Probably so the typeface can be bigger, with a punchier headline.
It's not uncommon. Usually you'll see President used on first reference, with Mr. used occasionally after that. It's not a slam.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
That is quality reporting.
Front page news: WORLD'S UGLIEST DOG CROWNED
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, I have noticed that it seems to be all the time. Mr. Bush this Mr. Bush that. The press seems to never call him President Bush. Get President Clinton on there though it’s constantly former President Clinton.
It’s WV, ugly dogs are all around so it’s big news! Lots of local women entered. Err….. I mean. *runs fast before the tomatoes go flying* (just kidding!!)
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I believe the rules of writing say that you refer to the President as President Bush the first time, then Mr. Bush thereafter. Or something like that.
Didn't we have this discussion already?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So would the headline or the start of a news story be the right time to call him President Bush?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Depends. As a rule, shorter, punchier headlines are better. More attention getting, larger type face, even if you sacrifice a bit of accuracy.
It's certainly debatable whether it should have been done, but I wouldn't read any disrespect into it. And yes, I rember Clinton being referred to as Mr. Clinton before.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It says "President" right below the massive picture of him. Is it really that big a deal?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I'm amused that you're upset by the newspaper using "mr." when the majority of news stories I've seen only use the person's last name, which I consider less polite than using a title before the name.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
It is common journalistic practice to refer to world leaders as Mr. (or Ms. or Mrs.) rather than by title or the more rude practice of calling them just by their last names. As far as headlines go, I commonly see the president, and not this one but all of them in the past, referred to just by his last name. Think of it as a cost-saving measure: President takes more ink than Mr. in newspapers.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And of course, Dubya takes up a lot less room than Mad King George the Second.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But it doesn't have nearly the flair.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I suppose it's more professional than "Welcome, Mr. Prez!" Or what I might've put if pressed for space. As it is, it works out just fine.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What about a massive W instead of anything else?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's an interesting quandry. Many people feel that the press should respect the office of President to such a degree that nothing could ever be construed as negative.
I think a lot MORE people feel that this level of respect should be granted to Presidents they admire, all others being fair game.
I think the Right wing in this country is obsessed with how the press is portraying it, its programs, and its leaders. They believe this stems from a liberal bias in the press (in general) and unabashed bashing of their guy/programs/ideals in the press, while loving portrayals of liberal issues/candidates/etc. are the norm.
It's interesting to me that even though the right has pretty much taken over talk radio, and has managed to gain outright (and unabashed) control of major news networks (Fox), their cries if anything are becoming more strident.
The recent attack on NPR is a case in point. That "network" does more than any other to not only document its balanced approach, but it actually has controls in place to monitor and protect its fair-time mandate. Yet the right views NPR as among the most aggregious liberal mouthpiece. So much so that some right wing congressmen are trying to force a congressionally-appointed oversight on the place.
Interestingly enough, while I used to think of NPR as fairly liberal (in every sense of that phrase), I now consider them sort of washed out and wimpy. They go so far in giving equal time that they are giving crackpots a place to voice stupid and ill-justified positions just in order to meet some mandate that they be fair to people who are doing bad things but just happen to be in the government, and thus worthy of Congressional protection.
Now, I'm a huge liberal (in every sense of that phrase too). But even I can spot blatant bias. It does exist. Sometimes some news source just gets it wrong and says something that is untrue about the President or the Administration. THAT's an example of bias.
Reporting the truth, even if it hurts your favored guy. That's not bias. Reporting that truth and ignoring others...well...that's a gray area. Since news programmers have to also make a buck -- this is a capitalist society, I suggest that maybe the problem is that the good things done by the Administration aren't really good enough to be newsworthy. If they were of interest to the population, then they'd get reported and, voila! you'd have your positive press.
But...the fact is that these news outlets are making money by reporting what they report. That's the capitalist way. To insist on anything else is to deny that this is a free market. That is about as anti-Republican a notion as anything I've ever heard, seems to me. Certainly its something that most Conservatives should at least have some pause over.
So...
I suggest the reasons that nobody gives a darn about these rants is:
1) It's showing what sore winners the GOP and conservatives really are.
2) It's become boring through repetition.
3) The perceived slights are so slight as to be obviously in the mind of the beholder rather than anything clear (like actual lies).
4) When the real bias (or shoddy reporting)does show through, you do get a reaction (like the Newsweek thing). So, once again, the whining about the other stuff just makes you sound like, well...whiners.
5) Blatant attempts to control the media (like the NPR attack) are so anti-American and anti-liberal in their intent as to anger most people who are not solidly in your camp. It's a sham to say this is protecting the public's interest when the only ones who care about it are the most partisan of congressmen.
I suggest that if the right really wanted some better press coverage, they actually do good things that are worth reporting. When problems and scandals are uncovered, one thing would be to jump on them immediately and get to the bottom of it.
I notice, for example, that it is taking the threat of jail and fines imposed on reporters to discover which person close to the White House turned over information about a CIA operative. So...wouldn't it be great press if the Administration found out who it was and turned them over before the press is attacked by the judiciary?
Could that get them good press?
I bet it could.
Posted by tabithecat (Member # 5228) on :
Could be it's just be too depressing for some people to have read President Bush over and over. Some how it's slightly less painful to read Mr. Bush when you walk by the news stand and think "I wonder what he's done now?"
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Bob, you make me laugh. Of course you are defending the liberal media. You said it yourself that you are liberal. What, besides FOX, do you consider major news media owned and reported by conservatives? My guess is you can, and did, only name one.
Besides, who gets to decide what "doing good" means? After all, there are plenty of things that Conservatives think President Bush has done is good that liberals think is bad. I will start treating the media as less biased as soon as they hire recognizably conservative reporters and commentators at least as much as liberal counterparts. Crossfire kinds of situations don't count. They have to be real conservatives with real job positions.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Mr. Clinton 32 times in one article in 1998 in the Washington Post.
The "liberal press" referred to Clinton as President the first time, then as Mr. Clinton thereafter.
I'm telling you. The journalistic standard is to call him President Bush the first time and Mr. Bush from there on out. Seriously.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Occasional...
I can't name a single "liberal" television network. I can name one that is firmly biased toward the conservative wing.
This does not seem fair and balanced to me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
As far as I am concerned ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are "liberal" television networks; both in news and programming. The reason you can't is because they speak YOUR political language and therefore you can't see it as anything other than normal or objective. Fox network is, to me, only slightly biased toward conservatives in my view. Of course, slightly is extreme to a liberal.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, that's you bias showing, isn't it?
Maybe it's not the networks, but you who are biased!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Maybe . . . but NO!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Maybe Bob you don’t notice it since you like it. But FoxNews is what it is supposed to be. Certainly isn’t GOP TV cause it would be a lot more conservative if it was. Kind of funny to see something neutral being called conservative since people are so used to the news being liberal. Wound how you would react to GOP TV.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Maybe Bob you don’t notice it since you like it. But FoxNews is what it is supposed to be. Certainly isn’t GOP TV cause it would be a lot more conservative if it was."
These three sentences are very funny, each for its own reason.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Everyone and everything is biased towards their own point of view... except for ME.
I don't watch a lot of TV news. The problem I have with it isn't bias so much as sensationalism. Every time I do catch a bit of major media news it seems to be some fluff piece like that runaway bride deal. If there's politics being discussed it's two people shouting over each other and no real debate. Blah blah blah.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Thanks Tom. You always seem to add so little with you short attacks. Thought you were bigger then that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Must I detail why they are funny, Jay?
1) Bob does not in fact like media bias, and is pretty good at noticing it. 2) Claiming that Fox News is what an unbiased media "is supposed to be" is laughable and sad at the same time. 3) Arguing that Fox is not GOP TV because it isn't wholeheartedly conservative makes the mistake of confusing the word "conservative" with the word "Republican." Fox is indeed not as conservative as it could be, but it's as Republican as it can realistically get.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
1) If Bob thinks CBS isn’t biased then that just shows his bias. 2) Laugh all you want. I’m still waiting for Free Republic TV. Then maybe you’ll see 3) Please. You obviously don’t watch it. Try flipping away from NPR and Air America once in a while.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Why does anyone bother talking to this guy?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
It's interesting to see how a thread about a journalistic convention became a discussion of the "liberal media"...
--j_k
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
This is from the San Franscico Chronicle, which is probably part of the "liberal media" but it seems relevant to a discussion on media bias: Conservative Talkers Taking Radio Show to Iraq.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, that's just precious.
I have a question for those in the military or with family in the military. Does it really seem to you that liberals do not value the contribution of the military? Do you believe that those who are against the war also must be against soldiers?
If someone criticises things like the prison scandals or the problems in Guantanamo, do you believe that they are aiding the enemy?
(please...those without a military background or family in the military, please hold off responding at least until some with actual experience have a chance to answer.)
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yeah, since we had this discussion in another thread and when someone’s father worked there she got slammed.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jay,
link? I recall a thread in which Belle's dad talked about Guantanamo. Is that what you're talking about? Did she get "slammed" there? I don't recall.
I also don't recall the discussion there being about this. It was where he was talking about the job being honorable duty. Not about whether he felt like people questioning it undermined him or aided the enemy.
They are separate in my mind. I'm asking if military people and their families see them as separate questions or if every time someone questions something in the military it is necessarily an attack on the soldiers or the President.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Amazing.
So we can have liberals say that Fox news only "seems" unbiased to conservatives because of how conservative they are, while at the same time proclaiming the network news is unbiased, because they don't see any problem with them.
Wow.
Adam's post, as ironic as it is may have been meant, actually conveys more of the attitude I would expect from anyone who wasn't trying to be hypocritical.
The media has a terrible liberal bias. It manifests itself in several ways:
1. It kow-tows to the gods of political correctnees. Ergo, there are certain things they simply will not report because they are afraid. They want news that is, in some ways, "Safe." The adherence to the political correctness code is a liberal slant.
2. News is about fear, and Liberals are the political party of fear. The news media wants to show that you're going to die or be made homeless by something, and it's going to happen today. Whether it's big business or chemicals or guns or whatever, they can get you to tune in at 11 if they can get you to be afraid of it. These are the exact ideas that liberals try to make us fear, in the hopes we will elect them to fix those problems.
3. The members of the media themselves are liberal. Dan Rather's perhaps the clearest example of this, with his repeated and biased "extra-curricular activites," but he's far from alone. Liberals, perhaps, may not notice this because it doesn't bother them, but we conservatives do, because it does bother us.
The idea that mainstream media isn't liberal is laughable as for NPR:
quote:They go so far in giving equal time that they are giving crackpots a place to voice stupid and ill-justified positions just in order to meet some mandate that they be fair to people who are doing bad things but just happen to be in the government, and thus worthy of Congressional protection.
This is my problem with NPR. Because they see conservatives as crackpots, it's crackpots they bring on. They'll bring in a knowledgeable and well-reasoned liberal on a point, and then they'll bring in some nutjobber of a conservative. If they were truly bringing in knowledgable, well-spoken conseratives, you'd find it confrontational and thoughtful rather than washed out and wimpy.
NPR is a liberal bastion.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: News is about fear, and Liberals are the political party of fear.
::giggles::
Yeah, we're the party that won the election by saying that if you didn't vote for us, you'd have Muslim terrorists from Iraq blowing up your kid's school. Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
Ask the original George. Mr. Washington invented the etiquette for addressing the president.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Right.
Instead, you were the party that lost the election by saying Bush was a war-monger who was bent on conquering a corner of the world for his own gains.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Okay, that was a sidebar I didn't mean to make.
My point is, the last election was in no way about how democrats could help the country. It was only about fear. Fear of Bush, fear of what he would do to the country, fear of what he was doing to our enemies--no real plan against that . . . just a lot of fear.
And the point of my bullet point in the prior post is that I don't neccessarily think the fear/fear connotation between the media and liberals is cooridinated, but they have the same motivation, and use the same tactics, so it becomes mutually benificial.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I certainly do not feel that the liberal bias in the press is a thing that could be ignored. I think that anyone who cannot hear the snear on the news when they discuss Bush and Cheney and endless other topics including the voting practices of the American Heartland is just too used to it.
"How can they not know how stupid they are compared to us?"
I believe the press dropped the "President Bush" to Mr Bush during the Election as a diliberate effort to take some of the dignity from the incumbant. It infuriated me the entire time because all this was international news. To have the President so slighted and not given his due on the international stage was a national disgrace.
I would not fail to salute the greenest butter bar to come from ROTC, I would salute Bill Clinton even though he let his wife make Marines serve as waiters in her garden parties. I sure as Hell will give the President of the United States who held firm through the start of this centuries round of conflicts the honor he is entitled to and I have a sneer for those who respect our highest office so little they leave it off as trivia.
BC
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The argument over bias in media has plenty of weight on both sides, but calling the president mister is not relevant.
"The country's 13-month odyssey ended Friday with the Senate's vote not to convict President Clinton of the perjury and obstruction of justice charges in the articles of impeachment, allowing him to finish his term in office.
"In a CBS News poll conducted after the vote, the public expressed its approval of that outcome by 64 percent to 34 percent. This matches the two-to-one margin seen in polls throughout the year on the question of whether or not Mr. Clinton should remain in office."
First reference, "President." After that, "Mr." Lots of media outlets, for many years. Any president.
There's enough evidence of people slanting to the news to fit their agenda. When you pick stuff like this, it makes you look paranoid and irrational and then no one listens when you poin out actual bias.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You know Chris, I've posted that twice already. It's not like they listen.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
For the record, I agree with both of you about the President/Mister thing. It really is part of the cannon of acceptable forms of adress for the president.
I also, however, think ClaudiaTherese was right in this thread when she pointed out that women in politics are treated more informally than men.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Okay, that was a sidebar I didn't mean to make.
My point is, the last election was in no way about how democrats could help the country. It was only about fear. Fear of Bush, fear of what he would do to the country, fear of what he was doing to our enemies--no real plan against that . . . just a lot of fear.
And the point of my bullet point in the prior post is that I don't neccessarily think the fear/fear connotation between the media and liberals is cooridinated, but they have the same motivation, and use the same tactics, so it becomes mutually benificial.
Isn't it funny when someone comes out against bias and then shows his own supreme bias.
Both parties used fear to manipulate people. (Edit: On review that's not quite strong enough. Instead I'll say something dramatic like: "Both parties bombarded the people with constant messages of fear in order to make the other party repellant." Yea that's better) Saying the Liberals are "the politcal party of fear" is laughable and doesn't make you seem like the most rational person ever.
A hypocrite against hypocrisy, who would have thunk it?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I didn't say I was against bias. It's okay for people to have opinions.
The hypocrisy I'm talking about is people who are laughing at those who can't see the bias in Fox news, but think their own opinions of liberal media outlets are immune to to the same distortions.
I don't think anybody should censor network media, or NPR. I don't think they should somehow be forced to stop being biased. Bias exists. It will always happen. I am in no way, shape, or form against bias. It's not only impossible to eliminate, it's neccessary.
That said--Conservatives are far more optimistic than liberals.
Liberalism is about "Big Government." There's this problem, and that problem, so we need to bring in this solution and that solution in order to make everything all right.
By contrast, Conservatism is about little government. Yes, there's this problem and that problem, but we can figure out solutions that still keep the goverment out of our lives. I consider "We can make it on our own," to be the more optimistic view.
However, I recognize it's easy to label. You could twist it around and say that liberals are "hopeful" that government can solve their problems, while conservatives are "Fearful" of big government, and you'd probably be right.
So if my wording is keeping people from seeing my point, I'll withdraw it.
Liberals are "a" political party of fear, and many of the same things they encourage people to fear to lure voters, are the same things the media tries to encourage people to fear to lure viewers.
Any comments on it when it's worded that way?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
So, you agree it was silly to act like Liberals are the only ones who use fear or that they use it to a greater degree than Republicans, since it's just a matter of perspective?
Yea, then everything's dandy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Specifically, if you agree that Republicans also encourage fear in order to sway voters, I'll agree wholeheartedly.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)