About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Uh-oh, another bump in Obama's approval rating; that's not a story the Beltway press wants to tell, cont'd

January 20, 2010 9:04 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Boy, talk about being off-script. Today is supposed to be the day for the press to wallow in the collapse of Obama's first term; to pronounce his presidency a failure in light of the Massachusetts defeat Tuesday night.

But wouldn't you know it, the AP goes and releases a poll that shows Obama enjoying a robust 56 percent job approval rating. Technically, that's not a bump, since the same AP poll had Obama at the same spot last month as well. But the results are certainly good news for Obama, considering that 56 percent practically doubles the approval rating of Obama's predecessor during his second term. That 56 percent also puts Obama comfortably ahead of where Ronald Reagan was at this juncture of his first term, and just about where Bill Clinton stood 13 months into office.

But that's not the story the press wants to tell, so look for the AP results to get scant coverage. Because as we've seen for months now, only the polls that show Obama's popularity declining are deemed to be truly newsworthy.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (January 20, 2010 9:19 am ET)
      4  
      The corporate media whores are too busy reveling in the Massachusetts electoral tragedy.

      Even on NPR this morning, the story was how Obama's approval ratings had tanked over the past year. In examining the reasons, not once did they mention the Republican Propaganda Sh*tStorm which has blanketed the airwaves since Obama took office.

      Now, I understand that there are several reasons for his bad poll numbers, but for "journalists" to totally ignore this vicious avalanche of lies coming from FOX and Talk Radio is irresponsible.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (January 20, 2010 9:49 am ET)
        1  
        They're in on it, ignoring it is part of the process. By acknowledging it, they would add work to their busy diet-of-the-week research.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by roland (January 20, 2010 9:20 am ET)
      3  
      Actually, in the poll-of-polls, Obama's trendline is up.

      http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mustardman (January 20, 2010 9:44 am ET)
      2  
      So true. About the only place I read about these polls is on Mediamatters. Everywhere else everyone is falling all over themselves trying to find negative spin around every corner.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by all your eyes (January 20, 2010 9:45 am ET)
      2  
      I think you're seeing the effect of some deft executive decision-making, rather than any legislative gains, in these new polls. We're killing terrorist leaders in Pakistan almost every day now, and Obama has been the anti-Bush in responding to Haiti. American voters, at this juncture in history, value a capable executive pretty highly, I think. Expect another five-point bump when he comes out swinging in the State of the Union. Not a minute too soon, either. Maybe we should thank Senator Brown from Massacheusetts...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 9:53 am ET)
        1  
        Truth is, according to CIA and FBI estimates, in the one year that Obama has been in office (today), his administration has killed or captured more senior AQ leaders in Afghanistan/Pakistan than Bush did his entire 8 years. This is not trumpeted by Obama. Why? Probably because we saw the negative consequences of the "Bring 'em on!" statement by Bush, and realized that it's better to speak softly about killing bad people, but do it with efficiency.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (January 20, 2010 9:58 am ET)
          1  
          Could it be that surgical strikes are more effective than invading and occupying whole countries? The Bush/Cheney approach to fighting Terrorism was like using a sledgehammer to kill cockroaches in your kitchen.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by allanbrauer (January 20, 2010 10:44 am ET)
               
            I would say it was more akin to dropping an atom bomb on the house.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (January 20, 2010 9:51 am ET)
         
      NPR already set the MSM theme on this today ... Mara Liason claimed that # is not important. She called it a popularity number. Of course, that is wrong. It is job approval. But not according to the press ...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (January 20, 2010 10:33 am ET)
         
      The media is driven by this culture of drama. Even if it means spinning and outright dishonesty.
      I am hearing more and more people calling into Cspan's Washington Journal expressing something I have thought is the real problem with the media.
      It use to be that educated viewers and readers. If an issue like health care was being debated back then the news would explain it to people.
      If the republicans claimed Obama was raising taxes they would clarify it to be those over 250 thousand a year.
      There was not a false equal or balance. this stupid idea of expressing if one side did or said something then you have to push the notion that the other side is as well.
      As Bill Adair of Politifact said this morning, journalists in the late 90s early 2000s became afraid to express the truth and to call those who lied on it. To say what was fact. They would print the lies without clarification and tell people what was the truth.
      This has led to the republicans going so far off the rails with lies and spin and outrageous remarks. They can because they know they will not be called on it. that the people will not be told the truth and the lie explained to them.
      this has led to the rise of opinion journalism and resentment politics being the dominate news coverage. To allow Fox to manipulate the ignorant with lies.
      And is a huge factor in the extreme partisanship that is clogging congress.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by njguy93 (January 20, 2010 11:10 am ET)
      3  
      The Democrats lost in Massachussetts for a number of reasons. Yes, there were Independent voters upset with Obama. For sure. There were also other reasons as well. Martha Coakley simply was not a strong candidate if you look at it. This was the most special of all special elections. It came at a really odd time with not that much notice. There wasn't the same energy there usually is in Massachussetts on the liberal side. Coakley went on vacation after the Primary and basically took the race for granted. Democrats and liberals became complacent in the final stretch of the race.

      It was exactly one year ago today that I watched Barack Hussein Obama take the Oath of Office to become the 44th President of the United States. I am still glad he did. We need to realize that there are always setbacks for a President. One year from now could be totally different if the economy picks up or if some other political, national, or world events happen. Clinton lost the Congress in 94 and easily beat Dole in 96. Reagan won 49 states in 84 and lost the Senate in 86. It's now a year later, and this is where we are. Let's not get too caught up in this. Scott Brown may be a flash in the pan. He may not even be a Senator for too long. Then again, maybe he will be. Who knows. One year later and this is how it stands. This is my first post here in long while, and I'm glad to be back. It's exactly one year to the day that change began to happen, and I'm glad it was this day of all days.

      THANK YOU.
      njguy93@yahoo.com
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jonpin (January 20, 2010 12:34 pm ET)
         
      In other news, CNN reports that the chocolate ration has been increased from 20 grams to 15 grams.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.