Why has the mainstream media been so silent about the scandals in which the Obama administration has become embroiled?

From Roger L. Simon at Pajamas Media:

Obama is beside the point. They [the liberal media] don’t even like Obama anymore. Nothing could be more obvious. Almost nobody does. But they won’t say so in public because that would mean that they would be revealed as fools who believed the most banal tripe imaginable. It would also mean admitting Barack Obama never really existed, that they invented him. He was their projection. Barack Obama is the creation of the New York Times, et al. Without them he would never have happened and they know it.

So the media are left in an untenable position. If you say Barack Obama is a mistake, then you yourself are a mistake. Who wants that?

No wonder they won’t investigate the scandals. No wonder they won’t report any of this. They are too ashamed of themselves to speak.

I agree that the MSM is deeply disappointed in Obama, and deeply reluctant to say so. But I doubt they’re as deeply disappointed as all that, not deeply enough to question their own role in the whole thing, or their belief system. That takes a great deal of courage and integrity, particularly for people with entrenched and vested interests—such as the Times editors and their ilk, as Simon points out—who would therefore be extremely reluctant to do it.

So no, my hunch is that they’re not especially ashamed of themselves. And I’m pretty sure there’s very little real soul searching going on, except perhaps to try to figure out how better to engineer things for Hillary or Elizabeth Warren or whoever emerges as the next liberal nominee.

I’m afraid what the Times is doing is old-fashioned CYA. They can’t think of a way to spin Obama’s abysmal failures any more (the MSM does have certain standards, although those standards are pretty low), so they are silent.

They’re also very accustomed to setting the news agenda, and think they can get away with ignoring news they don’t like. That NY Times slogan “All the news that’s fit to print” takes on new meaning, doesn’t it? Up till now I’d always assumed they were conveying the idea that they cover the news thoroughly (they’d like us to think they cover it objectively, too, but that’s an absurdity). But did you ever wonder what sort of news isn’t “fit to print”? Why, it’s news that would hurt liberals and help conservatives, that’s what news. And it doesn’t matter if that news constitutes the biggest scandal since Watergate—potentially even bigger than Watergate.

At the time of Watergate, who ever stopped to wonder what would have happened had Nixon been a Democrat and done exactly the same thing? Well, now we don’t have to wonder.

Please do yourself a favor and take a look at this Onion article for some relevant comic relief:

More than a week after President Barack Obama’s cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime…

“What exactly is the news hook here?” asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. “Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a ‘day in the life’ of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people? Or is it more of an examination of how Obama’s unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?”

“Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now,” Kaplan continued. “I don’t know. There are a million different angles on this one.”

There’s a saying in politics that the only way a shoo-in candidate could lose an election is by being caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy. But all bets are off with Obama.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]