Introduction
There have been many claims made regarding the absence of aggressive media
coverage throughout most of George W. Bush’s presidency. Many have asserted that
unlike President Clinton, who received antagonistic coverage during most of his time in
office, due in large part to the media’s insatiable appetite for scandal coverage--
Whitewater, Nannygate, Travelgate, Vince Fostergate, Zippergate to name a few—Bush
has received a veritable pass when it comes to intense questioning from the press. Why,
many media critics have asked, has not the same level of scrutiny been applied when it
has come to media coverage of the growing national deficit, the rationale for going to war
in Iraq, and the subsequent failure to locate WMD, to name just a few events.
Rachel Smolkin explores this issue and offers some answers in her article “Are the
News Media Soft on Bush?” Identifying the scripted nature of the rare solo prime-time
press conference of March 6, 2003 as emblematic of the press corps’ treatment of Bush,
Smolkin explores potential reasons for this “soft” treatment of Bush by the White House
press corps and beyond. Many have pointed to the obvious “rally around the flag” effect
that the terrorist attacks have played in media treatment of the president; however this
effect is short lived and would not explain long-term “soft” treatment of Bush.
Others have suggested that, unlike the Clinton presidency, which was primarily
focused on domestic issues (economics, welfare and healthcare reform), Bush, whether
he likes it or not, is a “war president” and as such, the sights of the media are focused
primarily on international issues, making it more difficult to aggressively question the
president and others within the Administration. Quoting Darrell West, political scientist
at Brown University, Smolkin states “The terrorist attacks ‘made everybody focus on
external problems more than internal ones, and that has played to the Bush
2
Convention