Are the media finally turning on Obama?

Thomas Lifson
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post thinks that they are, and cites this front page article from the Obama-friendly New York Times that points out his failure to get a trade deal with Japan and the collapse of the Mideast Peace Process. As he notes, other failures in the foreign policy realm were in evidence in the same issue of the Times, but relegated to inside pages.

It is clear to me that foreign policy is the one area of President Obama’s administration on which he is vulnerable to mainstream media backlash. On the domestic front, especially with ObamaCare, the media are completely onboard, and will only acknowledge problems when forced to do so, and will always take the position of supporting fixes, not repeal. But in foreign policy, actors with no commitment to Obama’s agenda get a vote, and they can wreak havoc.

Unfortunately, unless matters come to war, the American public cares less about foreign affairs than about domestic matters, and Obama is unlikely to go to war. So foreign policy is a relative safe area for the media to criticize him.

And what consequences would Obama-supporting media face if they speak and write honestly about the dimensions and consequences of the chaos Obama is leaving in his wake?

 The accounts and others like them amount to an autopsy of a failed presidency, but the process won’t be complete unless it is completely honest. To meet that test, the Times, other liberal news organizations and leading Democrats, in and out of office, must come to grips with their own failures, as well.

Obama had a free hand to make a mess because they gave it to him. They cheered him on, supporting him with unprecedented gobs of money and near-unanimous votes. They said “aye” to any cockamamie concept he came up with, echoed his demonization of critics and helped steamroll unpopular and unworkable ideas into reality.

Some of his backers knew better, and said so privately, but publicly they were all in. Whether it was ObamaCare, his anti-Israel position or the soft-shoe shuffle around the Iranian nuke crisis, they lacked the courage to object.

And how likely are the media to accept responsibility for their role? In my mind, very, very unlikely. While they will face no choice but to cover, say, a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine or an Iranian explosion of a nuclear bomb, they will avoid connecting the dots, and leave out their own role in the fostering the mess entirely. Goodwin concludes:

It is equally clear that those who shielded him from facts and their own best judgment did him no ­favors. Out of fear and favor, they abdicated their duty to the nation, and they must share the burden of history’s verdict. After all, America’s decline happened on their watch, too.

I am afraid we have to wait for future historians for a reckoning, and that is not enough for me. It is our job to point out Obama’s failures and to hold his sycophants responsible for enabling this disaster of a presidency. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it.

Michael Goodwin of the New York Post thinks that they are, and cites this front page article from the Obama-friendly New York Times that points out his failure to get a trade deal with Japan and the collapse of the Mideast Peace Process. As he notes, other failures in the foreign policy realm were in evidence in the same issue of the Times, but relegated to inside pages.

It is clear to me that foreign policy is the one area of President Obama’s administration on which he is vulnerable to mainstream media backlash. On the domestic front, especially with ObamaCare, the media are completely onboard, and will only acknowledge problems when forced to do so, and will always take the position of supporting fixes, not repeal. But in foreign policy, actors with no commitment to Obama’s agenda get a vote, and they can wreak havoc.

Unfortunately, unless matters come to war, the American public cares less about foreign affairs than about domestic matters, and Obama is unlikely to go to war. So foreign policy is a relative safe area for the media to criticize him.

And what consequences would Obama-supporting media face if they speak and write honestly about the dimensions and consequences of the chaos Obama is leaving in his wake?

 The accounts and others like them amount to an autopsy of a failed presidency, but the process won’t be complete unless it is completely honest. To meet that test, the Times, other liberal news organizations and leading Democrats, in and out of office, must come to grips with their own failures, as well.

Obama had a free hand to make a mess because they gave it to him. They cheered him on, supporting him with unprecedented gobs of money and near-unanimous votes. They said “aye” to any cockamamie concept he came up with, echoed his demonization of critics and helped steamroll unpopular and unworkable ideas into reality.

Some of his backers knew better, and said so privately, but publicly they were all in. Whether it was ObamaCare, his anti-Israel position or the soft-shoe shuffle around the Iranian nuke crisis, they lacked the courage to object.

And how likely are the media to accept responsibility for their role? In my mind, very, very unlikely. While they will face no choice but to cover, say, a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine or an Iranian explosion of a nuclear bomb, they will avoid connecting the dots, and leave out their own role in the fostering the mess entirely. Goodwin concludes:

It is equally clear that those who shielded him from facts and their own best judgment did him no ­favors. Out of fear and favor, they abdicated their duty to the nation, and they must share the burden of history’s verdict. After all, America’s decline happened on their watch, too.

I am afraid we have to wait for future historians for a reckoning, and that is not enough for me. It is our job to point out Obama’s failures and to hold his sycophants responsible for enabling this disaster of a presidency. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it.