Fascinatingly enough, after devoting a half hour to the quest for negative criticism, I am empty handed in my search for an unfavorable critique of Eric Boehlert’s Lapdogs. However, it seems quite appropriate that once published, this book would merit little attention from the media, or anyone else. If purposely ignored, this seems all too similar to Boehlert’s discussion of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, whose protests were totally ignored by the press, in an attempt to make it seem that they did not exist. It only seems right that Boehlert would get the same treatment- no publicity for something never mentioned!
My reading of selections of Boehlert’s book was much like preaching to the choir. Once again my preconceived views of the post 9/11 press, particularly the White House Press Corps, as puppets to the Bush administration, has been confirmed.
Boehlert’s central claim in the book is that the press were more antagonistic towards former President Clinton than they currently are towards President Bush. In an article from the American Journalism Review, Rachel Smolkin writes that this is true mostly due to the appeal of scandal. She writes that the personal scandal that enveloped President Clinton’s presidency was far more entertaining to critique and expose than President Bush’s wartime maneuvers.
Eric Alterman’s article in the Nation, “Lies About Blowjobs. Bad Wars? Not so Much,” highlights this idea. Alterman notes that when President Clinton attempted to hide some sexual indiscretions, which had NOTHING to do with the running of a country, many of the press claimed that he merited impeachment. However, the fact that President Bush may have lied to the American people about A WAR seems to be okay.
Similarly, in a blog, under the heading “Press as biased against Clinton as it is pro Bush,” the author details how the press hounded President Clinton from the beginning of the election campaign, straight on till today. The Whitewater scandal, as well as the several harassment and sex scandals were never brushed under the rug. Yet, we never have heard the extensive juicy details of President Bush’s cocaine use or his bout with alcoholism.
It thus seems that Eric Boehlert’s claim is correct. For a plethora of reasons, the press have been much more antagonistic to President Clinton than they have been to President Bush.