The Rules of Journalism

The New Republic's Campaign Journal blog cites the latest Pew Research Center Poll finding that Bush's approval rating has dropped to 48%.

And here's the most stunning line from Pew's report on the new poll :

The most frequently used negative word to describe Bush is "liar," which did not come up in the May 2003 survey.

Why is this so "stunning." The press has been emphasizing that word about Bush for at least a year. Are they stunned that people have picked it up? I've heard Peter Beinart, TNR's editor, argue this frequently, after publishing a piece deploring the administration's "dishonesty" when the Yellowcake story came out, despite the fact that the President had not stated it as truth, but just referred to what British intelligence was reporting. It was Beinart and other journalists who divined that the only source for this claim was a clumsily forged document.

It's amusing to read what passes for objectivity, when the only facts reported are the negative terms the poll found coming up. No mention of the continuous clips we've seen over the past months of Democratic candidates calling Bush a liar, a miserable failure, etc. and then the report of David Kay, which was granted instant acceptance by the normally skeptical press, despite the explanation that Saddam, who drops people into plastic shredders on the least pretext and kills not only those who might be betraying hmi, but their families as well--that this shrewd tyrant was being bled white by his wily scientists who were only pretending to be developing and building stores of WMD, and pocketing the money. Yeah! That's the ticket!

Of course, Kay didn't accuse the President of being a liar, but by that time, he didn't need to.