CJR’s Jane Kim to political reporters gearing up for Wednesday (you know, President Obama’s 100th Day? Report card day?): “Let’s go substantive on 100-day coverage.”
The Associated Press, for one, finds a clever way around Kim’s call for substance (emphasis mine): “100 days of transformation for new first lady.”
Who would ever have thought that Michelle Obama would be transformed from a potential campaign liability into America’s newest sweetheart and No. 1 cover girl, every bit as popular as her husband.Michelle Obama’s first 100 days in the White House really began more than 365 days ago in Wisconsin…
More from Kim:
[P]erhaps the press can take the hundred-day mark, swivel the spotlight, which seems trained on Obama-the-person-who-could-maybe-might-do-it-all, and turn it onto the issues themselves—the budget, the stimulus, the oversight, the transparency decisions, Ledbetter, where we are on health care and energy….
And, the AP on “issues”:
She is popular as the president, maybe more. Depending on the poll, she has approval ratings in the 60s and 70s. Practically the only issue being debated these days, silly as it seems, is whether she goes sleeveless too much and for the wrong occasions.
Popularity is what Mrs. Obama has achieved in her First 100 Days. Specifically, according to the AP:
In the eyes of many people, the image of an angry woman was transformed into one of a happy, doting mother…
…thanks, “maybe,” to
the three F’s: family, food, and fashion.
I just lost several brain cells. I think I might be starting to lean Republican.
#1 Posted by Shii, CJR on Mon 27 Apr 2009 at 04:44 PM
We should find another word to call some journalists. They are a disgrace to the profession. Instead of examining their own performance, they tend to blame the person being covered when they cover something inane and are criticized for it. Does Michelle Obama's every move need to be covered? Is her sneezing a news event? Following her coverage, one would think so. It is not that she isn't saying substantial things (granted she is not the President and shouldn't be making as much news). She goes to a cabinet department and lays what Obama's budget would mean for that department and we see a story on how she wore a dress by Jason Wu and how she was sleeveless. It is not that she is issuing press releases on which designer clothes she will be wearing or whether she will be sleeveless or not. At least, not that I know of. So apparently, some journalist believe that her going sleeveless and whether she is wearing Jason Wu or Maria Pinto is more important than her telling the employees how the proposed budget would increase funding for their agency. "Journalists" certainly don't disappoint in covering the frivolous and trivial.
No wonder journalist were, for the most part, in lock-step in reporting that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction (delusion?)" when we invaded their country.
#2 Posted by J Boud, CJR on Tue 28 Apr 2009 at 08:41 AM
You might lose even more brain cells. You'll probably be better leaving party labels and voting for candidates who come up with good ideas. Admittedly, there are very few around these days.
#3 Posted by Sarah P, CJR on Tue 28 Apr 2009 at 08:43 AM