What happens when the legendary investigative reporter at The Washington Post investigates Obama and reaches findings that do not fit the pro-Obama media narrative?

Yesterday Prof. Jacobson tweeted:

(more, including some dissents, at memeorandum)

As noted a few days ago, Woodward reported that President Obama reneged on a 2011 budget deal with Speaker Boehner, by asking for more tax hikes.

To be sure, Woodward faulted both sides, writing “… neither was able to transcend their fixed partisan convictions and dogmas. Rather than fixing the problem, they postponed it. . . . When they met resistance from other leaders in their parties, they did not stand their ground.” However his judgment of the President is harsher.

For all of the hysterical reporting about the sequester, how many mainstream news stories remind us that the sequester was the President’s idea, that he’s changed the terms of what he’d accept to avert a sequester and that it was his demand that scuttled an earlier budget deal? These aren’t Republican talking points, these are incidents reported by Bob Woodward.

Forty years ago the reporting of Bob Woodward (along with Carl Bernstein) stood as an example of crusading journalism, which led to the resignation of a president who had won by a landslide two years earlier. Now, Woodward’s reporting is largely ignored by the very same media. In this case their silence is to protect a president they adore, but who won a narrow victory three months ago.

A related thought from John Podhoretz:

Woodward is coming under attack from Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, who claims that the American people moved the goal posts, which Drudge humorously headlines as follows:

Drudge - Woodward Guppy