BUZZNET LOVE

On Jan. 20, change will come to Washington. To part of it, anyway. Barack Obama will take office, but another Washington fixture, the press that covered George W. Bush, will still be there: a whole roster of newly minted network White House correspondents, yes, but the same apparatus behind them.

Come Jan. 21 and beyond--after nearly three months of offering the President-elect free advice and producing stories about his struggles to choose a puppy and keep his BlackBerry--the press will need to cover the fact, not the idea, of President Obama. As long as we're asking what he might do differently, it's only fair to ask the same of the media that cover him. Has the press learned anything from the past eight years? And if so, will those lessons stay learned? (See pictures of Barack Obama's college years.)

We have to go back, as with so much concerning Bush, to Sept. 11, 2001. After 9/11 the press failed in some big ways. Not everywhere, not everyone and not always. But there was too credulous reporting and cheerleading--from the erroneous WMD speculation to the cable-news screens festooned with American flags to the anemic press conference before the Iraq war in which Bush fielded hardballs like "How is your faith guiding you?"

By James Poniewozik

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1871916,00.html

None of which is to say the media need to pick fights with Obama just to prove their relevance. But they will have to work all the harder to cover the Obama Administration for what it is and not just what their audience wants to hear. For all the controversy over whether the press has a political bias, just as insidious is the bias in favor of being liked--and keeping an audience. Amid all the change, this is one thing that stays the same.