If the media and other public figures were behind the president would he still be looked on unfavorably?

Question

Do you think if the media and other public figures were constantly behind President Bush and his policies do you think that there would be as much animosity toward him. For instance, if they reported everything in a favorable manner, such as reporting how many terrorists and insurgents have been killed as a counter instead of our brave men and women. Or if they reported how intelligence was the flaw and blamed someone else. What if the media reported that we were winning the war everyday and showed happy photos of Iraqis constantly with servicemen?

Answer 1

The news media wields far less power than they (or we) think. They thought if they told us we hate Bush enough, we might start to believe it. They had Bush trounced in the last election.
It turns out their version of the truth is far from it. I think you'll find Bush has a lot more support today than the media would like you to believe.

Answer 2

This man is bad and always will be. He is a war monger and should be tried as a war criminal. The US or anyone else shouldn't be invading other sovereign nations without massive Worldwide support and the support of the UN. The US had neither of these things. Hans Blix hadn't even finished his inspections. The Iraqi people are in many ways worse off than they were and the interference in their country from the US is unwarranted and unnecessary and is achieving nothing. Indeed, it is causing much pain and misery, not to mention destabilising the Middle East even further, together with the supply and price of oil. The Iraqi people in general are not happy with the US occupation of their country and that is why you don't see happy smiling faces. Bush has unleashed a guerrilla war that could go on for decades like Vietnam and there is no way of winning this kind of warfare using a huge millitary machine like the US. Ineffective people that are very bad at their job stick out without the media having anything to do with it. Jules, lecturer. Australia.

Answer 3

Let me see if I've got this straight. Conservatives don't trust the media because it's too liberal, hates conservatives and lies, and liberals don't trust the media because it's run by self serving, giant corporations whose bottom line is more important than truth.
So, my friend, who trusts the media?
I, myself have not read a newspaper for hard news since 1996 and even then I knew most of it was BS. I haven't watched TV news since Reagan and have stopped watching TV altogether three years ago.
Finally, I would add that in another debacle the US was in the media did exactly what you are saying we should do now. I was a boy but I remember the "body counts" and the generals saying we've got those commies on the run. It wasn't until the release of The Pentagon Papers that we found out how the government lied us into that war.
Tell me this, if you were an Iraqi and your picture was printed showing you consorting with US personnel, how long do you think you would live? Also, please tell me how lying about something is supposed to make me feel better. I am not that lacking in self esteem that I need someone to lie to me to make me feel better.

Answer 4

The media puts spin on everything. It used to be news, now it's only commentary. One set of standards for Bush, a very different one for Clinton.
When Clinton said Hussein was bad and had to be removed it was good, but Bush lied. When De Lay was accused, he's guilty, W. Jefferson is being discriminated against. Private citizen Pat Robertson says take out Chavez-bad, a Clinton white house staffer George Stephanopoulos said the same thing while in office-that was OK. If a Conservative tells, it's a leak, if a liberal, he's a celebrated whistle-blower. Hillary is strong, Rice is pushy. Rove diabolical, Dean determined. On & on.

Answer 5

Not by those easily swayed by the constant bombardment of the media blitzkrieg. I think that the media should report the positive things. They have as much responsibility to tell the whole truth as anyone else. But also like anyone else, they can tell their version of the truth as they see fit. There is no constitutional requirement for the "free press" to tell the truth. It says that they are free to print what they want. We're free to not buy it. Or better yet, and this one is going to hurt folks on the the left and right, check their facts for yourself before you believe it. Accepting things at face value is one of the easiest things to do, and one of the most dangerous. That goes for both sides boys and girls.

Answer 6

Of course not. Everyone knows the media is capable of steering whole society's opinions positive or negative.

Example; Today women voted for the first time in history in Kuwait. If Clinton (or any democrat) was president, the media would have hailed and worshiped his hard work making freedom of vote possible for a whole gender. Women would have swooned at his manliness and dedication. Since a republican is president, you won't even hear about it.

Answer 7

Yep, that's a good point. I believed we were going to lose because of the media fervor toward Kerry until I saw the election coverage.

Answer 8

I think so..... Because he is, who he is, the President of our United States. He gets blamed for everything thats negative.

People twist the truth.... Ohhhhh.... I mean, didnt you know, he has our men & women over in Iraq for his own personal gain, which is oil, so he can get richer..... Yeah right, isnt that a good one?

Answer 9

He would by me!

Answer 10

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!