Presidential or Political? The Media Decide : George Bush is tiptoeing through one of those perilous ‘damned if he does/damned if he doesn’t’ minefields.

Bill Clinton has been riding the bus. But it was that other traveling salesman, President Bush, who commanded the most television attention this week, demonstrating the advantage--and disadvantage--of incumbency.

Presidents traditionally have a built-in media edge when running for reelection. Their capacity to make policy and act on behalf of the entire nation gives them an ongoing opportunity to make news and, as a bonus, to gain photo opportunities and other free, potentially favorable publicity.

For example, this week’s newscasts featured chunks of footage showing Bush touring such places as New Iberia, La., to personally survey Hurricane Andrew’s carnage and to comfort distraught residents.

Cut to the President showing his tender side, putting his arm around a man as if the two were part of an extended family. It was a swell picture that one day may surface in a political ad.

Yet the President these days is also tiptoeing through one of those perilous “damned if he does/ damned if he doesn’t” minefields: If he didn’t visit the areas battered by Hurricane Andrew, he’d be slammed for being aloof. And if he did, he’d risk being accused of exploiting tragedy for political reasons. And he was accused, subtly.

As NBC’s Robert Hager reported from Louisiana Thursday on “Today,” this was Bush’s second trip to the hurricane-devastated region “in the heat of the presidential race, when the President was behind in the polls.”

It wasn’t a commentary, only a statement of fact that came across as mild skepticism, illustrating one of the drawbacks of incumbency: Just about every action that Bush takes in his capacity as chief executive, whether justified or not, is automatically suspect.

Bush’s announcement of a get-tough “no-fly” zone in Iraq was greeted similarly in some quarters. Why, after so many months of having Saddam Hussein kick sand in their faces, were the United States and its coalition partners taking this action at this time?

“Why now?” That’s what ABC’s “Good Morning America” host Charles Gibson wanted to learn Thursday from National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. “You know what I’m saying,” Gibson elaborated. “A lot of people are saying it’s. . . .” Political?

Actually, just about the only ones saying that publicly, or at least implying so, are media types, with even Clinton expressing support for the “no-fly” zone while continuing to accuse Bush of ending the Gulf War too soon.

On occasion this week, the media second-guessing has blundered over the line.

Flashing back to the often-shrill coverage of Gennifer Flowers’ claims of an affair with Clinton should persuade reasonable observers that the President’s spin specialists are full of partisan blather when charging the media with monolithically being anti-Bush. When things are going badly, candidates always have the press to kick around.

Yet correspondent John Cochran’s coverage of the President’s “no-fly” zone announcement on “NBC Nightly News” Wednesday sure sounded like anti-Bush reporting under the guise of straight journalism. Included was a bite of Bush defending the action at his press conference, a mention of Bush aides also endorsing it and also that fairly benign response from Clinton. “But,” Cochran added, “people might remember” that Bush’s popularity went up after his previous military actions.

That was factual. It was less what Cochran said but where in the story he said it and his tone that left an impression. More than just skepticism, in effect this was very close to a commentary by strongly implying that the President was politically motivated. The point is not whether that’s true, but that within the context of a supposedly straight news story Bush deserved fairer treatment.

It was only a small fish in TV’s ocean of campaign coverage, but the kind that gets larger and larger in the memory while feeding the Bush camp’s claims of bias.

GOD’S MARKSMAN?: You read it here first.

An unseen force may have guided the sniper’s bullet that struck down ABC News producer David Kaplan in Sarajevo two weeks ago. The 45-year-old Kaplan was fatally shot while riding in the back of a van shortly after arriving in the Bosnian capital with correspondent Sam Donaldson to cover the war in that crumbling region.

Before signing off his “Praise the Lord” program Tuesday night, Paul Crouch, president of the vast, Tustin-based Trinity Broadcasting Network, noted the recent slaying in former Yugoslavia of a producer employed by a television network that recently aired a story that “burned” Christian televangelists.

Crouch shook his head, then spoke sternly: “God has revealed to me that his patience is very thin.”

The clear implication was that God had intervened, making Kaplan’s wife a widow because the veteran journalist worked for ABC, whose “PrimeTime Live” last month reran an undercover report on three influential but controversial televangelists.

Crouch, who often rails against the media, did not say why God gave a death sentence to Kaplan instead of Donaldson--they were riding in the same caravan--or why the Almighty didn’t take out both. But Crouch did predict, ominously, that God’s “judgment is going to fall” on others who are critical of Christian televangelists.

Personally, I like ‘em.