 44th's. > > Further, is it really true that the diversification of the media has > diminished the president's power? Color us skeptical. The media might > have been more uniform during the Reagan years, but they were by and > large unfriendly to a conservative Republican president. Bill Clinton > had to contend with talk radio and (albeit to a lesser extent than > Obama) cable news, but he was able to command public support through > most of his presidency. So was George W. Bush during his first term. > > And there's a pre-Reagan example of a president who seemed as adrift as > Obama does today. Prof. Zelizer, we're pretty sure you've heard of him. > According to your CNN bio, you are "the author of 'Jimmy Carter,' > published by Times Books." If only we could tune YOU out. 本科

【免费咨询报名电话：010-6801 7975】

咨询报名MSN:xueliedu@hotmail.com
试一试网上报名
咨询报名QQ：