The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Sunday, November 10, 2013


It should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I believe that the breathtaking pro-Obama bias of the vast majority of the mainstream media (Obama's trained hamsters) has done this nation a great disservice. Rather than taking it's typical adversarial role, the media over the past five years has acted as the President's Praetorian guard, protecting him from serious scandals (think: Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS), incompetent foreign policy blunders (think: Egypt, Libya and Syria), and a myriad of domestic policy missteps—the most egregious—Obamacare. The have allowed this President to deflect blame for his own serious economic errors without critically evaluating the justification of the deflection (think: George W. Bush). They have, not to put too fine a point on it, gone into the tank for Barack Obama.

The irony is that Obama's hamsters have not only done the nation a great disservice, they have also done their anointed president a great disservice. Michael Goodwin comments:
From the broadcast networks to MSNBC and most large papers, Obama got the benefit of every doubt. The double standards were a daily disgrace so routine, they mostly provoked a shrug instead of outrage.

The ObamaCare debacle is the exception that proves the rule. Wall-to-wall complaints are forcing the media to report that the law’s Web site is a lemon and that its rules are causing millions of people to lose insurance plans they liked.

The mainstream media is acting only because the story is too big to ignore. Had it been mildly skeptical sooner, it could have exposed the law’s destructive rules and prevented the disaster.
Mild or even aggressive skepticism is the media's job. They should question the ruling elite, not protect them. They should dig into potential scandals with vigor, not bury them below the fold on page 38. They should conduct aggressive interviews, not puff pieces a la 60 Minutes. When moderating presidential debates, they should remain absolutely neutral, not Candry Crowleyesque, protecting her guy, even though she was wrong and his opponent was right. They should avoid demonizing the opposition (think: Tea Party), recognizing that different ideological viewpoints are healthy in a democracy.

But Obama's trained hamsters have done none of those things. They reflectively act as his protectors, and as a consequence, they have allow Obama to think he's bulletproof. Goodwin continues:
... [the MSM cheerleading] feeds his [Obama's] arrogance and reinforces his belief that he can solve any problem with another speech. The unflattering truth doesn’t stand a chance — ­until it is too late.

Not that the president would admit any of that, of course, but the Obama Protection Racket, led by the [New York] Times, cuts both ways. It is a key reason he has defied political gravity for so long, and also why he is now in deep trouble. As watchdogs became lapdogs, the presidential bubble grew impenetrable, isolating him from ordinary Americans and the trickle-down pain of his policies.

To quote another Obama "acquaintence": "The chickens are finally coming home to roost."