Skip to comments.No 'Playing Gotcha' With Obama
Posted on 01/30/2013 5:57:35 AM PST by Kaslin
Did you see that hard-hitting report on "60 Minutes" Sunday, the one that charged that one of our nation's most famous leaders and role models is a shameless liar, a ruthless intimidator and even "incinerator" of enemies, a man who operates like the Mafia?
No, that wasn't the interview with Barack Obama alongside Hillary Clinton. It was an interview later in the same show about the drug-enhanced bicyclist Lance Armstrong. That's CBS News for you -- a guy who pedals a bike through France is hammered as if he is the most powerful man in the world, while the most powerful man is treated like a lovable celebrity -- because that is precisely how they feel.
The agenda of "60 Minutes" should remind viewers that CBS CEO Les Moonves attended a glitzy Obama/DNC fundraiser in Beverly Hills last June, where he admitted the obvious: "Ultimately, journalism has changed ... partisanship is very much a part of journalism now."
Steve Kroft, who's been minding the Batcave as Obama's journalistic butler on "60 Minutes" for six years now, was also perfectly obvious about his servility, both during the recorded Obama-and-Hillary interview and in a later chat with CNN. He began his interview on CBS by telling the audience that this segment was Obama's idea. One wonders if Obama has something like a bell or a dog whistle for Kroft. Since when do politicians set segments for "hard-hitting" "60-Minutes"?
Kroft told CNN's Piers Morgan that Obama likes the show because it's a long-form interview, and it's highly rated. But he also admitted, "I think he knows that we're not going Morgan avoided the obvious follow-up question, to play gotcha with him, that we're not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid."
"60 Minutes" used to be synonymous with "gotcha," and it certainly was when it broke the Abu Ghraib story to hurt Bush in 2004, and when Dan Rather flaunted fake Texas Air National Guard documents to hurt Bush months later. In the 2008 election cycle, "60 Minutes" asked John McCain why he would "let the Wall Street executives sail away on their yachts and leave this (bailout) on the American taxpayer?" They hammered Romney about avoiding military service -- and his five sons avoiding military service. Kroft has never asked Obama about his failure to serve in the military, and he certainly never asked about whether he had premarital sex with his wife, which Mike Wallace threw at Romney.
But this was the Barack and Hillary Show, and it focused on that wondrous relationship. "How would you characterize your relationship right now?" He asked Hillary: "What did he promise you? And has he kept the promises?" He asked the president: "Has she had much influence in this administration?" He asked them both: "What do you think the biggest success has been, foreign policy success, of the first term?"
When Kroft turned to "specifics" on Benghazi, he wanted to know about her testimony before the House and Senate. "You had a very long day. Also, how is your health?" After setting that sympathetic tone, he asked one specific question. "Do you feel guilty in any way, at a personal level? Do you blame yourself that you didn't know or that you should have known?"
Which official who lost a public servant in a terrorist attack would not express regret, that they wish they could have done something more to prevent it? It was a softball that opened the door for Hillary to profess it was "a great personal loss," but not really her fault.
During the hearings, Team Obama was sharply criticized for blatantly lying and blaming the Benghazi attacks on a video, spurring Hillary to yell at Sen. Ron Johnson, "What difference does it make?" It begged for the famed Mike Wallace incredulity thrust: "What difference did it make?!"
Nothing. Apparently Hillary's flagrant non-answer was somehow a great answer. She's a Clinton. Lying always gets them out of a jam because the compliant liberal media will never call them out. To borrow a phrase from Bill, "maintaining their political viability within the system" is always their first priority. The same can be said for their media enablers.
At the end of the Lance Armstrong-bashing segment, his accuser, Trevor Tygart of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, suggested this was Armstrong's plan: "Cheat your way to the top, and if you get too big and too popular and too powerful, if you do it that well, you'll never be held accountable."
Obama's reliance on the performance-enhancing media is like doping in politics. Kroft and Co. helped Obama cheat his way to the top, and at the pinnacle of power, he is never held accountable. The interview should have concluded, "I am Barack Obama, and I approve this message."
The Ministry of Information - otherwise known as America’s free press - has been collectively a shameless shill for liberalism for donkey’s years.
These days they make no bones about it, to the extent they refuse even to print anything derogatory about Democrat stupidity and incompetence, corruption, lying, and venality.
And Obama is America’s Poster Boy for this Ministry of Propaganda.
The corrupt state-run media is supported by revenue taken from consumers. Close your wallets to sponsors of “60 Minutes,” and it will go away.
Ahh. I see. Yes, I recall the old days when partisanship wasn't a part of the profession, when we could trust people like Walter Duranty to tell us the baldfaced truth about the Soviet Union in the Thirties, Face the Nation to tell us the truth about Whittaker Chambers, Jack Anderson to tell us impartially about Joseph McCarthy, Walter Cronkite to tell us the truth about the Tet Offensive, or Woodward and Bernstein to tell us with no slant about Watergate.
Ah, yes. The good old days. How I miss them.
Of course not. I will get you frozen out of all the best Beltway cocktail parties, and audited for the next 39 years in a row.
In all fairness, the media did turn on Jimmy Carter when he became so unpopular they could no longer afford to cover for him. I doubt they’ll ever abandon their Kenyan love interest.
Until RWR ran for president, that is.
Stopped watching 60 minutes years ago, their agenda is obvious.
The real dummies here are the American people who support this type of “news reporting”. MSM supplies what the American public demands. If the public demand was for true jounalism then we would get it. Very discouraging but I believe the free market is working perfectly here.
How about not watching ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC and not reading any of the leftwing rags?
This essay by Sultan Knish was one of the best I’ve read on the MSM and can we potentially do anything about it:
The whole purpose of 60 Minutes is the gotcha game - except when it comes to Obama.
Obama’s reliance on the performance-enhancing media is like doping in politics.
No questions about that.