Compare And Contrast
Due to unprecedented reader demand (well, one reader who emailed me, at least), here is the gallery of TIME covers featuring the 43rd president.
And, conforming nicely to expectations, it is the Mr. Hyde of coverage compared to the Dr. Jekyll treatment given to his successor.
The difference, of course, being that Dubya’s tally appeared over a span of seven and a half years, whereas Barry’s have been concentrated into three years. In addition to the fact that Dubya will only make intermittent appearances from now on to distract from Barry’s ongoing clusterf*cks, while The One has years – nay, decades - of sycophantic coverage left to run.
Plus TIME is so far up Barry’s a*s with every single one of those covers that they can see daylight out the other end, with the Bush covers being almost equally consistent in their condescension.
If TIME were a person, I would very much like to skin it alive.
October 19th, 2009 at 13:40
Time isn’t worth the paper it is written on, unless it is cut into strips and hanging from a nail on the inside of an out house door.
Arby´s last blog ..Where’s the Wreath? – The Lakeside Speedway
October 19th, 2009 at 14:07
There is no liberal media. There is no bias. There is no escape. We will come for you too, in time.
October 19th, 2009 at 15:41
You will assimilated. Resistance is futile.
October 20th, 2009 at 08:28
Thank God we have Faux News to protect us and provide us the bright white beacon of truth.
October 20th, 2009 at 08:38
Ray, I’m going to stop answering this question because I can’t believe that Left-wingers still fail to comprehend it.
Every news channel should provide skeptical coverage of every president. In a world where the media remembers their proper role, that would be almost their sole function. When that is not the case, they are not disseminating news but propaganda.
And name me another news outlet that is even mildly critical of Obama?
Then think of the dozens and dozens of the largest tv shows/radio stations/magazines/newspapers that do nothing but give him unwavering and unquestioning support.
Do you like your news to do nothing but confirm the thoughts that you already have?
October 20th, 2009 at 09:36
“Do you like your news to do nothing but confirm the thoughts that you already have?”
–
Uhh, isn’t that what the right did with Faux News when W was in town? Didn’t Cheney exclusively watch Faux News? So we have one president that refuses anything to do with Faux News, and w the disaster and his fellow right wing delusionalists exclusively watch Faux News. Is there any news organization on the left that appears that aligned with the democrats? NYTimes? They had Kristol 2-3 times a week on the front page extolling the virtues of a nut job named Palin. They have Brooks 2-3 times a week on the front page, and whom I respect, and one of the few that can be called a right wing intellectual. A despised term on the right.
How many Pulitzers has Faux News won compared to the NYTimes?
NYTimes is currently running a 5 series piece on one its reporters captured and held by the Taliban for 7 months? Does Faux ever run stories like that?
Why does Faux News have numerous quality web sites, such as MediaMatters.org, denouncing it on a daily basis? Are there sites out there like that discussing NYTimes?
The only thing close on the right to the quality of NYTimes is the Wall Street Journal. It’s news seems fair, but their opinion writers are not even close to NYTimes in quality except possibly Peggy Noonan.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:18
“Uhh, isn’t that what the right did with Faux News when W was in town?”
Yaaawwwwwwwwwwn!
‘trac, you really need one of those beating the dead horse icons for some comments.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:59
Hey Ray, is that a Kool-Aid icon next to your name? One of those big juicy purple ones. In regards to one of your beacon of light news outlet. The NYT’s piece of one of it’s dumb ass journalist getting caught by the taliban…after they were told not to go to that area because it was extremely dangerous…but they went anyway…too bad they didn’t loose their head. It would have made great coverage for them. Oh.. let’s not forget the double standard the NYT has when it comes to coverage about someone being held by the taliban. Anyway…I really don’t need to go line by line with you. You can go back to your Kool-Aid, make sure your kids get a healthy dose.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:19
FKRghtWngrs, go count Faux News Pulitzers. Go count Faux news Nobel prize winners. Go count anything Faux does except bringing in the zealot right, who’s only being told what they want to hear.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:46
TAC, correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you showing the 27 covers for Obama and just 1 cover for w, just a short time ago?
October 20th, 2009 at 12:55
JC TAC, here is your link
http://trackacrat.com/time-magazine-%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1-obama/
Then you say contrast it with W, by clicking on the first link, which brings you to a single Time cover of w the doofus.
This is Faux reporting.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:57
I was and still am, Ray – what you’re thinking of is this post (and one of the links in the text at the bottom):
http://trackacrat.com/time-magazine-%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1%E2%99%A1-obama/
For that, I’d only picked out one of TIME’s Bush covers to illustrate the difference in tone of the coverage, whereas I’ve now gone through the TIME archives and gathered up all the Dubya covers that I could find.
October 20th, 2009 at 13:00
Ray, you’re being deliberately disingenuous.
In that post, I clearly state,
“And here, by way of comparison, is one of TIME’s covers for the previous president.”
ONE of TIME’s covers. You’re the one who’s claiming that that somehow meant that Bush featured on only one cover.
October 20th, 2009 at 13:05
Comon TAC
“And here, by way of comparison, is one of TIME’s covers for the previous president.”
is being disingenuous as why compare all of Obamas covers to “one” of w’s?
You could say, look at all the covers of w on Time, where Time indicates he’s lying. That’s what I notice. You could say they are picking on w for lying. Poor w.
October 20th, 2009 at 13:11
Ray, I made the comparison to show the differences both in quantity and tone of TIME’s coverage.
Barry has appeared on as many covers as Dubya, but in less than half the time.
And whereas the Dubya covers are almost exclusively negative, all of those featuring Barry sing his praises.
October 20th, 2009 at 13:19
But the quantity on the original post was very misleading. A very misleading comparison, where most readers would assume you were comparing the quantity and not the tone.
The press was very lenient with w after 9/11, given his incompetence and his lying about reasons to invade Iraq. The public nearly all stood behind the lying w, giving him the benefit of the doubt, after 9/11, and look where we are now.
How can we take the right serious about anything, when you have been so wrong about everything?
October 20th, 2009 at 14:21
“The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions (VIDEO)
Fox News has defended itself against administration criticism by saying the White House has confused its pundit shows with its news programs. But the network constantly, misleadingly disparages Obama and his administration in its supposedly straight reporting. Here are the ten of the worst examples; there are many more.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html
December 16th, 2009 at 01:05
Amazing! 8 years in office for Bush, and Obama equals the number of Time covers in 11 months.
Is this another unprecedented change, or did Clinton have as many covers in his first year?
Terry_Jim´s last blog ..The Opposite of Depression
December 16th, 2009 at 01:09
A solid B+, there, ‘Time’.
Terry_Jim´s last blog ..The Opposite of Depression
December 16th, 2009 at 10:21
TJ – welcome! Have added your site to my blogroll.