I AM NOT denying it. For the last couple of years, I've derided President George W. Bush's intelligence and presidential capabilities - or rather, lack thereof - as often as anyone. Doing so was fun and funny, in a laughing-at-what-makes-you-anxious way. The joking got increasingly savage as the possibility that he would be president mounted, and then the Supreme Court decided he would be. This semester, I could barely write a column without slipping an insult about Bush in it. But now I'm trying to reform. As the bumper sticker says, "I don't approve of political jokes ... I've seen too many of them get elected."
Continued remarks about Bush's being stupid or incompetent not only contribute little to public discourse, they actually hinder it. Instead of devoting their space and commentary to the issues and the people who are in control, columnists from The New York Times to The Cavalier Daily write witty, humorous pieces on Bush's malapropisms and missteps. I enjoy reading these articles, but at the end, I'm left wondering whom to hold responsible for what the executive branch does.
Journalists need to decide on what they think is happening: Is Bush the dumb, Dick Cheney-guided buffoon they often portray, or is he in control of his administration? If the former, they should stop harping on that fact and glue themselves to Cheney, taking the motto, follow the power. Public opinion polls indicate that most Americans realize Bush is not the kind of manager Carter and Clinton were. We don't really need to be reminded constantly that Bush makes up words and sometimes doesn't appear to know what he's saying.
Of course, a large number of Americans actually did vote for Bush, so perhaps they need to be bombarded constantly with the consequences of their actions. But under the Bush-as-figurehead theory, his actions are irrelevant, and his administration will be judged in 2004 by his appointees' decisions. So the public should start watching those appointees, instead of letting Bush's ongoing unintentional comedy routine be a distraction.
|
However, if Bush truly is a player in this administration, the media needs to focus on his political actions. With this laughter-oriented coverage, he could get away with a Reagan-esque "Gee whiz, I'm just a nice guy who didn't know what was going on" act at election time. Instead of wasting space on clever remarks about Bush's being uninformed, the media should use the favorite question for potential presidential scandals: What does he know and when does he know it? They should apply this standard to the flubs of the last few months that have been attributed to staffers, such as the near-eliminations of the race-relations office and salmonella standards. If Bush isn't just the smiling front for his appointees, journalists and readers should stop assuming that he really doesn't know what's happening when he claims he doesn't.
However, treating Bush seriously requires giving up some of the humorous insults. Saying that someone is simultaneously masterminding evil policies and playing video games during meetings doesn't work. Voters need to know which version journalists think it is: a rerun of the Reagan administration or Reagan without the brains.
Admittedly, this will be a judgment that each person makes individually. It may result in writers' presenting views of the president that conflict with each other, but this is better than having conflict within the opinion itself. Moreover, it allows readers to look at both sides and see which perception appears more likely. The media, despite appearances, is not supposed to tell us exactly what to think. Perhaps it delivers ideas prepackaged, but we should have to put at least as much effort into choosing among differing opinions as we do into picking a brand of soup.
For example, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times might continue to affirm that Bush is Cheney's puppet, while Brian Cook of The Cavalier Daily decides that Bush is determining policy. We can read each columnist's writing and determine which view is more plausible. Journalists don't have to be uniform in their perceptions of Bush.
But journalists do need to remember that they're not comedy writers. Entertainment is nice, but Americans need the serious information and critiques that will give them the ability to participate intelligently in the political process.
(Pallavi Guniganti's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at pguniganti@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 14 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 5 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
