WH Press Corps is 'timid' - is O'Reilly kidding?

“Timidity?” That’s Bill O’Reilly’s explanation for the soft-pitch questioning consistently offered up by the White House Press Corps (that’s pronounced ‘core,’ as in Navy Corpseman, Mr. President); the press corps is a little bit timid? Who the heck is O’Reilly trying to kid?

I generally respect O’Reilly’s approach to journalistic ethics; his efforts to hold true to his claim of “Fair and Balanced” coverage, even if I don’t always agree with him, are relatively apparent. However, I think he sometimes sidesteps a completely honest appraisal of others in his own profession. But, even if he’s right about the timidity of the WH Press Corps, the equation works out the same – there’s a big, big problem in Dodge City, mister.

In a way, though O’Reilly intended his comment, I believe, as a defense of others in his profession, it’s really a tremendous insult. Think about it – the WH Press Corps is assumed to comprise the cream of the crop, the top dogs in the world of journalism, or at least that’s how its members have traditionally tried to portray themselves. And yet we now have a crop of ‘timid’ reporters who have somehow been elevated beyond their ability?

In a way, it makes sense that the WH Press Corps would consist of accomplished and professional reporters of the highest order. Theirs is an essential role in our democracy and, I would think, in the profession. They are asked to cover the highest office in the land and, as the Watch Dogs of democracy, what journalistic posting could be more important than that, save those covering Congress and the Supreme Court?”

So, it comes down to this, if they’re timid, how did they get there and, I would ask, what is the basis of their timidity? Did the same reporters whose posting to the WH Press Corps spanned back into the Bush presidency demonstrate the same level of ‘timidity’ when a Republican was in the White House?

To some degree, the answer to the last question is, “Yes.” Reporters, particularly those working under the frequent scrutiny of televised coverage, are reticent to come off as disrespectful of the nation’s highest elected official. But, Mr. O’Reilly has to have his head buried deeply in the sand if he hasn’t noticed an alarming increase in the level of ‘timidity’ rightfully ascribed to the press corps since Obama took office.

The ‘timidity’ of the Obama Press Corps is so apparent that it’s news when a non-FOX member has the audacity to ask a tough question or two from the press secretary (see the story by Matt Towery in GOPUSA that I referred to yesterday - http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2011/09/08/towery-see-jake-run/?subscriber=1). 

So, I ask Mr. O’Reilly, if the members of the press corps are so generally timid, who put them there and why, and why are they still there? If I’m an executive at NBC (yes, I know, I kind of choked on that thought, too), and I realize that my White House reporter is demonstrating timidity, I’ll want to know why and, if we can’t knock the timidity out of him or her, well, we’ll shuffle that reporter back to something they can handle, such as covering stories about dogs that know how to skateboard.

In the final analysis, though I believe what O’Reilly identifies as timidity is actually liberal bias, there is no excuse. Either the reporters in the White House are blatantly carrying water for their Chosen One or executives at the networks are intentionally skewing their coverage by planting inept journalists in a position of supreme importance.

So, for my money, O’Reilly, the reporters in the White House and, for that matter, the network executives can choose their poison; are the reporters in the White House inept and timid or blatantly biased? Keep in mind, whether they choose a measure of journalistic arsenic or strychnine, a drink like that has a real kick to it.