HuffPo notes that AP’s chief political writer Liz Sidoti has been promoted to the position of political editor, putting her fully in charge of AP’s reporting on politics as the 2012 race gathers steam. HuffPo’s article reads much like a Sidoti article – deferential to its subject’s vast sway in Washington. It reads like an AP press release, in fact, because it actually is one – an AP-written article about their own reporter’s promotion.
So I guess it falls to me to point out that Liz Sidoti is a Beltway hack, enamored by the powerful subjects she covered. Seriously, who could forget the sprinkles incident? (You know it’s bad when even Dana Milbank is disgusted)
McCain’s moderators, the AP’s Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin’ Donuts. “We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we’ve decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride,” Sidoti explained. “We even brought you your favorite treat.”
McCain opened the offering. “Oh, yes, with sprinkles!” he said.
Sidoti passed him a cup. “A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar,” she said.
I’m not suggesting Sidoti is a conservative. Like any member of the corporate media, she writes whatever narrative is selling, going from fawning over Obama in 2009 to the traditional “Democrats in Disarray in 2010. Here are dueling tracking pages from Media Matters on the left and NewsBusters on the right, although Media Matters appears to have missed tagging one of their own articles regarding Sidoti’s coverage of Obama’s non-involvement in the Blagojevich scandal:
So what do we have? According to Liz Sidoti:
1) “Obama isn’t accused of anything”
2) “prosecutors were making no allegations that Obama was aware of any scheming”
3) “Blagojevich himself, in taped conversations cited by prosecutors, suggested that Obama wouldn’t be helpful to him”
4) There is no evidence, indication, or hint that Obama was aware of scheming, or did help Blagojevich.
5) Nevertheless, “more details on the case could be forthcoming”
6) Therefore, a “scandal” is “threatening to dog” Obama.
This is nothing short of sleazy. With no evidence whatsoever, Sidoti is suggesting ties between Obama and the scandal that simply do not exist. Whatever this is, it isn’t “analysis” and it isn’t “journalism.”
What narratives will she write in 2012? You can bet it will be whatever nonsense the DC cocktail party circuit is crowing about at the moment.
I leave you with one final Sidoti quote, and I’ll let you decide whether this blathering nonsense leans left or right; all I can tell is that it leans stupid.
Obama has been a constant presence in the mass media as he expands the bureaucracy’s reach into the private sector…. In doing so, he has created a quandary. Put aside for a moment the question of whether government is actually intruding into people’s lives more than before. The point is that many people feel like it is — in part because Obama doesn’t stop talking about his goals. If President George W. Bush got slapped around for being inarticulate, is Obama obnoxiously articulate?