Why the press hides Obama’s lies

Roger L. Simon reviews Sen. Obama’s now familiar lies such as knowing nothing about Wright’s anti-white, anti-American sermons, Will Ayers a guy “in my neighborhood, and many others.

Why has MSM – at least almost all of it – let Obama get away with transparent lies?

Simon concludes:

…The inescapable conclusion is that Barack Obama is a highly deceptive, often dishonest individual . . . yet the press is loath to admit it or to do much to balance the investigative reporting equation. They don’t even begin. What is the explanation for this?

The most obvious reasons are bias and the desire to defeat the opposing candidate.

But beneath these obvious explanations, I sense something more complex and pathological. Deeper fears are perhaps at play - the loss of self-image and personality disintegration, also a desperate need to conform to a fragile peer group.

And in these times more than ever, a yet more potent terror – job loss.

Simon’s entire post’s here.

We know Simon's right about fear of job loss influencing how journalists do their jobs which have never been just about "getting the facts and reporting the story."

Spin and cover-up have been part of reporting since Adam explained how that apple got eaten.

There’s just, in my opinion, more spin and cover-up for Obama as mostly white reporters seek to guard against another major fear reporters have: being accused by those claiming to speak for “the community” of “insensitivity” or outright “racial bias.”

Recall the Duke hoax and attempted frame-up. What reporter wanted to be the first to ask: “When in North Carolina’s judicial history have 46 individuals been named as suspects in a gang-rape investigation based solely on their race?” Or,“How could it be that the accuser battled three lacrosse players for thirty minutes in a small bathroom without any of the four sustaining a single fracture, significant bruising or even one cut requiring a single stitch?”

But I don't want to hold only reporters responsible for the “anything for Obama” shilling we read and hear from most of MSM.

If news org editors, publishers and network higher-ups demanded in-depth reporting on Obama free of partisan spin and cover-up, most reporters would provide something like that even though they’re mostly Dems.

Their desire for job security would override their partisanship; and the support of their editors and employers would greatly lessen their fears of racial smears.

But who any longer expects NY Times' publisher Pinch Sulzberger or its executive editor Bill Keller to demand Times reporters do what for over a century the paper has claimed it does:''give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved?''