Inside the Beltway: Media ‘are enabling the sore-loser Left” says analyst

NEWS AND OPINION:

The press is downright combative with President Trump and his staff, leading an effort to “delegitimize” his office and supporting the 67 Democratic lawmakers who boycotted his inaugural last week. “Instead of scolding this divisive and unhelpful repudiation of a new president, the news media are enabling the sore-loser Left,” says Rich Noyes, research director of for the Media Research Center, a conservative press watchdog. There is a double-standard at work, he notes in an analysis.

Journalists who were poised for an endless honeymoon with Hillary Clinton, must now rethink their strategies. It has made them peevish, prompting nostalgia for the Obama administration, cheeky headlines like “Trump’s New World Disorder” courtesy of The New Yorker and instant judgments, such as CNN’s in-depth look at “The many challenges of Trump’s Wall” — referring of course, to the new and improved border barrier between the U.S. and Mexico.

But wait. Some journalists remain mesmerized by Mr. Trump, a can-do businessman with an eye on action, results and robust communication. He makes news, whether the press likes it or not. And voila: Mr. Trump is getting some positive press from journalists who realize that the new White House is fired up and barreling ahead with clear intent. A review of recent headlines from the last 48 hours reflects this emerging but fragile change:

“Incredible pace of activity in the Trump White House on Week One (ABC News); “Trump could have chosen any topic to get his presidency rolling. He picked jobs. Good.” (Chicago Tribune); “President Trump is making short work of campaign promises” (The Wall Street Journal), “He’s coming out as a winner on many issues” (The Atlantic); “Poll: Majority of Americans approve of Trump’s ’America First’ address” (Politico). See the aforementioned survey in the Poll du Jour at column’s end.

BROADCASTERS SHUN THE MARCH FOR LIFE

Pro-life causes are not popular in the liberal media, and now we have some numbers reflecting the phenomenon. A meticulous new study by Newsbusters.org reveals that ABC, CBS and NBC aired a combined 75 minutes of celebratory coverage of the recent Women’s March on Washington. And the March for Life? Last year the three networks devoted 35 seconds to the annual event — which also draws hundreds of thousands of participants to the National Mall, according to Katie Yoder, an analyst for the conservative press watchdog. Her comparison: The broadcasters gave 129 times the coverage to the pro-choice rally for women’s “rights,” compared to what they allowed for the pro-life gathering.

What will happen at this year’s March for Life, which is Friday? Some demand change. The Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues — a coalition of 25 pro-life organizations and two members of Congress opposing media censorship of pro-life issues — are calling for the press to offer unbiased, comparable coverage of the pro-life march.

“Every year Americans can count on two things to happen: one of the largest public demonstrations that occurs in our country, the annual March for Life, will take place in D.C. Then the liberal national media will dismiss it. The media should report on the march. If they don’t, particularly given their recent coverage of other marches in D.C., Americans will know the media has no interest in providing fair and objective coverage of the news,” says Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Media Fairness Caucus.

“This Friday is a true test for the news media,” says Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, a member of the coalition. “The media provided massive, fawning coverage of the pro-abortion ’Women’s March.’ The media’s coverage of the ’March for Life,’ both in time and tone, will tell you everything you need to know about their support for abortion. With media’s trust in the basement, they will be exposed for the partisan hacks they are if they don’t give pro-lifers the same amount of coverage. I’m not holding my breath,” Mr. Bozell observes.

ON THE RADAR

Of note: A group of journalists will soon weigh in on this question: “Does Trump Need the Media?” Participants include former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, Wall Street Journal White House correspondent Carol Lee, Politico media analyst Hadas Gold and Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason. The event will be hosted Monday at the George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs. A suggested follow-up discussion: “Does the Media Need Trump?”

WHAT’S REALLY OUT THERE

“President Obama had an average approval rating of 47.9 percent during his time in office, according to the Gallup Poll. That puts him behind Richard Nixon, who resigned, and George W. Bush, who saw his approval rating drop as low as 25 percent near the end of his term. It puts him ahead of only Gerald Ford (47.2 percent), Jimmy Carter (45.5 percent) and Harry Truman (45.4 percent),” notes Terence P. Jeffrey, editor in chief of CNSNews, who went over the Gallup numbers for the past 12 U.S. presidents.

“John F. Kennedy ranks highest with an average approval rating of 70.1 percent. He is followed by Dwight Eisenhower (65.0 percent), George H.W. Bush (60.9 percent), Bill Clinton (55.1 percent), Lyndon Johnson (55.1 percent), Ronald Reagan (52.8 percent), George W. Bush (49.4 percent), Barack Obama (47.9 percent), Gerald Ford (47.2 percent), Jimmy Carter (45.5 percent) and Harry Truman (45.4 percent).”

Gallup noted that Mr. Obama’s lower ratings occurred in concert with events focused on the debt, employment and the Islamic State.

POLL DU JOUR

• 78 percent of U.S. voters watched President Trump’s inaugural speech live, followed it through news reports or watched it later online.

• 70 percent have seen, heard or read news reports about the speech.

• 51 percent said the term “optimistic” describes the speech well; 50 percent said it was “hopeful.”

• 49 percent say the speech was better than they expected; 46 percent said it was “presidential.”

• 28 percent said it was worse than they expected; 21 percent said Mr. Trump’s speech was “boring.”

Source: A Politico/Morning Consult poll of 1,992 registered U.S. voters conducted Jan. 20-22.

Chit-chat, helpful observations to jharper@washingtontimes.com