The First 100 Days Hysteria

A new president’s first 100 days in office has been used for generations as a time frame to assess whether or not the new leader is off to a good start. What I would like to know is, who decided on this arbitrary time period and why did they think that any changes brought on by a new administration would start to produce results in only three months? Over the last few days, every major news organization has had hours of coverage on Obama’s first 100 days, but what has really changed since Obama took office? The reports on Obama’s first days in office focused on basic changes made by the new administration in the government, but did not really have any real way to judge whether our country is better off now than it was four months ago. The reason for this is simple: not enough time has passed to say if Obama’s new programs and policies are having a positive or negative effect on the economy or on any other aspect of American society.

It seems as if the entire fixation on a president’s first 100 days is simply an excuse for the media to take a day or two off from reporting on actual news. They know they can fill plenty of television time just by assigning arbitrary ranks to the president or by commenting repeatedly on the various things that the president has said over the first few months, even though most of the things they mention have little to do with the president’s actual performance. If the media absolutely has to rate the president based on an arbitrary timescale, they should at least make sure enough time has passed so that there is actually something worthwhile to report on.