A Growing Reportorial Uneasiness about Obama

By Dave Andrusko

I was about to write about a new Newsweek forum in which old-line pro-abortion feminists try to hide their disappointment with what they see as insufficient militancy among younger women when I ran across a story in Politico headlined, "Why Reporters are down on Obama." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36454.html).

It so shocked me that I decided I will talk about the intramural pro-abortion battle tomorrow.

And no sooner did I read the original Politico story than I ran across a follow-up forum about the topic. (http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=71&threadid=399214) Most of the contributors were either Obama supporters who criticized reporters for having the audacity to be critical of Obama, or from others who asked reporters, "well, what did you expect?"

"Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship — as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade, reporters who cover the White House say."

Let me offer a few thoughts, because I think the growing disenchantment is not just the inevitable falling out between reporters and presidents.

The basic lament in the Politico story written by Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin, is actually not so basic. But in a nutshell, they complain that the President has essentially frozen them out ("Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent"); his designated spokesman (Robert Gibbs) is a smarty-pants who is increasingly distant and unhelpful; that the Administration comes down like gangbusters on reporters for even the mildest criticism; a favoritism that is transparent ("And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper -- The New York Times -- enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time")-- in a word, "the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information."

As a result, we read the amazing conclusion that "Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship -- as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the past decade, reporters who cover the White House say."

So what does that mean for us? Well, for one thing when reporters get their backs up there is a chance they will report--even dig--rather than just act as stenographers for the Obama Administration's line. As details seep out about the massive "reform" known as ObamaCare, if the press is really chastened, they might take our criticisms about the abortion and rationing components seriously.

For another thing, if reporters feel the strong arm of the Administration is coming down on them, perhaps they might reflect on where Obama learned his hard-ball tactics: Chicago. They might even begin to go back to look more closely at where this man came from, at what are his political roots.

And in light of the fact that the press greased the skids for Obama's rise to power, a growing skepticism just might lead reporters to refuse to roll over and bark when what Obama says (e.g., he's looking for "common ground" on abortion) is so obviously at variance with what he actually does.

At least we can hope, right?

Be sure to read "Today's News& Views" and to send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.