British Media Provides Better Obama Coverage Than American MSM

[qrayjack]

It's been known for years that the US media has decided not to do its job when it comes to vetting Barack Obama, but when the British media is out there reporting critically on this White House on a daily basis, the contrast is startling.

If the Activist Old Media in this country had the ability to be embarrassed, they would cower in the corner over the way the British media pounds them on Obama coverage.

The American media chooses not to report these stories; it's not that they are getting "beaten" on them. Of course, that fact makes this much worse.


Dr. Tim Stanely of the UK Telegraph reports this week on the issue of President Obama's latest revelations of his "composite" girlfriend and the stories of him eating dog in Indonesia. In the last paragraph of his column, Dr. Stanley says these issues should've been brought out long ago, since Obama wrote of them in his book:

That we are only discussing them this late into Obama’s career suggests that the vetting that should have happened four years ago was unforgivably neglected. But, hey, it’s never too late to start.

We'll see about the media and when/if it actually decides to start vetting this president. I have heard from many of my media friends that the vetting of Obama was already done, so it is not needed now. Of course, he was not vetted during the last election because the media did not want to vet him for fear of what they might find; and besides, all their crews were in Alaska looking under rocks, glaciers, and inside igloos for Sarah Palin dirt.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/05/05/british-media-does-job-us-journalists-refuse-to-do

MSM: "Did anybody see anything? I didn't see anything. I mean, what's to see? Really. Move along now, nothing to see here."

[qrayjack]

The Brits have help in the belated vetting of Barack Hussein Obama. That effort didn't stop with the death of Andrew Breitbart.