Two days into his presidency and the honeymoon appears to be winding down for President Obama, at least from the perspective of the establishment media as represented by the White House Press Corps.
As one of his first acts as president, Mr. Obama announced that his administration would be marked by a new transparancy. He then barred television cameras and news photographers from his second swearing in and refused to answer a reporters question about his Deputy Defense Secretary nominee’s ties to lobbyists.
Traditionally news photographers have been admitted to the Oval Office to capture candid moments of the new president on his first day. Obama barred the photographers, instead distributing official White House photos of his first few hours in the Oval Office, characterized by the White House Press Corps as “photo press releases.”
As reported by Politico.com, the New York Times is not amused that then President-elect Obama denied them the traditional free-wheeling interview it had always conducted with the incoming president.
Now that the election is over, it seems Mr. Obama has forgotten that it was his friends in the main stream media who worked tirelessly to get him elected in the first place. Remember Chris Matthews’ “thrill up my leg” after one of Obama’s campaign speeches? Politico reports,
“…getting one’s message across through establishment media isn’t the only option for the new administration. The Obama campaign proved that one could skirt around the mainstream media at times, whether by blasting out text messages to millions of supporters (the Biden pick), or leaking to select news outlets and blogs as a means of getting out the day’s talking points out.”
Watch for the hand that Obama is biting to bite back with a vengence. Obama may have quickly forgotten the media that elected him, but the main stream media’s memory isn’t that short.
Oh – and I forgot to subscribe to the comments on this too, so I’m posting again just so I can click that box. Heh.
My question was not in the least rhetorical and sarcastic and I’m hurt that you would assume it was. It feels silly to be hurt but I am hurt that you would assume that from what I wrote. Do you think I’m silly for feeling that way? I might be.
Anyway, I think that God would definitely want Obama to keep his word, just like he would want any of us to keep his word. I think that politics is most definitely in the realm of what a Christian commentator should be talking about. In your blog I just see a very heavy-handed traditional Christian perspective on the election of a politically liberal president and I haven’t read anything here that seems to truly engage the current culture outside of the typical churchgoing kind of folk. What do you think about this? I could be wrong. I haven’t read all the entries, just about 4 of them. That might not be enough and I will definitely read more, but just from what I’ve read, it doesn’t seem to address God alongside culture.
I just left a comment at another post of yours before I saw that you replied to my comment here so I’m sorry if I’m repeating myself at all. I really do want to engage. I’m afraid that you won’t hear me or will dismiss me, but I guess that goes with the territory of being salt and light. Ugh. I will have to trust God with this. It’s hard, huh? Well thanks for reading. I look forward to ‘talking’ later.
🙂
stephy
Stephanie,
I understand your question was rhetorical and sarcastic, but here is the answer:
I think God would want Obama to keep his word and be consistent. Beyond that, politics influences culture, so if you are suggesting that politics is off limits for a Christian commentator, you would be missing the whole point of the Christian’s role as salt and light in the culture.
How is this about God and culture, exactly?
Just like Clinton. Image over integrity. Tell them what they want to hear, and they’ll believe anything. I guess opaque is the new transparency!