It was one of the last questions yesterday at another of the town hall meetings that President Bush has been filling his schedule with lately — this one in West Virginia. A woman stood up and first let Bush know that, like almost every other questioner before her, she too had the leader of the free world in her prayers: “I want to let you know that every service at our church you are, by name, lifted up in prayer, and you and your staff and all of our leaders.”
Then she asked, “from the bottom of [her] heart,” for the president to help her understand why “it seems that our major media networks don’t want to portray the good. They just want to focus on another car bomb, or they just want to focus on some more bloodshed, or they just want to focus on how they don’t agree with you and what you’re doing, when they don’t even probably know how you’re doing what you’re doing anyway.”
And the crowd went wild. Her accusation-posed-as-question, at least among the hundreds in the audience who regularly pray for Bush, was met with a standing ovation.
If Karl Rove were lurking in the wings, he probably made this mental note to himself: “Keep attacking.”
Given the stream of disparaging comments about the press over the past few days — from the president, from the vice president, from Donald Rumsfeld — this seems to have become strategy.
The attack, as far as we can tell, has two discernable forms. Let’s hold them up to the light for a moment.
The first is one Bush himself has drawn on repeatedly. It goes like this: the media, by covering the violence, is actually a catalyst for the violence. It’s a preposterous claim, we think, but that doesn’t stop the president from making it. Listen to Bush at his press conference Tuesday, addressing the press directly about its coverage of violence: “I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t talk about it. I’m certainly not being — you know, please don’t take that as criticism. But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemy’s capability to affect the debate, and they know that; they’re capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show.” (Emphasis added.)
There is a whole world-view exposed here — one that sees the media wittingly or unwittingly in cahoots with the enemy. The qualifier, “I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t talk about it,” is quickly followed with the assertion that terrorists blow up people because they know their acts will be captured on television. No media, no blowing up people, so stop covering the bombings. (Remember, this is the man who joked or seriously suggested (pick one) to Tony Blair that Al Jazeera be bombed — what happened to that story?)
The other form of criticism, the one that has gained more currency, is the complaint that the reports of car bombs, IEDs, and reprisal killings should be balanced more with more positive developments in Iraq — to borrow the West Virginia woman’s words, the “reconstruction, the medical things going on,” or, to borrow Bush’s words, “footage of children playing or shops opening and people resuming their normal lives.”
Well, USA Today has an article that offers a sobering reminder of all the significant reasons why “it seems that our major media networks don’t want to portray the good.”