David Gregory has the out-there notion that he is not supposed to take at face value everything the Obama camp says. In this interview, he goes after an Obama rep on two key points: raising taxes in a recession is “risky” and Obama’s refusal to identify a single specific item he’d cut in the budget.
Why can’t these points be put to Barack Obama in a debate or an interview? Reporters simply don’t ask him direct questions like: “When asked about items you will cut you have identified new spending priorities. Why won’t you tell voters what’s going to get trimmed or axed?” It’s not that hard to come up with many other substantive questions, and then press him with follow-ups. This is Journalism 101.
But it seems, over and over again, the media has simply deferred to the Obama version of reality. This is especially true on his own record and personal history. Obama says he’s a reformer, so no use asking him why he didn’t challenge the Daley machine at any point. He says he couldn’t possibly support infanticide, so there’s no point of taking him through the specifics of his votes on the Born Alive Infants legislation. He claims his relationship with Bill Ayers was slight, so there’s no reason to ask him about the conversations they might have had on “redistributive change” or about Ayers’ terrorist activities or about the groups which they funded together through the Woods Fund. Obama’s such a post-partisan guy there really isn’t any point grilling him as to how he could be unaware of Reverend Wright’s rhetoric.
You can call it bias or passivity or whatever you like. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that the press is not, in any meaningful sense, intellectually or politically independent from the Obama camp. On the contrary, the MSM has adopted entirely the Obama storyline. They simple relate it; they don’t challenge or investigate it. And when an enterprising reporter does try to push back a bit, it certainly is newsworthy.