I have been noticing that ever since Barack Obama became president a lot of the attention has been focused on what Michelle Obama does, doesn't do, wears and doesn't wear. I don't want to offend the women that come on here, but to me, it's a little stupid because I don't remember a first wife getting the coverage that Michelle is getting. Now the new thing that I heard was that she wore a dress more than one time. I am sure the women on here have wore a dress, or guys for that matter, have worn something more than once. I just find all that very ood.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Coverage on Michelle Obama
- Thread starter DJ Tony
- Start date
It's all part of the double standard that exists in the coverage of anything and everything related to this administration. Her photo op volunteering where she showed up in $550 sneakers was defended by some saying the shoes were given to her by the designer so she did not pay for them. Laura Bush would still be Olberman's Worst Person in the world if she had shown up for an event like that with even new Reeboks on. And poor Nancy Reagan caught unmitigated hell for wearing clothes given her by designers. I think the media have so much invested in him from their early support they are just promoting their investment.
ricksegers said:
There's no double standard because Michelle Obama's $500 shoes aren't that newsworthy, except to the entertainment news crowd.
And as far as Nancy Reagan goes, if she'd kept her tiny trap shut over in revealing the millionsof designer clothing she'd taken or accepted (and forgot to note on disclosure forms, lest you think Tim Geitner's tax problems were so offensive), there wouldn't have been much of an uproar at all.
DJ Tony said:
I think the key phrase is that you don't remember. The First Lady, and actually, the First and Second Families in general, have always been subject to such coverage, regardless of party. But when there's an agenda to exploit (eg., Nancy Reagan's china and gowns, Jimmy Carter's drunk brother, Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, Michelle Obama's $500 shoes) the volume of coverage increases, in more ways than one.
Don't worry, soon the California baby machine will do something to get the attention back on her and the press will eagerly oblige.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
Precisely. The selective memories of those on the opposing side of whoever is in the White House has become remarkable...or remarkably pathetic.
Obviously, none of you are old enough to remember JFK's coronation and the daily spewage of Jackie's every move. They didn't call it Camelot for nothing.
There are two things, and two things only, that will stop my wife in her tracks should she spot on TV: a baby story and a Michelle story. She will remain glued to the set until the story ends and it is useless to try to communicate with her as the only response you will get is a hiss.
Just wait until the daughters get a little older and Obamanation will be everywhere 24X7.
There are two things, and two things only, that will stop my wife in her tracks should she spot on TV: a baby story and a Michelle story. She will remain glued to the set until the story ends and it is useless to try to communicate with her as the only response you will get is a hiss.
Just wait until the daughters get a little older and Obamanation will be everywhere 24X7.
JeeperOne
Banned
You took the words right out of my mouth Tuna.landtuna said:
JFK's kids got media attention while JFK was in the White House too.
Look peoples....What we have here is a modern day rendition of the Kennedy years. I say ENJOY IT WHILE WE CAN. I say that because (Take this for you think it's worth) there are some people who believe President Obama won't even survive his FIRST term, much less a legacy of two terms.
Just my opinion....
Cheers
Yes - Jackie Kennedy got a lot of media attention. But just so you think it's not just Democrats - the media loved Betty Ford, in good part because of the courageous way she handled her drug addiction and recovery - that kind of disclosure was not common in the mid 70s - not in show biz, but especially not in politics. People - women particularly - considered Betty a real hero.
Ladybird Johnson and Barbara Bush always got good coverage, too - though not as much as Michelle Obama. Ladybird had a lot of pet causes that got her coverage, and Barbara was witty and quite quotable.
Whether you like it or not, you have to face it - Michelle is relatively young, attractive, charismatic, and articulate....all the things television loves.
Ladybird Johnson and Barbara Bush always got good coverage, too - though not as much as Michelle Obama. Ladybird had a lot of pet causes that got her coverage, and Barbara was witty and quite quotable.
Whether you like it or not, you have to face it - Michelle is relatively young, attractive, charismatic, and articulate....all the things television loves.
You don't hear or see anything about Michelle Obama on the news much doing things like talking to other people and mingling with other dignitaries unlike her husband Barack "Always On TV All The Time And Smiling And Saying "What, Me Worry?"" Obama. Obama craves attention and the press just loves it to pieces. I think that it was stupid for Obama and Biden to publicize their outing at the $7.00 Hamburger Restaurant. Who really cares? I also think that it is getting way overboard to compare the Obamas to the Kennedys. You don't even hear very little about the Obama children. You've heard more about the Kennedy children, the Johnson children, Trisha Nixon, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, than you have the Obama children.
I turn the channel whenever I see Obama and him trying to look pretty for the camera.
I turn the channel whenever I see Obama and him trying to look pretty for the camera.
Well, one of the reasons for the "selective" memory is the stark contrast between the way in which the Obamas are portrayed in the media and the way in which the Bushes (the Ws) were treated. I was going to stay quiet though this 'first lady' thread until the subject of the kids came up. It reminded me of how the media went out of their way to portray W's daughters as party animal ho's. And that was when he was still fairly popular (in the first term).
Clearly, the media never had any love for W and they have an absolute infatuation with all things Obama. Yes, if you reach back in time 20+ years, you can find other examples of media interest and puff stories about first families. However, the recent contrast between our present President and the first family versus the last one is very sharp.
Clearly, the media never had any love for W and they have an absolute infatuation with all things Obama. Yes, if you reach back in time 20+ years, you can find other examples of media interest and puff stories about first families. However, the recent contrast between our present President and the first family versus the last one is very sharp.
BRNout said:
I wouldn't disagree that the media is "infatuated" with Obama. But I think a lot of the press coverage is because he's new, young, charismatic, and articulate. And he is the President, after all. This level of trivial coverage will fade as time goes by. For instance, I doubt the things like the hamburger outing would get more than a short mention a couple of years from now.
As for the Bushes and coverage of the "party animal" daughters. Liberal or not, the press loves a scandal...remember the 24/7 coverage of Monica Lewinsky and that scandal? For the most part, the media liked Bubba, but that didn't stop them from exploiting the story for all it was worth.
Toward the end of W's term, the daughter that got married (can't remember her name) got a lot of positive press, including a long interview on 20/20. I thought she came off as bright, smart, and attractive.
As for Laura - she always came off well too, I thought - though I got the impression she preferred to keep a low profile - more like Pat Nixon, who I understand was a very shy and introverted person.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
And guess what...if at some point in the future the Obama girls do something some might call scandalous, it will be all over the place. The Bush daughters were older and thus already in that age bracket. The Obama girls will get there.
Some of this whining and wailing about supposed unfair treatment of the last resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is as comical as it gets.
Some of this whining and wailing about supposed unfair treatment of the last resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is as comical as it gets.
imhomerjay said:
Give me a break, W got hammered by the media. The media vitriol was palpable. They clearly despised him and they clearly LOVE Obama. That's just how it is and there are tons of examples of each available.
Here's a fun little one from MSNBC the other day: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/05/01/msnbcs-guthrie-seeing-obama-dream-sequence
Absolute gushing.
Yes, you had a valid point about the age bracket of the first kids. I agree that it is a factor. However, your denial that there's any sort of media bias toward Obama going on is what's really comical.
Lkeller said:
Speaking of Pat Nixon...years ago on the old TV Ark site I was watching a WNBC newscast from 1974 ( before President Nixon resigned ) where the anchor said that Pat was not only going to divorce Richard Nixon at the time but even had papers drawn up and I think the clip even mention that she had already moved out of the White House. Is any of this true or was it a joke on the part of WNBC? I was checking Pat's bio online today and nothing was said about this "divorce" Of course Pat never did divorce Richard as they stayed together until she died in 1993.
Of course the clip on TV Ark didn't say this was a joke or not.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
MSNBC and Fox essentially cancel one another out on the bias front. For whatever over-the-top stuff spewed out by MSNBC's commentators, the Fox gang puts out a like amount of non-news on the other side.
Moreover, the comparisons are frequently apples to oranges. A complete picture will come at the end of a term; W was not as allegedly savaged in his first months, and after 9/11, the media shamelessly acted like a lapdog to the administration, failing to question bad intelligence and dubious claims about Iraq.
Moreover, the comparisons are frequently apples to oranges. A complete picture will come at the end of a term; W was not as allegedly savaged in his first months, and after 9/11, the media shamelessly acted like a lapdog to the administration, failing to question bad intelligence and dubious claims about Iraq.
mleach said:
I never heard anything like that. I always got the impression that Pat Nixon was totally loyal to her husband - through thick and thin,
As for the press being biased against W - I think that's obvious. But is there any doubt that George W. Bush was the most hapless, inarticulate, incompetent, and pitiful boob that inhabited the White House? ...at least since Buchanan and Pierce in the mid 19th century?
I know a fair number of conservative Republicans, and most of them grew to despise Bush by 2005 or so, because he made such a mockery of their cause.
To try to rewrite history now, and say that Bush's problems were the result of a biased media - is just wrong on so many levels.
dhett said:
Funny, I was also going to mention Carter too when the words incompetent, hapless and inarticulate came up. When it comes to presidents, nobody can top Carter in those areas. Certainly not Buchanan or Pierce. At his drunkest, Pierce would have still handled the economy and Iranian hostage crises better than Mr. Malaise.
When it came to doing irreparable harm to the country though, I'd have to nominate LBJ for that one. His egotistical social and foreign policy errors splintered this country in ways that an enemy power never could have.
As for Bush, W was a horrible communicator and that was his downfall. He's not a dumb guy at all but he plays one on TV. Because of that, any mistake he made was magnified and it was pretty easy for his opponents to fry him. Not to mention that he really fell down in his last 1-2 years. But there's no question that the media hated GWB and were able to express it in ways that their predecessors from 20 years earlier never could have.
- Status