Panel discusses Bush media image

WASHINGTON – President Bush may be trying to convey an image of a hard-working CEO, but “CEOs don’t work from 9 to 5 and then leave and just make three decisions a day,” according to Joe Lockhart, former press secretary in the Clinton administration.

Lockhart participated in a panel discussion on Monday titled “The first 100 days – Media Coverage of the Bush Presidency” sponsored by Boston University’s Washington Journalism Center at the National Press Club.

Lockhart and five panelists – Tucker Eskew of the Bush administration, Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal, Ken Walsh of U.S. News and World Report, Tom Edsall of the Washington Post and Robert Dallek, professor at Boston University – discussed the relationship between the media and George W. Bush and how it differs from past presidents.

The media coverage on Bush has highlighted how important media expectations are, Lockhart said. “Clinton came to Washington with high ambitions of sweeping change, and the expectations were high,” he said. “I think we have an opposite extreme going on right now. Expectations for this president are very low.”

Bush has been treated differently by the media than Bill Clinton because of these low expectations, Lockhart said, adding that he found it “way overblown to assert that he was in the middle of the (China) debate based on the anecdotes that were used” in the national media. “We are not being served well overall, because so much of the coverage is dictated by the low expectations,” Lockhart said.

But Tucker Eskew, director of the White House office of media affairs, said Bush was completely involved in solving the tensions with China. “He ran it, he got it resolved,” he said.

Lockhart criticized the media for being too nice to Bush and missing stories during the campaign. “So much time was spent on the day-to-day strategies of the candidates that there was a striking absence of how will this guy govern,” he said. “Overall the voters have not been served well.”

Eskew said that Bush is doing what he promised he would do during the campaign. “His actions in office and his words have shown that he is in touch” with the people, Eskew said, adding “the record will show” that Bush is a good leader. “I think the polls show that he has broad support.”

Tom Edsall, political writer for the Washington Post said he was concerned because Bush’s agenda turned out to be more conservative than expected. “I don’t think there is a base of popular support for conservatism,” Edsall said.

Lockhart said that Bush might have benefited from the controversies surrounding Bill Clinton after the former president left office. “I think that the coverage of Clinton in the aftermath was both an opportunity for this president and a danger,” he said.

“Because of the sort of one track mind of this town and the obsession with following what Clinton was doing, it was an opportunity for the new president” to complete the transition and initial weeks without drawing too much attention on possible mistakes made while settling in.

But because of the lack of coverage, Lockhart said that Bush did not really have the chance to make a strong impression during his first weeks in office, which could hurt him in the long run.

“Having formed strong impressions allows you to get through tough times,” Lockhart said, and if people “have a fuzzy idea about who the president is and what he’s all about, then tough times can be really tough.”

Ken Walsh, White House Correspondent at U.S. News and World Report, said that Bush should indeed worry more about public perception, adding that the “Saturday Night” Live sketches add to the impression that Bush is an amiable guy but cannot get the job done by himself. This “irresistible stereotype could cause trouble later,” Walsh said.