Saturday, October 09, 2004

Posted here Saturday, October 09, 2004 at 4:00:29 AM     What is difficult to understand is why the press needs to be so weak in its analysis of the obvious - Bush is not presidential in character, tone or intelligence. The need last night of major commentators to say "equal" was barely overcome by such a great disparity as to be humiliating. The anger and character issue slowly emerge, but the audience is leading the press. How does a press talk about such issues without seeming subjective? Simple things, like fact checking, looking at argument coherence, and talking about what is not talked about, are all news. My guess is that it takes the same qualities in a reporter as we wish we had in a president.  Emotional maturity, experience, broad understanding of history and politics. The reporters are looking for the angle that can be brought to the level of standard myth - of which we have so few. Win-lose being the major one. I interviewed in 1971 a key aid to McNamara when he was secretary of defense. He said "When I wake up in the morning there is one issue: how to get my stuff on the front burner so McNamara's car stops by my house and picks me up on the way in." The reporter is looking for the one line that makes the story. But it has to fit the editor's judgment and the pulse of the people so they will want more. ********