Saturday, May 1, 2010

Why Reporters are down on Obama

Politico has a long piece which relates how the mainstream press are belatedly recognizing Obama's "most transparent Administration evah!" claim for the propaganda it is.

(No real killer quotes struck me; worth reading in full if you have the time, because it's well sourced and thorough. I did like the bit about David Corn of Mother Jones getting the silent treatment from Gibbs. Mother Jones, insufficiently on message. 'Nuff said.)

My one sentence analysis: because of technology (we can blog and post video - so can the White House) and economics (MSM business is dying), the most vulnerable White House press corps in history is facing a very, very aggressive administration, and losing - and not just because of their inherent weakness, but because of an ideological reluctance to fight.


  1. I read the first page, and will finish it later.

    But I have to go off-topic to ask a favor.

    Does anyone else remember the short (4 minutes) video that was posted here a few months ago regarding the explosion of the national debt?

    It was a scary thing to watch, but I can't find it now.

  2. This is actually something I admire about the Obama Administration. The American press is a joke institution that can only--only--do a Presideent who wishes to accomplish something harm. The American press exists for sensationalism and "gotchas". Why in the world should POTUS help them do that? Why are we expected to buy in to their own delusions about "the public's right to know" and the "fourth estate"?

    I can tell you close up that the US press does a horrible, horrible job of explaining to the people what the USG does and what it is up to. Most is simply ignored unless it bleeds, feeds in to Bob Woodward-style conspiracy negativity, or if it is a conservative screwing an intern.

    That's it. Sorry, but that is the truth.

    If you want info and substantive discussion of the issues, go to the PRIMARY source (, anything .org, anything .edu) and then follow the discussion in the new media.

    President Obama wants to get things done, as is obvious. Shutting out the nattering nabobs of negativity is key to being an effective American chief executive.

  3. Jourdan - the press essentially got Obama elected by not only refusing to cover negative stories about him, but carefully covering them up.

    His problem is not that he wants to get things done, but that he wants the same level of kissassitude that he had then.

    The man defines arrogance for no reason, in his 'accomplishments' both before and during his presidency.

    It thrills me to no end that the liberal media is being crapped on, but it certainly does not cause any respect for BarryO.

  4. I see where Jourdan is coming from. When forced to choose between Obama and the MSM my response is... do I have to?

    I tend to think that it's simply a matter of power.

    If other presidents had been able to treat the press like Obama has, they would.

    With respect to Obama himself, the salient takeway is that the bullshit about "transparency" was always just that - bullshit.

    About the dysfunctional press - well, there are many forms of dysfunction - shallow sensationalism, while regrettable, is at least an authentically American tradition. Fawning and cowed submission to the Great Leader - not so much. The New York Times is rapidly becoming self-parodying. They are obviously angling for a bailout of some kind.