comments_image Comments

Hey, Sean Hannity, Here’s What a “Lapdog” Press Really Looks Like

The Fox talker whines about the media's leftist bias. Has he forgotten the Bush years?

Photo Credit: August


Perpetually fuming about President Obama, Sean Hannity widened his rant Wednesday night on Fox News and condemned the “lapdog, kiss ass media” that allegedly lets Obama have his way. Echoing the same attack, Karl Rove  wrote in the  Wall Street Journal this week that  Mr. Obama is a once-in-a-generation demagogue with a compliant press corps,” while the anti-Obama  Daily Caller pushed the headline, “Lapdog Media Seeking Lap To Lie In.”

Complaining about the “liberal media” has been a running, four-decade story for conservative activists. But what we’re hearing more of lately is the specific allegation that the press has purposefully laid down for the Democratic president, and that it’s all part of a master media plan to help Democrats foil Republicans.

The rolling accusation caught my attention since I wrote a book called  Lapdogs, which documented the Beltway media’s chronic timidity during the previous Republican administration, and particularly with regards to the Iraq War. I found it curious that Hannity and friends are now trying to turn the rhetorical tables with a Democrat in the White House, and I was interested in what proof they had to lodge that accusation against today’s press.

It turns out the evidence is quite thin. For instance, one never-ending  partisan cry has been the press has “ ignored” the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last year; that they’re protecting Obama. Yet the  New York Times and Washington Post have published nearly  800 articles and columns mentioning Benghazi since last September, according to Nexis.

What the lapdog allegation really seems to revolve around is the fact that conservatives are angry that Obama  remains popular with the public. Rather than acknowledge that reality, partisans increasingly blame the press and insist if only reporters and pundits would tell ‘the truth’ about Obama, then voters would truly understand how he’s out to destroy liberty and freedom and capitalism.

Sorry, but that’s not what constitutes a lapdog press corps. And to confuse chronic partisan whining with authentic media criticism is a mistake. The Hannity-led claim also isn’t accurate. Studies have shown that during  long stretches of his first term, Obama was  hammered with “unrelentingly negative” press coverage.

By contrast, the lapdog era of the Bush years represented nothing short of an  institutional collapse of the American newsroom. And it was one that, given the media’s integral role  in helping to sell the Iraq War, did grave damage to our democracy.

Looking back at his tenure as  Washington Post ombudsman, Michael Getler  wrote in 2005 that the mainstream media’s performance in 2002 and 2003 likely represented the industry’s worst failing in nearly half a century. “How did a country on the leading edge of the information age get this so wrong and express so little skepticism and challenge?” Getler asked.

Let’s recall some concrete examples of what helped the Bush era press rightfully  earn its title of lapdogs so we can understand why today’s conservative claims ring so hollow.

A defining trait of Bush’s obsequious press corps was its collective refusal to take seriously anti-war voices prior to the preemptive invasion of Iraq, even voices such as Democratic party stalwart Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). In September 2002, Kennedy made a passionate, provocative, and  newsworthy speech raising all sorts of doubts about the war, doubts that would later prove well-founded. The event garnered exactly one sentence — thirty-six words total — of coverage from the  Post.

The daily was hardly alone  in turning away from Kennedy’s prescient speech. The night of his address, Nightly News devoted just 32 words to it. On ABC’s  World News Tonight, it received 31 words, and on the  CBS Evening News, 40 words.

See more stories tagged with: