The American Spectator

Presswatch

The Honeymooners

By James Taranto from the March 2009 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

Imagine the howls of outrage if George W. Bush had tried that. And the contrasts between the press's attitudes toward Obama and his predecessor extended to matters of substance— including areas in which Obama was moving away from his own campaign promises and toward Bush's positions.

On January 12, the Associated Press reported that "Obama is preparing to issue an executive order his first week in office—and perhaps his first day—to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay"— just as he had promised. But the AP saved the actual news for the second paragraph:

It's unlikely the detention facility at the Navy base in Cuba will be closed anytime soon. In an interview last weekend, Obama said it would be "a challenge" to close it even within the first 100 days of his administration.

By the end of that week, the Washington Post was reporting that Obama had said in an interview that "he will consider it a failure if he has not closed the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of his first term in office." Obama's promises to close Guantanamo may end up meaning as much as Bush's. At least the New York Times anticipated this. It published an article noting that a "review of the government's public files underscores the challenges of fulfilling that promise"—on November 3. The day before Obama's election, that is, the Times discovered that Guantanamo was filled with terrorists.

Similarly, in a January 11 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama backed away from his position that intelligence agencies interrogating terrorists should be bound by the Army Field Manual.

"We shouldn't be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric," Obama told Stephanopoulos. Pressed for specifics, Obama would say only that he believes waterboarding is "torture." Three days later, a National Public Radio commentator opined, "The moral issues related to torture are not a slam-dunk." Now he tells us!

On domestic policy, too, both Obama and the press showed themselves to be far more flexible than during the campaign and the Bush years. The funniest example was a New York Times editorial calling for a tax increase but sympathizing with Obama's evident decision not to push for one just yet:

We also acknowledge that a tax increase on the rich, though feasible, could backfire in these tense times. Because it is hard to explain and easy to demagogue, it could foster a confusing debate that might impair confidence just when confidence needs to be revived.

But even if he skips the income tax increase this year, Mr. Obama must press for increases in coming years.

If the Times finds its own editorial position "hard to explain," perhaps that is because it is wrong—or because the Times editorialists aren't very good at their jobs.

IN A JANUARY 7 interview with CNBC, Obama gave another indication that the press's love for him may be unrequited. "I very rarely read good press," the president-elect told host John Harwood. "I often read bad press, not because I agree with it, but because I want to get a sense of, are there areas where I'm falling short and I can do better?"

Yet during the transition at least, even conservative commentators were frequently favorable toward Obama—in part out of respect for the office, in part because he had moved away from many of his left-wing campaign promises, and in part because, ideology aside, the inauguration of the first black president was a milestone nearly everyone could celebrate.

So where does Obama go to read "bad press"? Let's just hope the president isn't getting all his news from the Guardian.

Letter to the Editor