Free Markets, Free People

Obama’s lies and the media’s betrayal

How little interest has the media show in the actual facts of Barack Obama’s history?

The simple answer is “very little”.  For instance I expect a minute and basically negative examination of the Mormon religion when Mitt Romney is officially nominated.  That’s already being set up by numerous of those type articles already beginning to surface.

But Obama’s 20 years in a church with a reverend who basically preached anti-Americanism and black liberation theology? Meh.

A great example of what I’m talking about is covered by Jonathan Tobin in Commentary’s “Contentions” blog.  It is about the story oft repeated by Obama.  It is his version of his mother death of cancer because those nasty old insurance companies wouldn’t pay.

It’s a lie.  Again, I use the word “lie” much less frequently than do many in the press or around the blogosphere.  A lie is a knowing falsehood. I try to restrict my usage to that tight definition.  As it turns out, the story Obama has told repeatedly as the truth about his mother’s death is, in fact, a lie.  Oh, and the mainstream media knows it. 

Proof?  Well, they said so.

Never let it be said the New York Times is afraid to tackle an unflattering story about President Obama, even if it’s often a delayed reaction. The paper’s political blog The Caucus deigned to notice today that the new biography of the president by David Maraniss uncovered the fact that much of Dreams From My Father, the highly praised Barack Obama autobiography, is either fabricated or exaggerated. The Times’s Michael Shear opines that having its author now sitting in the White House has brought Dreams more scrutiny than its author could have envisioned when he wrote it in 1995. But the problem with contemporary analyses of the questionable personal history in the book is not so much the peril associated with being a famous political author but whether the book provides proof of a pattern of falsehoods and distortions about his past that has been one of the hallmarks of the president’s public career.

The answer to that question is contained near the bottom of the piece in which Shear lets drop that proof of such a pattern was already provided by his own newspaper last year. Though the Times buried the story when it broke and then never followed up or editorialized on the scandal, it was their own reporter Janny Scott whose research on the life of the president’s mother Ann Dunham revealed that the oft-told story of her dying because of the failure of her health insurance company to pay for her cancer treatment was a flat out lie. But while Shear is right that this year’s election will not turn on how Maraniss’s book is received, the unwillingness of the Times and other mainstream publications to call out Obama for writing fiction and calling it autobiography gives us a good indication of how much of an advantage having a quiescent media is for an incumbent president. [emphasis mine]

You know the standard line here: imagine them discovering something like this about someone on the right.  Do you suppose it would not be followed up or be editorialized?  Do you suppose they’d skip pointing out it seems to indicate a pattern?

As to that pattern and the specifics of his mother’s death:

The fables Obama seems to have told about his alienation, his girlfriends and the rest of his over-intellectualized voyage of self-discovery actually pale in comparison to the whopper he told when running for election in 2008 that his mother died because she had been denied coverage and treatment of her disease. Scott revealed that in fact the expenses relating to her cancer had been paid by her insurance. Though she had a separate and totally unrelated dispute relating to disability coverage, Scott’s research proved that Obama’s statement during the 2008 presidential debate was fiction:

“For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

It bears repeating that the president knew this account was false because he served as his mother’s attorney in all her dealings with the insurance company. [emphasis mine]

And where did the Times run this revelation?  What was the White House reaction?

When the Times ran that story (on page 14 rather than on the front page), the White House chose not to deny the truth of Scott’s reporting. But that didn’t stop the Obama campaign from  refloating the same falsehoods about Ms. Dunham having perished for lack of insurance coverage in an autobiographical campaign film narrated by Tom Hanks.

So the Times discovered what would be a bombshell revelation were it anyone else, they plop it out on page 14, the White House denies it and that ends it?

Now that’s journalism isn’t it?  Duty fulfilled, even halfheartedly, and now safe to ignore.  Meanwhile the lie lives on and no one even bothers to address the fact that’s what it is.  It is pure political propaganda designed to demonize an industry in order to gain popular consent to all but wreck it and have government take its place.

Yet, it’s only worth page 14 in the “paper of record” and zero followup. 

Not only has the president never apologized for lying to the American people about his mother’s plight, he rightly assumed that even though the truth was uncovered by the New York Times, neither that paper nor the rest of the mainstream media would follow up on it as they undoubtedly would had a Republican ever tried to sell the voters such a transparent whopper.

There’s the bottom line.

Another example of how poorly a biased media is serving the public.  Yet they wonder why the public’s confidence in them continues to drop and newspapers all over the country are dying.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

15 Responses to Obama’s lies and the media’s betrayal

  • In the law, suborning perjury is as grave an offense as the perjury itself, generally.
    When you facilitate and enable a liar, you are no better than the liar, and many times may not even claim the liar’s illness as an excuse.
    The American press deserves the market death penalty…which they daily seem to be suffering.

    • The American press deserves the market death penalty…which they daily seem to be suffering.

      Hell, they’re doing an exquisite job of suicide.

  • It isn’t much of a stretch to see a pattern with the exaggerations in Dreams From My Father and the the claims the indirectly gave live to the Birther myth when Obama claimed to be born in Kenya.  He was born into a family of two college educated parents who were part of the academic elite;  Obama was raise as a white child who happened to look black.
    Society doesn’t give any major breaks to white kids; they are assumed to be on the road to prosperity;  they have “white privilege” and they better cash in on it; if they don’t it’s their fault.
    Barack Obama needed to have “street cred” as an African-American, so he could get those minority goodies that the guilty whites had paid for.  He also needed it so he could bamboozle and hoodwink voters in the black community.  Ultimately, the search for street cred led Barack Obama to Trinity Church.

    THAT is the best exposition of the entire gun-walking history I have found.

    • in the general discussion section have been following F&F for awhile, and there is now over 400 pages of comments. Much of it is very informative.

  • You got it exactly right political propaganda. All I can say is I WILL live to see the day the NYT shuts its doors. And when it does I’ll be there to laugh in its face….or pee on the grave

    • “And when it does I’ll be there to laugh in its face”  Call me, I’m buying the first round of celebratory drinks afterwards.

    • Problem is, somebody will buy the masthead, and continue to publish. And clueless New Yorkers and liberal Starbucks customers will still lap it up. For decades. Unless….

      Unless some astute conservative organization bids for and acquires the masthead, and then publishes right-leaning material for a year or two under using it. Doesn’t have to be a daily paper. Could be just weekly. But long enough to poison the brand.

      Because it’s not just the company that needs to be gone – the brand does too. It arose during unique circumstances, and can’t be replaced. If it is poisoned, another will not arise to replace it.

  • Yes…the msm is terrible when it comes to outing Democrat lies.
    Who else has noticed that the president of CBS News attended an Obama fund raiser a couple of weeks ago?
    Pretty much all attempts to mask msm partianship are gone.

  • Obama’s lies and the media’s betrayal
    The six-word epitaph of what presumably will be Obama’s single administration.