What is deemed as “critical” depends on where you are politically. While you on one hand can point out examples where YOU feel the media was not hard enough on Bush on a particular issue, I on the other hand can provide examples where, compared to other past presidents, the media has been particularly harsh on Bush. There is no end to a discusion based on perspective and what those individuals choose to accept as truth.

When Bill Clinton was being questioned by the media on his various dark political activities when he was in office (especially during the Monica Lewinsky situation), Democrats surrounded him and found any “critical” media coverage about him to be appalling. Now that Obama is the preferred candidate, many of the same talking points that were used by Republicans in the media are now being used by talking heads in the Democratic party. Heck, its even okay to finially call the Clintons ‘racist’.

Most Obama supporters would suggest that all the coverage surrounding Rev. Wright was far-reaching and an attempt by the media to harm Obama. Those that do not support Obama would suggest that the media was doing its job of being “critical”.

Yellin’s accusation only holds water with those who already have a bias against the Bush administration in the first place. If this was a media ratings move as she is suggesting here, then the opposite would have to be true with Bush’s current low ratings. It’s funny to me how Bush can be portrayed as a bumbling idiot who cannot manage the war, inccapable of managing the nation, yet somehow he has a stranglehold on mainstream media.

recent ‘negative press’ is just a cynical marketing ploy.

FWIW, the commercial press’ coverage of Congress is even more negligent than that of the WH. I suppose that’s natural, being that the President is the lead executive of our gov’t and Commander-in-chief.