Every now and again, a critic makes a point or raises a fact which challenges something we said. Sometimes, they do get a the heart of our arguments, other times, they just quibble with an issue we addressed in our posts. And sometimes they even make our points for us, especially when we address the nastiness of some leftists and the bias of the press.
Yesterday, one reader thought he had devastated my point about how many in the media are ever eager to bask in the glory of Obama’s presence, much like an unpopular kid in high school eager to be associated with the Big Man on Campus, when said reader pointed out that just like Obama on July 4, President George W. Bush held an off-the-record barbecues for the White House press corps when he was in office.
As I reviewed my post this morning, I realized that my critic had helped make my point. You see, I had written: “Can you imagine the media reaction had Obama’s predecessor attempted to organize such a shindig?” And my reader mentioned (without linking) a piece where Dan Froomkin, then-blogger for the Washington Post, reacting pretty harshly to the off-the-record barbecue. I needn’t imagine such a harsh reaction; my critic supplied it. Doubt if anyone at the Post was as critical of W’s successor for organizing the same type of shindig which got Froomkin’s goat.
I grant that given W’s off-the-record BBQs, it seems I picked a poor example in citing Obama’s (BBQ) as an example of the media’s fawning attitude toward the incumbent. But, even in the column the critic referenced, there are elements of the different treatment accorded to the different Presidents. Froomkin writes, “Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post about the 2003 barbeque, saying it represented “the time-honored political tradition of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.”” The media was seen as W’s enemy.
Yet, Obama could joke at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner that, “All of you voted for me.” After all, some in the media have all but deified him.
All that said, kudos to my reader for doing his homework. We on the right may have blown the Obama BBQ issue out of proportion. Seems off-the-record BBQs for the White House press corps are some kind of tradition. The difference is that the media made more of W’s BBQ than they did of Obama’s. They continue to fawn all over the incumbent.
No reporter from the New York Times ever asked George W. Bush what enchanted him about being President.
The issue here is getting a little convoluted for me. Let me make sure I got it.
2005: Bush has off-the-record BBQ with the media. Media (Washington Post / Dan Froomkin) respond by reporting on the BBQ’s existence in a hand-wringing tone, one negative on both themselves (the media) and Bush, like this:
OK, now fast-forward to 2009. Obama has off-the-record BBQ with the media… and the media (say, the Washington Post again; let’s not count mere gossip blogs like gawker) say what about it? How did they report on it? Did they express any self-criticism, or take a negative tone on Obama?
Far from making a few mistakes, Obama has barely done ANYTHING right! And yet they can’t find anything over which to criticize him. Which is why they have lost all their credibility.
Ooops, commented under the wrong post didn’t I? Sorry!