From the October 4, 1985, issue of National Review:

If the press talked about Ronald Reagan the way it has been talking about Mikhail Gorbachev, it would stand accused of superpatriotism. Time ran a glorious 18-page cover spread on the Soviet “leader” (not to be confused with right-wing “dictators” and “strongmen”), including an interview whose questions were so deferential they might have been prepared by the editors of Pravda. (Nothing about Afghanistan, Poland, human rights.) One typical query: “The events of recent weeks, such as the U.S. announcement of the ASAT test and the spy-dust charges, could hardly have been helpful in terms of preparing for the summit meeting. Is this type of thing seriously damaging?” Columnists Tom Wicker, Joseph Kraft, and Mary McGrory are gloating over Gorbachev’s propaganda skill. Wicker: Gorbachev “has been running rings around [Reagan] in pre-summit propaganda.” Kraft: Western Europeans “are pleased to have a Soviet leader who, in the European tradition, is no pushover for the Americans.” Miss McGrory: “The only fear that Reagan has is that the country is too decent for his own good and therefore a setup for the malevolent, ruthless, godless Kremlin commissars.” For all three, the real question isn’t whether Gorbachev is serious about arms control, but whether Reagan is.