Deggans Pundit Alert: Explaining Media's Toughness on Obama and Network TV's Post Strike Blues

Howard Kurtz must be trying to turn me into a star.

That's my admittedly self-centered conclusion after noting how much the Washington Post media critic has quoted me in his latest story, a look at how the media has gotten tougher on Obama. Frankly, this is a trend I talked about way back in February, when a Saturday Night Live sketch poking fun at the media's adulation of Obama seemed to spark a raft of negative stories about the candidate.

Unfortunately, many media outlets' idea of incisive coverage includes stories about whether Obama wears a flag pin and how long he's known that Jeremiah Wright is a loose cannon. Now Howard has weighed in, concluding that Obama has "been brought down to earth by the same media organizations that fueled his meteoric rise."

Another element at work here is something I've also written about before: The news media's love for a tight Democratic primary which has fueled TV ratings, boosted the visibility of myriad reporters and given declining newspapers a reason to argue for their relevance. Big media loves this fight and wants both contenders to stay in the game as long as possible -- which means that whenever one of them pulls ahead, the other will take a few hits.

Another friend in media, reality TV expert Andy Dehnart, did me the honor of calling while he was assembling a story for MSNBC.com on why ratings for network TV shows have dropped since their return after the writers' strike.

Andy presents experts who argue that the viewership dip isn't solely caused by the strike. But as I noted a while ago, the strike allowed some viewers to find new ways to occupy their time -- and the spate of returning shows will last just a few weeks before we're back to reality TV and reruns for summer.

What's more worrisome than viewership drops is the trend of complex scripted shows migrating to cable. Increasingly, the best scripted dramas are found in the wilds of cable, where ratings demands and content restriction are lower. So what will happen to network TV's upscale, educated audience when all you can find on broadcast is Deal or No Deal and Celebrity Apprentice?

Keep your eye on this blog, and you'll read the answers before my quotes wind up in the Washington post or MSNBC.com.   

Comments

[Just the facts]

Eric, you are being modest, as the President of the assoc of Black Journalists of Tampa Bay, you are frequently quoted in the national news, especially concerning matters of race. In one of your recent articles in the Huffington Post(March 5th) you acknowlege that Obama was getting preferential or "easy" treatment by the media by saying "Obama seems to have counted on a flood of generally positive coverage in days leading to important elections to help him reach voters". Now that the tables have turned and the press is looking further into some of Obama's statements and relationships, you seem to have a problem with the media's "toughness" on him. Maybe I missed it, but did you do any stories about the press being easy on him besides that ONE quote I listed? Certainly you were aware of what everyone else was aware of during that time?
During our discussion yesterday, it appeared you wanted to hold Obama and his CLOSE associate to the same standards as you would a Media personality. That makes no sense what so ever, considering the mess that Bush has gotten the country into. ALL potential candidates should go through the highest scrutiny possible. If they can't take the heat, how will they handle high pressure situations that effect the outcome of our nation? Whether someone wears a flag pin or not is inconsequential to me, but questioning a candidate's judgement is not umimportant. You are giving Obama a pass to critisize those who do question the judgement of maintaining questionable relationships. This is NOT being "hard" on the guy Eric. It seems to this reader that you continue the trend of going "easy" on Obama and castigate those who don't follow suit.

[Eric Deggans]

i think, if the media is going to be tough on Obama, it should do so over substantive issues. Flag pins and where he puts his hand durin the national anthem and a loose associations to a black radical who reformed himself decades ago has nothing to do wth how he will handle himself in office.

People elected geroge Bush because he talked a lot about compassionate conservatism and went to church and had a faithful marriage and seemed to be the kind of guy you could have a beer with.

And if you are liberal, you watched him fill agencies such as FEMA and the FAA and the EPA and the FDA with political cronies who couldn't do their jobs safeguarding the pulbic. You watched him let new orleans drown and squander the good will shown america worldwide after 9/11 with a pointless war in Iraq that did't even target the man who masterminded 9/11.

If you're conservative, you saw Bush unable to pass a ban on abortion, despite holding office when the GOP controlled congress, the judiciary and the white house. You saw a president who intiated massive spending and massive tax cuts creating the biggest deficits in history -- debts which are now owned by Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 hijackers came from) and Communist China. You saw a president who implemented a war in which $8-billion in cash has vanished without a trace and we are now spending $5,000 a MINUTE.

I would suggest that voting based on someone's public image and not the policies they will actually implement has proven a dangerous and ill-advised strategy...So as long as the emdia is getting tough with Obama about actual policy issues, I have no problem.

[Just the facts]

Eric, I don't dissagree with your premise, everything you said I agree with untill your last paragraph. Everything that Bush did; filling posts with cronies, entering into an costly and pointless war,etc, was the result of bad JUDGEMENT. It had nothing to do with the issues. Bush ran on non-interventionism and a smaller Gov with less interference into Business. He did NONE of that. His Gov is larger than LBJ's and he does not act like a conservetive Rep, especially the way he spends. Maybe if Bush's judgement was called into question more; his lifestyle when he was younger(DUI, possible coccaine use), his non appearance to the National guard. We would have known he was not a person of good judgeemnt and he would not stick to his platform and do what he said concerning the issues he ran on. Issue are great, as long as you fufill what you promised. Instead, I look at where the campiagn contributions are coming from(who do the candidates owe), what have they done in the past(legislation, bills written), who are their associates and what are their business dealings. With Bush, he was a Texas oilman, now oil companies are making record profits.(coincidence?)Who are their advisors? What are THIER ideologies? The candidates are not experts on all subjects and depend on advisors to guide them. Another problem with issues is that ALL the candidates tailor the isssues to their audience or state they campaign in. Obama is not really anti NAFTA, but he is when he is in Michigan and Ohio. I agree with Obama on the gas tax, it is just pandering for votes, but I hold honesty, judgement to be just as important to what these candidates SAY they will acchomplish because history shows us it is not always the same when they get in office.

[Eric Deggans]

Bush's mistakes had little to do with bad judgment. He has a history of rewarding cronies -- regardless of their competence -- which reaches back many years. He himself is someone who has benefitted greatly from family connections and his family name -- from getting admission to Ivy League schools to avoiding conmbat in vietnam to scoring a lucrative partnership in the Texas Rangers after several failed business ventures.

It was obvious how Bush governed, based on his short track record as texas governor. It was also obvious how little he knew about world affairs and how much he would lean on officials transplanted from his father's ranks such as Rumsfeld and Cheney.

But voters didn't choose Bush based on his positions, as much as they chose him for his image -- and conservatives wound up with a guy who wasn't nearly as committed to his ideals as they thought he was....

[Just the facts]

Eric, You just made my point for me. Bush DIDN"T follow his stated issues, I guess it wouldn't matter if that is why people voted for him or not. As you stated, he had a history rewarding cronies and had bad character with the way he conducted himself personally. If the media would have focused on that, they would certainly not have been focusing on issues. It also would have saved the country alot of grief.
If his advisors would have been examined more closely as I have done with ALL the candidates this election, it would have been noted that Bush's advisors were warmongers and neocons. All Presidents depend on advisors as Obama would if he was elected, he has less experiance than Bush had.
I would dissagree with you to say the war in Iraq wasn't about bad judgement(if that is what you were implying), whether Bush chose to believe in eroneous intel or just wanted to secure oil feilds or what ever the motive, it was bad judgement to think it would be over quickly and not turn into a quagmire. I also think it was bad judgement not to focus on Bin ladin in Pakistan and Afganistan and avoid Iraq completly. I also think it was bad judgement to stretch our forces so thin as to have our fighting forces have repeated tours of duty in Iraq.
I think some conservetives did vote for Bush for his stated positions, obviously,some Reps bought the image he was selling, as did Dems and undecided, but Bush did not follow his campaign goals at all, that much is certain.
I guess that is my point about looking into character, judgement, associates and the way the candidate handles pressure in general. I agree that "image" or at least the image that the media sells us can be decieving, but these candidates are more than just the platform they are selling us and frequently do not follow it.