Let me get this straight. Adam Nagourney writes a shockingly awful story, premised on the idea that the mere existence of Obama should immediately ameliorate centuries of race conflict, and he's mad that Obama called him out on it? Please read the story yourself. But the basic thrust of it seems to be this: the press is shocked--shocked!--that Barack Obama sees the media through the lens of his own interest.
Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."
You don't fucking say. Really now, I have no respect for this at all--if you can't push through politicians stonewalling you, if you can't get past flacks re-routing you, if you're intimidated because their assorted henchmen are threatening you, you should just give up. Hearing the press complain about Obama, is like listening to a boxer complain about getting punched. The candidates aren't your friends. They aren't there to hand out warm milk and cookies. They aren't supposed to tuck you in on the campaign plane. The Obama campaign is doing what any competent campaign would do--attempting to control the narrative. Reporters are supposed to cut through that. The Obama guys are doing their job. Now go do yours.
UPDATE: For the record, I felt the same way when reporters complained about the secretiveness of the Bush White House and how they actually tried to prevent press leaks. What are they supposed to do? Encourage leaks?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
It is so confusing to me to hear a journalist whine about a candidate "treating (him) like (he) was the opposition" in a piece WHOSE WHOLE POINT IS TO SAY THAT IF OBAMA IS NOT NICER TO JOURNALISTS, THE COVERAGE IS GOING TO TURN NEGATIVE.
I mean, way to make their point, buddy.
And sorry to say but if the tone of the coverage is indeed so dependent on journalists' personal feelings, then they are bad journalists, period.
That whole article (the new republic one) was just a mess. Nagourney's piece was ridiculous, and Obama's campaign was right to respond the way they did.
Obama has used the press beautifully, and they're feeling wounded because they're just now getting it. One thing I learned as a journalist was that no matter how good your relationship is with your source, they're NOT your friend. These guys need a refresher.
I think with people like Nagourney and Fournier, we're seeing the results of 30 years of conservatives working the refs to the point where some top people in the media have a conservative bias. The nut-lapping they did on Bush was understandable, if disgusting, in late 2001, but there's no logical explanation for why it went on as long as it did unless there was some direction from the top levels asking for it. The difference now is that the web has gotten ubiquitous enough that there's another route to get your message out.
Your perception does support mine, in that many lazy (most) press members treat Obama as if he is "on their side" or something equally ridiculous and fallacious.
It's kind of amusing to watch people slowly realize that Barack Obama is, in fact, a politician. Whether you love him or loathe him, he is seeking the most powerful office in the world. You don't get that office -- you don't even get close to it -- unless you have very good skills in the arena of pure politics.
Awwww...they're just mad because Obama didn't invite them over for BBQ.
Ta-Nehisi,
Thank you, a thousands times, thank you for this post. This shit has been driving me crazy. Folks like Nagourney whining, the passive/agressive headlines and coverage of Obama's trip and the attendant, ridiculous armchair quarterbacking (is Obama assuming too much in making the trip?)...it's just too much. These cats are tripping that the guy is running a good campaign and isn't willing to just roll over and take it like most Democrats of late. I loved Obama finally calling out McCain today about the motivations behind the trip; McCain's just pissed because Obama aced a tour that he suggested the youngster should make.
It's a whole new game out there for the media and they're gonna get caught out like the Clinton campaign did.
The Obama media pack is just upset that they're not covering Mr. Straight Talk Express who gives them great access, tells them "jokes" and in return expects to get the kid gloves/hero treatment. What a ridiculous way to select a leader of our country when the media's personal feelings can get in the way of reporting basic facts.
Guess Jim Rice would never be elected President.
Specifically, the problem the press is whining about is not so much the secrecy, the stiff-arming, the difficulty of getting 'inside' a campaign, it's the fact that they are having these problems WITH A DEMOCRAT.
They expect spoon feeding and symbiotic cooperation from dems, because they usually get it. Obama is flinching, presumably afraid of his own propensity to gaffe, and is limiting that possibility by just not doing much 'press' chat.
Note to press-- your capacity as semiofficial PR wing of the democrat party is subject to the lords of that party deciding whether or not they NEED you. you are less necessary than ever. get used to it.