by Brent Baker
On last week’s Early Show, CBS's Jane Clayson made the usual media assumption that Bush, “as a CEO President,” must “convince the public” that he “is not aligned with the corporate greed.” But a USA Today/CNN poll done by Gallup in late July discovered that, as USA Today reported it, “an overwhelming 72 percent thought the experience Bush and Cheney had as corporate executives was a good thing.”
Clayson asked White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey on the August 13 program: “How difficult has it been, Mr. Lindsey, to convince the public that the President as a CEO President is not aligned with the corporate greed that we've been seeing in corporate America?”
A poll found it's a lot easier for the public than the media. In an August 7 “Money” section story, USA Today reporter Susan page relayed: “In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken July 26-28, an overwhelming 72 percent thought the experience Bush and Cheney had as corporate executives was a good thing. But the public was evenly split 42%-42% on whether it was a good idea or a bad one for a President to have former corporate executives in key jobs.”
The headline for that story: “Corporate credentials weigh down Bush's team.” The subhead: “Former executives, once assets, become political baggage.”
Forgetfulness or a Double Standard?
Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz rebuked one of his Post colleagues for labeling conservatives but not liberals in an August 11 profile of Cornel West, but he also rationalized the specific disparity before declaring: “This sort of imbalance does create the perception of unfairness.”
The dialogue was transcribed as follows:
“Washington, D.C.: Why does the Post insist on slapping the 'conservative' label on right-wing organizations and advocates, but rarely puts the 'liberal' label on left-wingers? It happened again in Sunday's story on Cornel West. The National Review and Shelby Steele were both identified as 'conservative,' while Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader and Al Sharpton weren't given any label at all. Is this forgetfulness or is there a double-standard?”
Kurtz replied: “That's a problem. I think reporters need to be more careful about this sort of one-sided labeling. You could argue that everyone knows where Jackson, Nader and Sharpton stand while Steele is less well known, but this sort of imbalance does create the perception of unfairness.”
For the text of the entire session, click here.
(This update courtesy of the Media Research Center.)
