Pollyanna MSM Quick to Defend Obama and Napolitano

David Horowitz's NewsRealblog ^

[Michael van der Galien]

Although I should’ve expected it, I’m afraid I have to admit that the mainstream media’s passionate defense of Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano took me by surprise.

I especially expected better from New York Times columnist David Brooks – as much of a centrist as they come – and Washington Post columnist David S. Broder. The former wrote yesterday:

There have been outraged calls for Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security to resign, as if changing the leader of the bureaucracy would fix the flaws inherent in the bureaucracy. There have been demands for systemic reform — for more protocols, more layers and more review systems.

Much of the criticism has been contemptuous and hysterical. Various experts have gathered bits of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s biography. Since they can string the facts together to accurately predict the past, they thunder, the intelligence services should have been able to connect the dots to predict the future.

“Contemptuous and hysterical?” Pardon me? Whether Brooks likes it or not, Napolitano is in charge of homeland security. If the intelligence community makes a mistake which (almost) results in a terrorist attack, she and no one else is responsible. It’s a vital part of the West’s democratic system: democracies can’t expect to thrive if government officials aren’t held accountable for everything that happens under their watch.

Although Brooks’ column is bad enough, Broder proves it can always be worse. The man who is considered to be the “Dean” of the Washington press corps doesn’t merely defend Napolitano in his latest column, as Broder does, but even has the audacity to praise her...

[HiTech RedNeck]

Make up your mind, are they excoriating Janet or excusing her?

[missnry]

I would love to see Broder and Brooks on a plane with a terrorist trying to detonate his package! What would go through their minds as it was going down and smoke filling the cabin?
Would they have time to call Janet so she could activate The System™?

[Oldpuppymax]

Pollyanna? So THAT’S the new word for leftist!

[andy58-in-nh]

It seems that much of our government and our news media presently share identical worldviews, as one might expect given their common membership among the Eastern Elite. This universe of shared values and assumptions extends beyond the normal political boundaries; many "Republicans" in the elite media would, for all intents and purposes, be Democrats were they to live outside of Washington or New York.

The result, as many others have noted, is a sort of echo chamber of opinion, from which genuine conservative dissent always clangs harshly against the preferred harmonic convergence of Proper Progressive thought. What is considered "mainstream" in much of the country sounds reactionary or crazy by the standards of our elites, whose values and assumptions might as well derive from a different nation than those of most Americans.

The mainstream view is most often shared among those in (what remains of) our private sector, while the elite version is preferred among government workers, aggrieved minorities (as self-designated), journalists and academics. The ultimate consequence of such disunity will likely not be a particularly happy one.

[italianquaker]

Broder is an odumbo supporter, so whats the surprise

[JohnBrowdie]

deer. headlights. clueless.

[Political Junkie Too]

There have been outraged calls for Secretary Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security to resign, as if changing the leader of the bureaucracy would fix the flaws inherent in the bureaucracy.

Why didn't the MSM feel this way about Michael Brown and FEMA after Katrina?

-PJ

[Spok]

“I’m afraid I have to admit that the mainstream media’s passionate defense of Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano took me by surprise.”

Obama is surrounded by fools and crooks. If the MSM gets objective about one of them, where would it draw the line? The MSM has to deny the obvious consistently or not at all.