Letters to the Editor
-
Okay, but what about Clinton?
I take your point that the media love a winner, and love to be seen as savvy, but then what explains their hostility to Bill Clinton? He was a lifelong winner. He was the comeback kid. But the media turned on him at the first chance and hounded until his presidency was severely diminished.
I take your, and Jay Rosen's, point that the media worships savviness above all, but then how do they blindly continue to follow the Bush line? They look ridiculous. It's certainly not an aversion to flipflopping; they've shown they can do that all day without batting an eyelid. The longer they stay with this sinking ship, the less savvy they appear.
So, it has to be something more than simply desire for access and an admiration for savviness because they didn't take the same attitude with Clinton or Carville who most certainly played the same leaking / access game, no?
What's the difference?