post-election media scrutiny

Yesterday, I mentioned Howard Kurtz’s remarks on Reliable Sources regarding the coming interplay between the media and politicians now that the Democrats have taken control of the Congress.

let’s face it, journalists were bored with one- party rule and they hope the Democrats conduct plenty of investigations in Congress and issue subpoenas so that they can feast on the conflict.

True or false?

Interestingly, Kurtz (who’s a champion of journalism and serious news and who puts down cable sleaze every time he can find a way to elevate network news—as if network news organizations are any better at informing people about the news of the day and every reader of this blog knows I think that is patently untrue) seemed to throw this down as a challenge to the media to be entertaining (something I welcome, because it attracts audiences, who learn something about the issues) rather than as an indictment of his colleagues, who were so obviously in the Democrats’ corner in the run-up to the election.

Today, Kurtz follows up with a column in the Washington Post. that is much more of an indictment (though that’s not how he means it to be taken, I’m sure, and he includes bloggers in the mix):

The media kept saying the war was going badly. The Bush administration said progress in Iraq was being obscured by relentlessly negative coverage.

The media kept saying the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was badly botched. President Bush initially said his administration was doing a heckuva job. …

The biggest change may be in store for liberal commentators, radio hosts and bloggers, some of whom enjoyed a good long gloat last week. For years now, they have been on offense against the administration and the war, and taking potshots is plenty of fun, as conservative pundits learned during the height of the Clinton scandals. But now the lefties will have to spend time defending the Democratic leadership for any missteps and failures. And if Reid and Pelosi compromise with their more moderate colleagues, will hard-driving liberal bloggers turn on them?

As I said the other day, things are going to stay interesting. Meanwhile, McQ, at QandO, quotes Kurtz and comments:

Now the question is whether a press corps that has been openly at odds with the president will hold the newly empowered Democrats to the same tough standards.

As those trying to buy a little time while casting about for an answer might say, “good question”.

If I were to speak strictly on gut feeling, I’d say “no”. While Republicans may be out of power in Congress, as Kurtz points out in his question, the media has been openly at odds with the president and he hasn’t gone anywhere. Why would that relationship change now? Seems to me that piling on is in more in order, and the Dems can only help them in that endeavor.

He predicts how things will play out:

Again, as Kurtz mentions, the problem the media has focused on has been Bush, not so much Congress, so you can almost make book on the premise that anything which happens now will remain Bush’s fault. Gridlock will be the unwillingness of Bush to compromise. Nominees will be “too extreme” and ethics reform will be wonderful, regardless of how cosmetic.

Mark my words.

I do, and I did. And I’ll be watching with bated breath.