The Press Now Officially Works for Obama

I originally went to school to become a journalist. I had all the intention in the world to report the news to people in an objective fashion. I even remember early on in my classes debating with one of my professors about how it was a reporters job to report all of the attainable facts and let the public decide. My professor, of course, said that we could never do that because reporting the facts was boring and people wanted a perspective while still presenting the facts. I asked, "Isn't that what editorials are for?" to which I was told in so many words, the job of a reporter is to choose what facts they think are relevant and report on them. Since many times there are so many facts and perspectives, I as a reporter along with my editor would choose what facts should go first, second, etc. Also, we were told that when we write stories, we cannot get too complicated in the facts as we had to write for the 4th to 5th grade level.

It was not much longer after that, that I chose not to become a journalist. The idea that my editor and I would choose the facts and more importantly to choose to omit some facts was something I could not stomach. Add to that, many of the editors, even in small town middle America, are liberals with a capital L. This was all something I could not stomach and I walked away.

Even though I was greatly disappointed with the real world aspect, my education taught me something that has proven to be invaluable; I have the capability to read past what the reporter/newspaper is trying to tell me. Short of the story being about a fire in an apartment complex, there is usually some sort of spin. I know how to look for it and when a story is missing something due to a reporter or editor not giving ALL of the details.

Fast forward to early 2008, my wife donated some money to a charity and won/was given a subscription to Newsweek. While I have never been a fan, I am a news and political junkie and read it in disgust every week. Why not, it's free. Throughout the campaign, even before the primaries, I remember telling my wife that something was rotten in Denmark with the coverage of Obama. It just did not seem right. It was too one sided and there were things that just seemed off. I could not put my finger on it and chalked it up to a reporter that was probably trying to get on his good side to win an exclusive interview. As the election ramped up, the coverage did not change, in fact, it got worse. The stories on Obama were not just one sided, but as someone who was educated in the process, they seemed to be missing some of the next steps a journalist would take (this is just a little aside, but let me tell you this. Other than some "true believer" most journalists will do whatever they can to get a good story. Even if they like the person/company, etc they will sell them down the river in the blink of an eye if they think it will give them an exclusive, a book deal, a Pulitzer, etc.) and it just did not make sense.

Finally today, it all came together. Today, Newsbusters reported that the reporter that covered Obama for Newsweek, Daren Briscoe, is now officially working for the president's drug czar. If this happened in the Busch administration or even with Sarah Palin there would be outcries of a conspiracy. Liberal bloggers, CNN, MSNBC and the like would have huge reports about how this was wrong, etc. Daren Briscoe was not an editorial writer or columnist like Tony Snow, he was a reporter. At least he claimed to be a reporter. This is just another example of the press working for Obama, except for this time he is actually on the payroll