Well Dressed Emperor

One thing was said during our last email discussion (very civil, thanks) was that you thought I was wrong to refer to BO as "the emperor having no clothes." You said you thought my logic was flawed because people are now much more critical of him and will be more so as issues get scrutinized, etc.

As I said in response, I hope you're right, but evidently it's still pretty much of a love fest out there, at least according to GB, who reported on the "hilarious" correspondents' dinner (he was there). Here's how he saw things:

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said his fellow reporters acted like schoolgirls in the presence of a rock star. It’s fortunate no one fainted. There was a moment that really stood out for me. The president looked out at the crowd of panting journalists and said, “Most of you covered me (during the election) and all of you voted for me. Apologies to the Fox [News] table.” Without any shame, the room erupted into one of the loudest rounds of applause of the night. Barack was their man in November and he is their man now. Objective journalism is dead.

Me again: So for now at least, I think it's safe to say that, at least to those who voted for him and are rooting for him, people still see in him what they want to see and not what many of us who haven't been bitten by the Obama bug clearly do see...

It's disturbing to me (and should be to all of us, regardless of party affiliation)...the media are supposed to be the watchdogs, holding government accountable. Right now, though, for the most part, the "mainstream" media still appears to be tongue-tied and deferential. That's why I go directly to my own media sources after reading the papers (we get three, actually).Yes, I know...the LA Times has written editorials that are critical, they have a weekly conservative columnist (Jonah Goldberg), sometimes the letters represent "my" side, etc.

All well and good. But sometimes, balance and objectivity is more than op-eds. It's the news that doesn't get told. For instance, I learned recently that Obama invited the families of the USS Cole to the White House because they were starting to publicly question his decision release prisoners from Guantanamo and he wanted to quell the ruckus. Here's an op-ed (link below) written by one of the family members who was in attendance at that meeting. Her name is Debra Burlingame. It's a good example of what I'm talking about...the press reports one thing ("touching and powerful meeting") but the reality is quite another (she concludes, "We've been had," and one of the families has even said they regret having voted for him). The naked emperor in all his glory....?

I saw nothing of this in our papers. I learned about it through Bauer's daily report, and then went and searched out Burlingame's op-ed myself...who does this besides me? Not very many, I'll wager. And if papers go under (or worse, if the federal government offers to "help" them out), well, so much for a free and independent and responsible press...is this really what we (Americans) want?

Obama and the 9/11 Families