Washington Post Journalist: Gee, Should We Be As Skeptical With Obama As Were With Bush?
You’d think that, for journalists actually interested in objective and factual journalism - those who think that the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of the press for the express purpose of keeping all political leaders on their toes, this wouldn’t even be a question.
But for Dan Froomkin, the Washington Post’s White House columnist, it’s apparently a challenge:
After eight years, we’ve gotten used to having a president whose credibility is shot, whose policy apparatus is utterly politicized, and whose decision-making process is completely opaque. So what do we do with President Obama? Do we treat him with the same skepticism with which we learned to approach Bush? If not, how do we hold him accountable? These are some of the issues I’m wrestling with as I prepare to make the transition from Bush to Obama – and I’d welcome your input.
Here’s my input: How about you just report the facts, and treat Obama like any other politician: Someone with a lot of power who must, giving the corrupting nature of said power, be mistrusted no matter how much you, personally, like him.
Honestly, this isn’t rocket science.
That any serious journalist could write and publish something like this and not be embarrassed about it - and the subject of much jeering and criticism by his/her colleagues - is amazing. But I guess that’s what we get with a media establishment as in love as it is with Obama.
