Media’s closed book on Bush |

Media’s closed book on Bush

Nobody expected that George W. Bush’s book, “Decision Points,” was going to compare with the memoirs of Ulysses Grant. As expected, book reviewers found it wanting as a literary work.

But still, every book by an ex-president is seen as an opportunity for legacy-polishing, and the press is most accommodating.

In the summer of 2004, the networks celebrated Bill Clinton’s memoir as a momentous news event. They even employed a ridiculous adjective for the man — “candid.”

So how would they react to W?

Bush knew that journalists would not rush to embrace his book. He had arranged to be interviewed by NBC’s Matt Lauer for an hourlong prime-time interview special, and liberals weren’t impressed. It wasn’t going to be confrontational enough. The New York Times sniffed that “‘Lauer/Bush’ is not likely to join ‘Frost/Nixon’ in the public imagination.”

So where is the Gray Lady to whine when Lauer interviews President Obama• During those love fests, Lauer sounds more like “Access Hollywood” than “Meet the Press.”

Lauer threw some hardballs at Bush, most notably suggesting that it was ill-advised for Bush to suggest the worst moment in his presidency occurred when rapper Kanye West shouted during an NBC telethon that Bush didn’t care about black people. Lauer toed the liberal line: “You’re not saying that the worst moment in your presidency was watching the misery in Louisiana. You’re saying it was when someone insulted you because of that.”

If this is the best he could do, Lauer never laid a glove.

But the other two networks worked hard to ignore the Bush book’s debut. Was it because NBC won the bidding war, such as it was• CBS pretty much waited until it could air its own interview, in which reporter Jim Axelrod also re-hammered Bush on Hurricane Katrina: “‘Failure to act’ could have been the subtitle of the chapter on Hurricane Katrina. … There was a common feeling that after Katrina, you could never fully regain the trust of the American people.”

Whether it was competitive petulance or political bias, ABC utterly ignored the president’s memoir. Then on Nov. 14, “This Week” briefly highlighted it — only to dismiss it as comical, with a clip from David Letterman mocking Bush’s book, stating that President Grant’s memoirs told the story of life-and-death principles during the Civil War while Bush’s story focused on how “I’m drunk at the dinner table.”

Bush’s candor about his drinking problem also spurred mockery on the Nov. 13 edition of the National Public Radio game show “Wait Wait … Don’t Tell Me!” Host Peter Sagal conducted an “interview” with clips from the audiobook, asking Bush about his first week as president, and then running sound of Bush recounting what he drank on every weeknight.

Would NPR ever consider cracking these kinds of jokes about Ted Kennedy, hailed for his posthumous memoir, “True Compass,” as a compassionate hero and a “family man”?

The PBS “NewsHour” picked up on Lauer’s NBC interview on Nov. 9 — and showed only the clips where Bush admitted foul-ups (Saddam’s stash of WMDs, “Mission Accomplished” banners, a delayed federal response to Katrina). Likewise, NPR’s “All Things Considered” picked up Lauer and Bush talking about Iraq and, predictably, how rude Bush was when he had a drinking problem.

At least on PBS, anchor Jim Lehrer asked if it was a myth that Bush was stupid, and historian Julian Zelizer agreed that “this is someone who is intelligent and who was capable and who could be politically skillful at various times.” Zelizer added: “I imagine there will be a bit of a revision, like you had with Ronald Reagan, who originally was thought to be not very intelligent, more an actor than a policymaker. But the more we learned, we learned there was someone pretty cunning in the White House.”

A better question: Just which institution was it that created these myths about Reagan and Bush?

L. Brent Bozell III is president of the Media Research Center.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.