BHO approves press corps Releases

A New York Times article has revealed that Administration-related “news” reported by the national press corps must first be approved for publication by Barack Hussein Obama.

Times contributor Jeremy Peters has revealed that in exchange for access to White House officials, reporters must promise the Administration full authority to exclude, redact, or edit any and all statements made by those officials. This provides Obama with “veto power” over information printed by a purportedly free and vigilant American media. (1)

Certainly, Jeremy Peters must be congratulated for bringing this information to the American public. But the way in which he presents this despicable story of media manipulation is perhaps even more revealing than the story itself. For according to Peters, members of the press corps have been “reluctant” to yield dominion over their journalistic autonomy to the White House. “‘We don’t like the practice,’ said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at the New York Times.” “ ‘We encourage out reporters to push back.’ ”

But what, precisely, is it about this Obama Administration practice that offends New York Times reporters? Is it that the man they worked so diligently to put in the White House, the man whose past they refused to investigate, the man for whom they provided cover and excuses for, is suddenly asking that they sacrifice their ethical standards? Are these reporters ashamed that they are lending their name to White House press releases posing as news articles? Are they concerned that an appearance of bias might be associated with their work?

And against whom, exactly, would this New York Times editor suggest his honest and faithful cabal of reporters “push back?” Would it be against an Administration with which they share a common social, economic, and political vision?

The Washington, DC press corps has eagerly supported the schemes and dreams of Barack Obama for years. They are dedicated, fellow members of the far left, working at every turn to advance the cause of their Marxist leader in the White House.  If they are in any way at odds with the thuggish media practices of the Administration, it is only because their feelings are hurt by the thought Obama might not trust them to adequately protect or advance his interests!

Yet even as their dangerous and dishonest practices are exposed, members of the media seek to protect and excuse themselves with the claim that they only very reluctantly allow the Obama Administration to write, publish, and represent pro-Regime press releases as “news!” A laughably dishonest claim of journalistic objectivity right to the bitter end.