This won’t be the only piece in the blogs about the media’s utter capitulation to the Obama campaign in the past election.  Their behavior reminded me of joke about how France reacted when they were invaded by Germany:  “Table for eighty thousand?  Right this way.”

No fight, no resistance, no nothing.  The media tarnished the election process by using their bully pulpit to surrender themselves and us to the Obamalytes.  The Fourth Estate shamelessly used its powers of advocacy to sway our Democracy their way.

Now that the election is over and amber waves of people have chosen Obama,  the outstanding issue isn’t who won, whether Sarah Palin was a good or dumb choice, or whether liberals, conservatives or moderates have the best roadmap for the future of the country.

The issue is the media.  In Kissinger’s famous expression, they “tilted” towards Obama.   And it was a full tilt boogie.  It’s not that they did it, it’s that they can do it and no one among them has expressed alarm for their abuse of journalistic ethics.   When Chris Matthews can say that Obama gives him a tingle up his leg, journalism has hit an iceberg and it’s time to abandon ship.

They tanked, gave it up, butt-kissed and showered Obama with the lust of a one-night stand, except that instead of slipping out of bed at 3 A.M. to taxi home, we all have to wake up every morning and make him breakfast for the next four or eight years.

As it stood, the media of the left supported Obama mostly because of their hatred of the Bush/Cheney/Rove triumvirate and their “rabid, unhinged” conservative supporters.  It certainly wasn’t because they knew who Obama was.  Their eminence grise, Tom Brokaw, who owns a million shares of sanctimony stock, said on The Charlie Rose Show, the week of the election:

ROSE:  I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

BROKAW:  No, I don’t either.

ROSE:  I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW:  We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE:  I don’t really know.  And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW:  You know that’s an interesting question.

ROSE:  He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches, two of them.

BROKAW:  I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE:  What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW:  There’s a lot about him we don’t know.

A lot about him we don’t know?  They don’t know?   The election is over and now Tom and Charlie tell us “there’s a lot about him we don’t know?”

You’re the media, Tom.  It’s your job to try to know about the guy who wants to run our country and influence world events.  But you, Andrea Mitchell, the aforementioned tingly-legged Chris Matthews, Spittle King Keith Olbermann, the AP, NY Times, CNN and other advocates of our right to know laid down like dogs. You were junkyard snarlers when it came to McCain, Palin, Hillary, Romney or anyone you didn’t like.  But when Obama tossed you a few bytes of tofu, you gobbled them up, rolled over, showed him your bellies and let him through the White House gates without a bark.

The media did nothing to inform us about Obama.  Moreover, they actively dis-investigated him.  There were no seriously probative questions about Obama and Ayers, Obama’s lies and evasions about Rev. Wright, Obama’s connections with Rezko, Acorn; exactly what DID he accomplish in Chicago, why he voted “present” a hundred and twenty-six times in the Illinois state senate and why the hell were his birth records sealed by the Governor of Hawaii.

But a lot about Palin’s clothes.

Then, later in Election Week, again on Charlie Rose — which seems to be a political Hole-In-The-Wall for honest discussion, probably because so many people are asleep, two editors at liberal Newsweek, Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas, offered these thoughts:

MEACHAM:  He’s very elusive, Obama, which is fascinating for a man who’s written two memoirs.  At Grant Park he walks out with the family, and then they go away.

ROSE: Mmm. Mmm-hmm.

MEACHAM:  Biden’s back, you know, locked in the bar or something.

ROSE: (chuckling)

MEACHAM:  You know, they don’t let him out.  And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage?

ROSE: Mmm.MEACHAM: No adoring wife, no cute kid.  He is the messenger.

THOMAS:  There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all this.  I mean, he’s such an admirable —

ROSE:  Slightly. Creepy. Cult of personality.


ROSE:  What’s slightly creepy about it?

THOMAS:  It — it — it just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular.  He’s clearly managing his own spectacle.  He’s a deeply manipulative guy.

Creepy cult of personality?  Elusive?  The messenger?  Deeply manipulative?   Did Meacham and Thomas arrive at these notions overnight?  Did they suddenly have an epiphany about Obama?  These are not the kind of assessments that just pop into one’s head.  My guess is that they’ve been stewing about them for a while, but kept their mouths shut until it was too late.  After the election.

As Charlie says, “Mmmm.  Mmmmmm.  Mmmmmmmmmm.”

Be Sociable, Share!