Media Bias Evident Over Inauguration Costs

Making the rounds on the blogosphere is an arguement over differences in the tone of coverage on Bush / Obama inauguration costs.

OK, I'll admit it. I am one of those conspiracy theorists who sees a blatant bias in the press coverage of conservative and liberal politicians by the main-stream media.

And while the tilt I see in the coverage of congressmen, senators and governors is bad enough, at the presidential level, it's almost criminal.

Having been, of late, more concerned with local headlines than national, I must admit I let the cheerful coverage of President Obama's inauguration cost get by me. Never to fear, though. Some of my hawk-eyed fellow Opinionistas not only spotted the disparity, but they are raising a stink about it.



Clay Waters, a columnist over at NewsBusters, sums up the situation best:

"At a time when the United States is fighting two wars and faces a severe recession and huge budget deficits, the inauguration of Barack Obama as the nation's 44th president is estimated to cost $45 million. Bush's 2004 inauguration cost roughly $40 million. But though the figures are similar, there's been a major shift in the tone of coverage at the New York Times.

While the Times spent much of January 2005 making clear its disapproval of Bush extravagantly celebrating his inauguration during wartime, that concerned tone is conspicuously absent from the Times in January 2009, although the country is not only still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in danger of a deep recession. The difference? Perhaps because this time, it's the Times's favored candidate who is readying to assume the highest office."

Read the complete piece here.

The internet row quickly devolved into a juvenile game of who spent more, with less credible sources on both sides working cost figures to their own advantage. The commonly circulated figures at right-wing sites are Bush $42 million, Obama $120 million.

About.com ran the numbers, and under the title of "Urban Legends", they concluded that the real tallies, once the higher attendance figures for Obama are factored in, are probably fairly close to even, saying:

"The $42 million cited for Bush, while roughly accurate, doesn't include the cost of security and other incidentals covered by federal and state governments. The $120 million cited for Obama (which is actually a bit on the low side) does include those costs. It's a false comparison.

Traditionally, everything except security, clean-up, and the swearing-in ceremony itself is paid for via private donations. By most estimates, the Bush inaugural committee raised and spent about $42.3 million. At last report, the Obama inaugural committee had raised and spent almost exactly the same amount ("more than $41 million," according to the Associated Press)."

I won't go into the math, because I'm willing to stipulate that Bush and Obama spent roughly the same amount of money.

What I will get into is the difference in tone. For example, a few headlines from the time period surrounding Bush's 2005 inauguration:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"

"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Now remember, the same wars are still going on, topped with an economic meltdown of global proportions. With that in mind, now take a look at some headlines from the last few days:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"

"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Citibank? Can you imagine the outcry that would have gone up had Bush taken donations from a fat-cat bank in this anti-Wall Street climate? I can.

And what Everyman gets to spend $120 million on a kegger?

C'mon, reporters. Play fair. For once.