These are the same people who were all insulted when we questioned their objectivity and professionalism. These are the same people who ridiculed the bloggers who did their job more efficiently (for little or no pay) than the professionals. These are the same people who did everything they could to be the ones to cover a "historical" moment.
The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic.
Tom Brokaw recently admitted that he doesn't know that much about Obama's background and the press didn't do their job, aside from the moot point of rooting for him all the way. Now that he's been effectively installed, it would appear the media is looking for ways to wipe their fingerprints off the Obama presidency just in case "change" and "hope" doesn't work out as promised.
However, more and more aren't letting the thin-skinned media off the hook easily.
There will come a time in the year ahead when either Obama's unexamined past will come back to haunt him, or his inexperience and tentativeness in foreign affairs will be embarrassingly apparent, or his European-socialist agenda for domestic programs simply won't work. And as public opinion falls, what will MSNBC, the New York Times, the editors of Newsweek, a Chris Matthews or the anchors at the major networks say?
Not much—since they will have one of two non-choices: (1) either they will begin scrambling to offer supposed disinterested criticism, which will be met with the public's, "Why should we begin believing you now?" or "Why didn't you tell this before?", or (2), They can continue as state-sanctioned megaphones of the Obama administration in the manner that they did during the campaign. They will lose either way and remain without credibility.
And in the meantime, the American will have to deal with a legitimate "selected, not elected" candidate, now President-Elect, and the media will start anew their quest to give us the government THEY believe is best for us.
Hope to see more of them in the unemployment line.
