Why is the media giving a president who has had roughly a 50% approval rating

[WI_DEM]

in nearly all the polls for several months such a hard time. I think it's amazing--given what he inherited and how bad unemployment still is--that he rates as high as he does. He rates higher than Reagan or Clinton did at comparable times in their presidencies and yet the media rarely if ever admits that--and he's at least 20 plus points better than the Chimp was in most polls in the final three years of his presidency. I know this much the media is working overtime to make sure the GOP does win back congress in November.

[damntexdem]

1. Because they tote the line of their corporate masters.

Anyone with any sense ignores their nonsense.

[Spazito]

2. Well, if they reported the real numbers...

71% of Americans have confidence in the President and only 29% have no confidence (the REAL poll results) they would lose the bonus they are paid to distort the facts and that would NEVER do.

[Kablooie]

3. It's a communist plot to destroy the country. Just like fluoridation.

Our precious bodily fluids must be preserved.

(I just saw Dr. Strangelove)

[daa]

4. Read it and weep

this guy got impeached and his ratings continued to go up his entire presidency:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

[Spazito]

5. LOL, you do know the down lines mean lower numbers, don't you...

Bill Clinton's 1993-2001 Term Average:
55%



Bill Clinton's First-Term Average:
50%



Bill Clinton's Second-Term Average:
61%



Bill Clinton's High Point:
73%

(Dec 19-20, 1998)



Bill Clinton's Low Point:
37%

( Jun 5-6, 1993)

Please explain to me how his "ratings continued to go up his entire Presidency"?

[FrenchieCat]

6. Because they want the tax cut for the upper 5% to be made permanent.....

and only a Republican Congress can get that done.

This means billions in tax revenues, and none of them
want to pay it....including most of those who work
for the media in these high paying pundit jobs.

It's sad that they care more about themselves
than this country, but they do.

[Phx_Dem]

7. Because they think it's their job to "level the playing field, and

since the Rpeublicans are in the shitter, that means dragging the President down to balance things out. It's unbelievable that these morons think it's their job to create balance among the parties, and more unbelievable that they are allowed to get away with it!

Of course, they only do it when it's the Republicans who are circling the drain. When the Dems are in the toilet, no problem.

[impik]

8. Because they want him out as soon as possible. Because he's black. Because he

couldn't care less about the media, because they're GOP whores.

[old mark]

9. He's black, he's smart, he's a democrat, he's popular and he's scaring a lot of

republicans...


mark

[11 Bravo]

10. Because they read DU?

[Enthusiast]

11. Well, it's a corporate agenda

and it's a corporate media.

[quaker bill]

12. Horse races are only newsworthy

if the competition has a realistic shot at winning. The media is biased toward having something to fill the airwaves. If the republicans were viewed as a joke with no real chance of taking power, they would have to discuss something else, perhaps something that might require real reporting. Real reporting is expensive.

Reporting on the horse race is cheap, the political flacks come to them for airtime. The bias is toward getting cheap and easy content to fill the hours. Lurid details of political mis-steps and dalliances are potent fodder for the ratings war.

[Jennicut]

13. Because they are a bunch of hacks and because they are essentially working for big corps.

Who favors the big corps more? Dems will never have the love of Wall St., big media, big corps. Rethugs just give these groups more of what they want (not that Dems don't give in as well, it is just not on the same level). Simple answer. And real journalism? Pretty much near dead except for a very few like Rachel Maddow.

[saltpoint]

14. There are a lot of people in cable news and the media

generally who would struggle to feed themselves, let alone provide investigative reporting to viewers on key issues.

Brit Hume comes to mind, for example.

Wolf Blitzer.

And right on down the list. The bozo factor is big. I think it's healthy to do media blackouts several times a year and just read stuff here and there instead, then maybe do a zooms-lens drop in on Rachel or have a look at a profile piece in THE NEW YORKER.

A couple of weeks ago THE NEW YORKER ran a profile piece on Mike Huckabee which was more complete than the sum of everything CNN has offered on him in 4 years.