It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Bush definitely received different - and worse - treatment from both the press and ordinary citizens than Obama is receiving.

Check out this news analysis comparing events in 2002 with events happening today.

news analysis


News outlets that are focusing on the incendiary rhetoric of conservatives outside President Obama's town hall meeting Tuesday ignored the incendiary rhetoric -- and even violence -- of liberals outside an appearance by former President George W. Bush in 2002.

When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.


But only the current protesters are being labeled as "un-American", racists and worse.

Double standard and outright hypocrisy at their worst.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
And then there is also this commentary from the Wall Street Journal:

article


It shouldn’t have been surprising, either, that the tone of much of the commentary on the town-hall protests was what it was. There was Mark Halperin for one, senior political editor for Time, bouncing off his chair, Sunday, in agitation over all the media coverage of this rowdiness—“a horrible breakdown of our political culture, our media culture” and so “bad for America,” as he told CNN’s Howard Kurtz. “I’m embarrassed about what’s going on, as an American.” The disruptions and coverage thereof distorted serious discussion, he explained. Mark Shields said much the same on Friday’s PBS NewsHour, if with less excitation, pointing out that these events were “not good for the democratic process,” and were a breakdown of civil debate.

There was no such hand-wringing over the decline of civil debate, during, say, election 2004, when cadres of organized demonstrators carrying swastika-adorned pictures of George W. Bush routinely swarmed about, and packed rallies. There was also that other “breakdown of our media culture,” that will dwarf all else as a cause for embarrassment, the town-hall coverage included, for the foreseeable future. That would be, of course, the undisguised worshipful reporting of the candidacy of Barack Obama.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Aha but you forget, protesting was cool when Bush jr was in office. Now it's un-American and hateful. This reminds me of the article I saw on Olbermann.



In 2003, Olbermann saluted protests: “It is political dissent that created this country and sustained it and improved it.” But on Friday’s Countdown, Olbermann called the anti-Obama protests “societal sabotage,” determined that the grassroots groups are “fake” and insisted that “the protestors are not interested in hearing any voices other than their own.”



newsbusters.org...



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Aha but you forget, protesting was cool when Bush jr was in office. Now it's un-American and hateful. This reminds me of the article I saw on Olbermann.



In 2003, Olbermann saluted protests: “It is political dissent that created this country and sustained it and improved it.” But on Friday’s Countdown, Olbermann called the anti-Obama protests “societal sabotage,” determined that the grassroots groups are “fake” and insisted that “the protestors are not interested in hearing any voices other than their own.”



newsbusters.org...


Like I said, hypocrisy at its worst - with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann caught leading the way.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
You know, I have given some thought to this and I have a theory. This seems like a good thread to see if it holds water.

During the Bush years, public opinion eventually skewed -- according to polls -- against Bush. Therefore the idea that people were being hateful in protesting Bush was not that novel. It wasn't interesting in the eyes of editors, thus no ratings, thus no coverage.

Right now, Obama is -- according to polls -- still in favor of Obama. Therefore the idea of being hateful in protesting Obama is novel and thus will provide ratings and more coverage.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I'd like to take Politics for 1000$ Alex...


"And the clue is....

A form of government where powerful leaders within the corporate sector use their wealth and influence to gain control over all facets of government."


*Buzzes in*

What is Fascism Alex?

_____
For some reason I figured this would fit right into your thread Cent, always enjoy reading your posts.

Your 100% correct about your observations I think.


[edit on 12-8-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
You know, I have given some thought to this and I have a theory. This seems like a good thread to see if it holds water.

During the Bush years, public opinion eventually skewed -- according to polls -- against Bush. Therefore the idea that people were being hateful in protesting Bush was not that novel. It wasn't interesting in the eyes of editors, thus no ratings, thus no coverage.

Right now, Obama is -- according to polls -- still in favor of Obama. Therefore the idea of being hateful in protesting Obama is novel and thus will provide ratings and more coverage.


Interesting theory - except that the violent protests outlined above against Bush were in 2002, right after 9/11. So, using that, Obama deserves and gets no free pass.




top topics



 
1

log in

join