Well, here on the East Coast, we are waiting to get slammed by Tropical Storm Andrea.

And today, Obama got slammed… by the  NY Times.

I found this particularly interesting because of an article in a recent Weekly Standard, suggesting that “It’s only a matter of time before the media are back in the tank” for Obama.

Some conservatives think that the elite media are finally turning on Barack Obama and his administration.

The argument goes like this: The trio of scandals that have burst forth in the last couple of weeks—the events before, during, and after the deadly attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi; the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups; and especially the Department of Justice’s secret subpoenas of Associated Press phone records and targeting of Fox News reporter James Rosen as a potential co-conspirator in a leak investigation—will mark an inflection point. From here on out, journalists will apply far more scrutiny to President Obama. His free ride is over.

Don’t believe it.

In saying this, we don’t mean to suggest that journalists won’t ask tough questions or say critical things about the administration from time to time. But sooner or later they will—with a few impressive exceptions—revert to their ways. We are, after all, dealing with deeply ingrained habits and ideological commitments….

Journalists have been more critical of the administration in the IRS and Justice Department-press stories. But even there the criticisms of the president and his top advisers have been relatively restrained. And certainly the intensity of the coverage has been far less than if this were occurring under a Republican president.

Some of us recall the gleeful rush to judgment—the political bloodlust—that swept over the press during the investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald during the George W. Bush presidency of an incident in which there was no underlying crime and which pales in comparison to the gravity of the Benghazi scandal. (Not only did no one die in the Valerie Plame episode, but she and her husband became celebrities….)

The press at its best, Walter Lippmann wrote, “is like the beam of a searchlight that moves restlessly about, bringing one episode and then another out of darkness into vision.” But today’s media, especially on the Benghazi scandal, have attempted to take something out of vision and return it to darkness. They want this story to vanish—though journalists owe allegiance to the truth.

But when I saw today’s NY Times Editorial, I wondered: Is the Weekly Standard correct in thinking that the MSM will always be in the tank for Obama?

Or, does the NYT editorial represent a shifting of the political ground?

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers….

A senior administration official quoted in The Times online Thursday afternoon about the Verizon order offered the lame observation that the information does not include the name of any caller, as though there would be the slightest difficulty in matching numbers to names. He said the information “has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats,” because it allows the government “to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States….”

The senior administration official quoted in The Times said the executive branch internally reviews surveillance programs to ensure that they “comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States and appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties.”

That’s no longer good enough. Mr. Obama clearly had no intention of revealing this eavesdropping, just as he would not have acknowledged the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, had it not been reported in the press. Even then,it took him more than a year and a half to acknowledge the killing, and he is still keeping secret the protocol by which he makes such decisions.

We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order disclosed by The Guardian. But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the surveillance policy of the George W. Bush administration “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide….”

So, is this a NYT-Obama lovers’ quarrel?

Or, is it the beginning of a bad break-up?

That remains to be seen.

But for now, let’s just savor the moment.

Update — 6/7:

via the Daily Caller: New York Times quietly changes published editorial to make it less damning of  Obama

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Kitten says:

    Shifra, this is one marriage I would love to see end. We all know the press made this monster. I don’t believe they will completely turn against him though. They’ve put all their “collective” eggs in this basket, and they’re not ready to go home with their tails between their legs. While that may be the case, the big egg has cracked and now the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

    Must say, I’ve had lots of popcorn lately. Watching all the scandals break one after the other. Better than any Lifetime movie.

  2. Di Grace says:

    Could it be Second-term Syndrome? Journalists being creatures of habit usually pick on the lame duck regardless of who he is. I think they like to let politicians know that they can “make them or break them.”

    This is off topic but I would like your opinion. Violence was threatened if Mitt Romney won the election, threats of rioting and looting akin to the riots of the 60’s. If the impeachment process by some miracle went forward, do you think a race-based uproar occur?

  3. Shifra says:

    Good question. Who knows? Maybe people are just fed up with him… But we know that is never going to happen. The Dems would never do that to him. The reason Nixon resigned is because many Republicans refused to back him, and then he knew “it was over.”

    • Di Grace says:

      It always comes back to race for Obama. That greasy, tattered race card.

    • Kitten says:

      Good point, Shifra. Dems will never impeach him. They rarely ever roll their own guy, no matter how disgusting. He could be a stock raving lunatic running around booty-butt naked and they’ll make up some excuse and rally around him. Weiner didn’t get that support because most Dems didn’t even like him. Repubs however, eat their own to save face. They wanna be liked, so almost as soon as the liberals call foul, they fall all over themselves to get rid of what they perceive as dead weight on the party. Wussies.

  4. ConservativeSue says:

    With high tech communications, as soon as NYT lamented its support for Obama, the WH or whoever sent the NYT a reminder…”who’s your daddy”….Chicago style

  5. Alain41 says:

    I think part of reason is Weiner. Even the NYT doesn’t want Weiner, so by this criticism it plants the seed in its readers that past mistakes should not go forward. Once Weiner is harmless again, there’ll be a fawning piece on how Obama’s brilliant choice of Susan Rice brought sanity to national security.

  6. Timbo says:

    Thanks Shifra, I wondered what those things flying over my house were..but I predict their life span will be short..if not over already..The MSM is too far in the tank already and I don’t see them finding a graceful way out, or even the desire to. They are little love sick piglets.


  7. LucyLadley says:

    Shifra, thank you for another great posting! Things are so deeply rooted with manipulations going deeper than will ever be revealed to us. We are not coming
    close to scratching the surface of how controlled the press is. Transparency is fantasy. Keep digging for the truth, you are being a true patriot by speaking your mind.

You must be logged in to post a comment.