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.

Does someone in lamestream-media land have a pulse and, maybe even, a conscience?

It appears someone in the lamestream media may have a pulse. Time will tell, but for now, Matt Towery, for GOPUSA, presents that possibility in the person of ABC's Jake Tapper. I'm not ready to start holding my breath, but this is showing signs of life:

Towery: See Jake Run

Of course, as Towery points out, if Tapper keeps asking tough questions of the White House, he may find himself in the proverbial lamestream-media doghouse. Yet, in the interest of fair play, as I have frequently taken the lamestream media to well-deserved task, it is only fair that I report when someone in the lamestream media seems to take journalistic ethics to heart.

.

Media liberally recasts jobs speech scheduling conflict

I’ve spent almost two decades in the field of journalism. Imagine for a second that I submitted the following story to an editor for publication:

A scheduled beer summit in the Rose Garden was billed as the beginning of political détente between the president and conservative republicans as, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama appeared to accept the olive branch of peace extended by Speaker of the House John Boehner. However, on Wednesday, Obama’s press secretary announced that Obama would prefer to spend that time shooting 18 holes of golf.

In what light does that portray the president? Does it suggest that he really isn’t interested in détente? In fact, does it come across as something of a golf-glove wielded slap in the face for Boehner and conservatives?

How would liberals react to such a story if, later, they discovered that the story was written by a rare conservative reporter and that, in fact, Obama politely bowed out of the meeting with Boehner because of a national-security crisis that suddenly developed in the Middle East? That is the equivalent of what I overheard on Chicago’s ABC evening news the other day.

Channel 7 was presenting a story about the scheduling conflicts that arose when Obama unilaterally announced he would address the nation on jobs from a joint session of Congress next Wednesday. The address was changed to Thursday after Boehner sent a letter to Obama recommending that he reschedule.  

I heard no mention of any reasonable scheduling issues. I heard no mention of the conflicts that may have precipitated those issues. Instead, what I heard was a story suggesting an unspoken continuation of Republican intransigence.

After listening to the story on Channel 7, the uninformed viewers of that program’s tripe, would have no idea that Obama had scheduled his address during the same time as a previously announced debate between Republican presidential primary candidates. Those viewers wouldn’t stop to consider that presidential addresses are given from the podium in the front of the House of Representatives and, therefore, it’s beholding on the president to work with the Speaker of the House to schedule a time for such an address.

But, Obama didn’t do that. He didn’t call Boehner and say, “Hello John. I was wondering, how does Wednesday evening look for my jobs speech from your House?”

It would be the same as my telling a friend I want to meet with them tomorrow evening in another friend’s house but not bothering to tell the homeowner about the meeting in advance. “By the way, Bill, Tom and I are coming by to meet in your kitchen tomorrow.”

I’ve assumed Bill will be home and that our arrival won’t constitute an uninvited intrusion. Now consider the meeting at Bill’s house in the light of his prior announcement that he had a parent-teacher conference scheduled for the same night.

In the case of the coverage by Channel 7 the other night, it wasn’t that they spoke any actual lies. Instead, the lie was in the omissions. For a viewership that has long learned Pavlovian lessons about the evils of conservatism, lessons that are drilled into them on a nightly basis, whether in subtle little spoonfuls, such as the dose administered the other night, or in great big smorgasbords of anti-conservative rhetoric, the unspoken message was merely reinforcement for what they already know – Republicans are racist radicals who are out to get the president anyway they can.

Of course, the rest of us, while acknowledging greed and corruption on both sides of the political aisle, realize that Republicans have actually stood up to the president for reasons having nothing to do with the color of his skin. They have stood up to the president because he has shown a marked disregard for the constitution, has sought to drag the country further into an entitlement nightmare and has tried to legislate from the White House by circumventing Congress through the actions of czars and regulators.

The truth is, whether liberals agree or not, any intransigence demonstrated by conservatives these last two-and-a-half years was an outgrowth of legitimate concerns and beliefs about the appropriate course for the country. And, the truth is we can’t count on the truth from the lamestream media, whether the liberal mouthpiece is Channel 7 in Chicago, an AP reporter at a townhall meeting in a small suburb of Des Moines or from an anchor at CNN.

Note: I did not hear the entire broadcast but asked someone who did if he heard mention of any of the issues I raised here. He indicated that he did not. Even if Channel 7 did mention the real scheduling conflicts, I can say with certainty from the time I was listening that they played the truth down sufficiently in the story to essentially legitimize my characterization of their coverage either way.

So, now I'm a fiscal terrorist

At first I was offended; the lamestream media, Vice President What's-his-face, and other pundits on the Left have taken to calling TEA Party folk like me 'Terrorists" (I guess they got tired of calling us racists). Generally speaking, I don't like being compared to a wacko whose idea of a good time is to strap bombs around his waste and blow himself and others into little bits.

In my outrage over the latest verbal assault from the Left, I turned as I often do - no, not to a schematic of how to build a human bomb - but to my trusty Merriam-Webser's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition). There, I sought the solace from this latest verbal assault and the definition of this word that has caused the Left so much angst over the last 10 years or so: a word they struggle to use against human bombers but so easily apply to fiscal conservatives.

Reading the definition, I suddenly realized that, maybe, they're right. Maybe I am a terrorist.

According to Webster, a terrorist is someone who uses "systematic ... terror ... as a means of coercion."

I will not deny that the TEA Party, through its elected officials, has sought to coerce, cajole or otherwise convince the government to apply some fiscal sanity to our burgeoning debt crisis. Considering, if someone finds fiscal conservatism to be a form of terror, than seeking some restraint on government spending could be a terrifying experience.

I like to think of this in terms of a family setting. Joe and Cindy Somebody have found themselves up to their necks in debt and Joe has decided it's time to take a stand.

"Cindy, we have got to stop spending like this."

Suddenly, the neighbors peer through the window shades to see why Cindy next door has run into the street screaming as though chased by a knife wielding psychopath. And there's Joe, sitting at the kitchen table with a shocked look at his face wondering what happened to make his wife act that way.

If spending within our means or trying not to saddle our children and grandchildren with our irresponsible debt is so incredibly frightening for liberals, maybe we should make the same suggestion to them that Joe will most likely make to Cindy when she stops running.

"Honey, I love you, but if being responsible about the way we spend money has that affect on you, maybe I should handle the finances from now on. I mean, honestly, if we don't do something about this now, the alternative is bankruptcy and ruin. Besides, the neighbors are starting to talk, what with you running around screaming every time I suggest balancing the budget."

So, as a fiscal terrorist, I apologize to Biden, Chris Williams and all the other liberals who find my position so scary. If we had known you were so incapable of handling money within the bounds or reality, well, maybe more of us would have refrained from putting you in these frightening positions where you'd be called upon, by some, to deal with issues like debt, income and fiscal responsibility.

They say the first step is admitting there's a problem. Now that we've identified the problem, maybe you should focus on things that are a little more comfortable for you, such as attacking Sarah Palin just because she's a woman with too much sense to be a liberal.

In the meantime, as the next election approaches, keep in mind that, if people are careless enough to put you back in office, you'll probably have to deal with scary financial matters again. If you're not up to the task, maybe you should let someone with a stronger stomach and a little more common sense do the job.