What if George W. Bush had done that?

One of the complaints conservatives have made recently is that if George W. Bush had done what President Obama had done the media would have gone crazy.

The latest in the craziness is an article, "What if George W. Bush had done that?" in Politico by Josh Gerstein, implying conservatives say, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

Yes, how does Obama get away with, especially after the media was so tough on George W. Bush. Can you imagine the press writing a piece entitled "Mr. Bush Catches A Washington Break"?

Oh, wait that WAS an actual article, but it was from 2001, just a few months after Bush took office. Not like today. Anyway how could anyone one expect Mr. Gerstein to find that article or even less likely talk to the person who wrote the article. I mean how could he find the article's author, John Harris?

Wait, John Harris? Isn't he the Editor-in-Chief of Politico? Politico, the same place Mr. Gerstein works? Oh. But still Mr. Gerstein would have picked up the intercom or walked across the office and asked Mr. Harris "What if George W. Bush had done that?"

What would he found out? Well, Mr. Harris, as he said in his article, might have pointed out that "The truth is, this new president has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton. Take it from someone who made a living writing about those uproars."

But that wasn't his most important point, which was "Above all, however, there is one big reason for Bush's easy ride: There is no well-coordinated corps of aggrieved and methodical people who start each day looking for ways to expose and undermine a new president."

Instead Obama is facing an organized effort, in many cases led by Fox "News", to fight him at every step of the way. Bush, on the other hand, found the media, well as Rahm Emanuel pointed out "The Washington press corps has become like little puppy dogs," he said. "You scratch them on the tummy and they roll right over."

And they did roll over for several years. Today, apparently to conservatives, the problem is that the media isn't in full attack mode like Fox is.

Why Attack Fox?

Many journalists have wondered over the past few weeks why the Obama Administration was attacking Fox "News." Conservatives, like Tucker Carlson, darkly intoned that the the Administration was trying to "silence" Fox "News."

Hardly. Anyone who thinks they could silence a major network is crazy. (Then again the White House attack on Dan Rather and CBS pretty much ended any reporting into George Bush's National Guard duty.)

Instead perhaps the White House is just looking to shame Fox "News" into acting like a real network, you know, not calling a fist bump a terrorist fist bump, not turning a Newsweek article that calls Fox's action "Un-American" into a claim that the Administration is "Un-American," and having polls with more than pro-Fox answers.

Now no one is expecting Fox to provide the fawning coverage the Bush Administration received in features like "Fighting to the Finish." No, that type of "Dear Leader" propaganda is probably reserved for the next Republican President.

And no one expects Fox to move from its "Hunting of the President" mode to "On Bended Knee," but perhaps when the Fox soldiers fight on against Obama they might try and actually use facts rather than fiction.

One can dream, can't they?

Why is FOX "News" Still Dishonest?

Fox "News" tries to present it self as an honest news outlet, with its slogan - "We Report. You Decide." Yet anyone visiting their site today comes away thinking their true slogan is "We Distort, You're Deceived."

On the site was their poll saying "The White House is still attacking Fox "News", 10 days after its original comments. Why?" Now few people put much value in an internet poll, especially one on the Fox "News" site. The keys to a poll's accuracy are solid questions and a random audience. Granted Fox can't control who answers the questions, but they can control the questions.

So what are the questions?

• They want to shoot the messenger
• They don't have a good case to make
• They confuse News and Opinion
• I don't know

Hmm, how about "Fox "News" IS biased? Nope, not single option to offer anything other the Fox "News" party line. And conservatives complain about Obama supporters not willing to stomach any dissent. Sounds like the conservatives are those people in reality.

Unfortunately all of this is uncomfortable for the media and the drum beat of the people asking them to investigate the so-called news practices of Fox "News" are growing louder. Media "critics" like the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz say "When Fox does something that I find questionable, such as Sean Hannity unfairly truncating an Obama sound bite or a Fox producer whipping up a protest crowd to get a better live shot, I'm critical," yet stuff like this happens on a daily, or possibly hourly basis. How often does Kurtz really bother to investigate Fox? (But then who could stomach it?)

While Fox may be loving this so-called War on Fox, in reality it is a War on Obama and Fox "News" is leading the charge and the media are bystanders, letting the profession they work in be tarnished by Fox. Do they not care or do they not want to care?

The Need for a Truth Commission

While it will never happen, as it would uncover too many rocks the press would prefer to not have uncovered, it would be nice for the Washington Post and the New York Times to institute a "Truth Commission" to examine what happened with their reporting of the Whitewater "scandal" in the 1990s.

Recently Thomas Friedman of the New York Times pointed out that "The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal"" and in a review in the Washington Post (shocking!) admitted that "the New York Times and The Washington Post, along with the networks and news magazines...were part of a giant scandal machine that dominated official Washington in the first few years after the Cold War."

Yet while the Washington Post lead the investigation into the accuracy of Jayson Blair's articles and CBS had an outside investigator looking into sourcing of a story on George Bush "war" record, there is little interest in looking back at Whitewater. Sure, way back in 1996 or so Gene Lyons wrote Fool For Scandal which showed how lacking the media reports were on Whitewater. Unfortunately the mainstream media wasn't interested. Later they admitted that just possibly they overreacted but oh well.

Today Dan Rather's credibility is severely challenged by a "review" of his 60 Minutes story on George W. Bush. Yet the Post and Times reporter continue with only those few educated on the issue knowing that their biased reporting eventually helped convince enough people in Florida (whose votes were actually counted) to "elect" George W. Bush. This led to the possibly worst presidency in American history.

Perhaps the reporters are very pleased with the work they have done and that very few people will every know.