President's bully pulpit is not what it used to be

[NJMaverick]

Quote:Thus far, however, President Obama has had trouble taking his case directly to the public. This is ironic and puzzling since he was the candidate who dazzled Americans during the 2008 campaign, including many Republicans.
How can this be? Throughout the 20th century, presidents used the bully pulpit to win public support. President Theodore Roosevelt courted reporters and delivered major speeches, covered by most of the newspapers, on key legislation such as railroad regulation and food inspection.

Quote:But the current structure of the media has emasculated the bully pulpit. Regardless of how good a president is on the stump, it is almost impossible for him to command public attention, because there is no singular "media" to speak of. Instead, Americans receive their media through countless television stations and websites.
During the 1960s, when Presidents Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon spoke, the choice was to hear them or turn off the television and radio. Today, if President Obama wanted to conduct a fireside chat, it is doubtful that many people would be listening.
With the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the media were also able to shed the appearance of neutrality and objectivity. Every perspective did not have to receive equal time. On many television and radio stations, objective reporters have been replaced with openly partisan commentators. Any presidential message is quickly surrounded by polemical instant commentary that diminishes the power of what he says.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/11/ze...?hpt=po_t2

[jaxx]

Here's another one on that same subject from Chris Cillizza:

<..> Obama’s heightened public profile is a reminder of the power of the presidency. Obama knows that when he holds a press conference, every cable network will carry it live in its entirety — and then spend the remainder of the day poring over every pronouncement.

That level of coverage ensures that Obama can drive whatever message he likes into the public consciousness. Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and even the Republicans running for president in 2012 can’t hope to match that sort of presidential bully pulpit.

<..> With Obama driving the go-big-or-go-home message — and polling suggesting that the public would blame congressional Republicans more than the administration for a failure to raise the debt ceiling — the GOP leadership must decide how it can win the battle for public opinion as the Aug. 2 deadline approaches.

Obama is using every tool at his disposal, putting the pressure on Republicans to fight back.This week will be a telling indication of how they plan to do just that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...l_politics

I hope he keeps hammering the right and telling the public the pubs are hanging back and jeopardizing the country.

[DFW]

This is SO very true.

Obama could announce a simple, cheap, universal cure for cancer, the balancing of the budget and the perfection of cold nuclear fusion from sea water, providing an eternal supply of renewable energy, and within 10 seconds (or, in the case of Fox, before he was halfway through), some idiot commentator would be on the air tearing his words apart and trivializing them. They would appear on page 11 (if at all!) of every major newspaper in the country except the New York Times, and even then David Brooks and Jonah Goldberg would be given guest columns stating why a cure for cancer available to everyone is pure unadulterated socialism.

It's the old tree falling in the forest question. If Obama gives a brilliant speech, and all TV and radio stations ignore it, then did he really even give a speech? George W. Bush could hardly read "Fun With Dick And Jane," and yet American TV (to the extent that I saw it while I was there) broadcast his every word, coherent or not.

There is a well-paid job out there for a highly innovative Democratic media magician who can figure out how to get around this obstacle. As far as I can tell, the position remains unfilled.

[JuniperLea]

With any luck at all, it may be a little easier to take back the media in the near future... if Murdoch's downward spiral continues at this speed!

The rest of the world's press coverage is amazing... ours is barely mentioning it. This is a golden opportunity... will it be wasted?

We can't be fully effective until we take back the media. Dems are willing to trounce on their own when they do wrong... a strong, HONEST media would help everyone on so many levels.

[NJMaverick]

(07-11-2011 12:33 PM)JuniperLea Wrote:  With any luck at all, it may be a little easier to take back the media in the near future... if Murdoch's downward spiral continues at this speed!

The rest of the world's press coverage is amazing... ours is barely mentioning it. This is a golden opportunity... will it be wasted?

We can't be fully effective until we take back the media. Dems are willing to trounce on their own when they do wrong... a strong, HONEST media would help everyone on so many levels.

I would think another billionaire like the Koch brothers would bail FAUX news out. The right knows that station is too valuable to their cause.

[The Capitol Punisher]

It's absolutely true. And for the record, he does conduct fireside chats. Every week. And no one listens.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address

[Drunken Irishman]

Back in Obama's first year, he held a few primetime press conferences to discuss major issues facing America (the stimulus most notably) and the media started asking if he was getting too much face time. Forget that he was trying to explain why he was doing what he was doing and the gravity of our economic situation - the media felt he was over-saturating the market with his press conferences.

I think it explains the throw-away mentality of our society today. I follow people on Twitter when Obama speaks and they're dismissive because he's interrupting their television watching experience. To be fair, I often griped when Bush was on the air - but it doesn't make it right.

The President's words just don't carry near the power they used to and I think it ties back to the total devaluing of the office over the last 40 years.

It's similar to the respect shown for the office. You could have a dislike of the president's policies, but you respected the office.

That kind of died with the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War and Watergate. Americans lost total faith in their government throughout that span and have not regained it back. So they look at the president as a partisan figure who breaks into their regular scheduled programming to discuss something they don't care about.

If you're a Democrat, you listen. If you're a Republican, you probably tune him out. If you're an independent, you most likely half-watch and half-bitch on Facebook or Twitter.

Maybe I'm mixing two issues here, but I get the sense Americans just don't care much about the presidency anymore. It would explain why this country was so defeatist to the stolen election in 2000 and we dismiss the idea of ballot tampering (like what happened in Ohio). Not to say fraud didn't exist back in the 60s (just look at Illinois with Kennedy) - but nothing like we saw in 2000. The Supreme Court, not the voters, decided that election and outside a few thrown eggs and protest signs at Bush's inauguration, Americans did nothing.

Then you've got Republicans who are so disrespectful of not only the president, but the office, and it's not hard to see why he doesn't have near the perception of power as past presidents.

[windy]

Its not just republicans. Some democrats also have no respect for this president. I can no longer read/post on democratic underground. It is full of people who fail to apply critical thinking and seem to have a real hatred for the president. In many ways, they are no different than their counterparts on the right. A sad state of affairs.

[Willinois]

(07-11-2011 07:01 PM)windy Wrote:  Its not just republicans. Some democrats also have no respect for this president. I can no longer read/post on democratic underground. It is full of people who fail to apply critical thinking and seem to have a real hatred for the president. In many ways, they are no different than their counterparts on the right. A sad state of affairs.

Welcome to DFP. This site doesn't just have "Democrat" in the name. It's actually made up of Democrats. You may find that refreshing.

[Willinois]

I don't think you can sincerely write about this topic without pointing out the non-stop attack from Fox and talk radio. It's not just that there are more media sources. It's that there's this conservative infrastructure of media that will attack Obama no matter what he does.

Then the rest of the networks are garbage. And most left pundits decided to pile on instead of being a counterweight to Fox.