MSM IS GETTING WEAKER AND WEAKER - IS NOT PROTECTING AMERICA FROM THE DANGERS OF STUPIDITY

Submitted by: Tony Caputo

Bias: President Obama repeatedly claims to know nothing about scandals, blames others for problems and has failed to achieve most of his stated goals. If he were a Republican, what do you think the press would call him?
When a reporter asked in a two-part question whether Obama had been "caught by surprise" by the mushrooming scandal at the VA, Obama ignored it.

It was a good question. The White House had earlier claimed that Obama only learned about attempts at VA hospitals to falsify records and hide chronic delays after reading about it in the newspaper, despite mounting evidence that he must have, or should have, known long before. Obama did, after all, promise repeatedly to fix the VA when he ran for president in 2008.
Yet neither the reporter nor anyone else in the room insisted that Obama answer it.
Now try to imagine how the mainstream press would have responded if Obama were a Republican. They'd almost certainly describe him as disengaged, maybe even incompetent. Or worse, an inveterate liar.
At the very least they wouldn't let him dodge such a pertinent question. Especially not after he'd made the same plea of ignorance about the ObamaCare website fiasco, IRS targeting, AP snooping, Fast and Furious and other scandals.
Normally, the press is eager to come up with an overarching narrative for a president to help explain the day-to-day news coming out of Washington.
President Reagan was an amiable dunce when he wasn't a warmonger. George W. Bush was by turns arrogant or a bumbling idiot. Nixon was a criminal. Carter was the malaise president. And so on.
Stories that fit the narrative are played up. Those that don't tend to be buried.
But the press just gives Obama a free pass.
His economic policies, for example, have produced falling incomes for middle class families, while Wall Street fat cats got even richer.
They've pushed millions into poverty and millions more onto food stamps, while corporate profits soared.
A GOP president would be accused of helping the rich at the expense of the middle class. But not Obama.
How about the fact that Obama has missed every economic growth target he set and presided over the worst economic recovery in more than 70 years, yet has refused to take any responsibility for his failure and never once considered changing course.
Wouldn't such a president be depicted as close-minded, arrogant or inflexible? Guess how often those labels have been applied to Obama.
What would the media say about a president who took his family on costly vacations, threw elaborate parties and generally lived a life of luxury, all at a time of massive deficits, joblessness and economic turmoil?
Wouldn't he be described as a spoiled aristocrat, living high on the taxpayers' dime with little regard for the common folk?
How about a president who repeatedly ignored the law, refused to cooperate with investigations and pressured the media into silence?
He'd be called a paranoid, lawless control freak, and there'd be abundant comparisons to President Nixon.
What would the press call a president whose foreign policy alienated allies, emboldened enemies and amounted to little more than stale platitudes, as he idly watched one nation take chunks out of another?
He'd most certainly be called weak and feckless if he were a Republican.
But the best the narrative the press seems able to fashion about Obama is the one he fashions for himself — that he's frustrated by Republicans and by "distractions."
Well, here's a narrative that fits Obama's tenure best: a failure. Adopt that, and suddenly everything that's been happening over the past five-and-a-half years falls neatly into place. But that's a word the media will never use against their chosen president, which is why they seem so perpetually flummoxed by his stark displays of incompetence here and abroad.