Presidential Nominations on the News
Is it me or are there more presidentially nominated politicians, judges, committees in this president's term than ever before?? Maybe the media is just noticing it more...
I'll admit that the media does aim a fair amount of scrutiny at the Bush administration. But I justly use the word "fair." The presidency was always meant to have a large system of checks and balances which includes not only the judicial and legislative systems (both of which having lost a little power during this reign-- I mean, administration), but in the "watchdog" media. Perhaps there is no Woodward or Bernstein of our generation, but the media is ever eager to find the innerworkings and secrets of Dubya and his crew. And all is right with the world. Ok, the media is biased: granted. Yes, there is a certain amout of sensationalism added for spice to every story the news presents, especially on TV and in generous amounts within the more liberal of the newscasters. But I'd be awfully worried if the American public and our media were to just watch the administration take our country to war, pass amendments to the centuries-old Constitution, or make a move in international politics without questioning motives, consequences, alternatives, etc. I don't think it's too naive to expect the American Press to step up to their duty to examine the presidency down to even the minutia of his political actions.
I do, however, believe that a president, even in time of high political tension, is still a person and has the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness -- including privacy to some extent. As is the case with Hollywood royalty, the nation's leaders must expect and accept a certain amount of media attention to their personal lives. But honestly? I don't give a rat's ass who Bill Clinton slept with (or received favors from, or what he smoked and whether he inhaled). I think he was a charismatic and well-intentioned Chief and I'd reelect him any day.
I'll admit that the media does aim a fair amount of scrutiny at the Bush administration. But I justly use the word "fair." The presidency was always meant to have a large system of checks and balances which includes not only the judicial and legislative systems (both of which having lost a little power during this reign-- I mean, administration), but in the "watchdog" media. Perhaps there is no Woodward or Bernstein of our generation, but the media is ever eager to find the innerworkings and secrets of Dubya and his crew. And all is right with the world. Ok, the media is biased: granted. Yes, there is a certain amout of sensationalism added for spice to every story the news presents, especially on TV and in generous amounts within the more liberal of the newscasters. But I'd be awfully worried if the American public and our media were to just watch the administration take our country to war, pass amendments to the centuries-old Constitution, or make a move in international politics without questioning motives, consequences, alternatives, etc. I don't think it's too naive to expect the American Press to step up to their duty to examine the presidency down to even the minutia of his political actions.
I do, however, believe that a president, even in time of high political tension, is still a person and has the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness -- including privacy to some extent. As is the case with Hollywood royalty, the nation's leaders must expect and accept a certain amount of media attention to their personal lives. But honestly? I don't give a rat's ass who Bill Clinton slept with (or received favors from, or what he smoked and whether he inhaled). I think he was a charismatic and well-intentioned Chief and I'd reelect him any day.
posted by Jess at 8:47 PM
2 Comments:
I think it's paritally that the media is noticing nominees more, partially that we're getting older/maturing and paying closer attention to this admin than we are to previous administrations (this is true for me, anyway), and technology is contiually evolving to provide more and more media or pseudo-media venues (take blogging, for instance).
I too agree that even world leaders should be allowed some amount of privacy. Like you, I also don't care that Clinton smoked himself some weed. But really, that's largely because I liked Clinton. Would I be so so quick to extend similar clemency to Dubya? Maybe. Maybe not. I do know that I'm more likely to pounce on his actions a bit faster than normal because I don't like him as much as other leaders. Is that fair? Doesn't really seem to be, but I'm not sure why.
Perhaps it is not fair, but had he earned my favor with his political actions, his personal flub ups and mishappenings wouldn't irk me so much.
It's funny, I don't think I care that Bush tried his hand at things either... Maybe it's just that I'm okay with drugs? Whatever.
Good use of the word clemency, btw.
Post a Comment
<< Home