Note the story

A top Louisiana newspaper has asked President Obama to cut short his vacation and get down to the flood ravaged disaster areas.  The same thing happened with Bush during Katrina, as the article points out.  And I think we can all remember the outrage, the scandal, the fury.  When Bush didn’t get down there pronto, he was skinned in the media and by pundits alike.

This time, however, the story has been the story of those who apparently are bothered.  The press does this sometimes.  How does it cover a story in order to say it covered the story when it clearly doesn’t want to cover the story?  Easy, by make the story the story.  In this case, CNN covers this as a curious bit of information.  An interesting tidbit.  Nothing more.

You might be interested to know that a paper has asked Obama to cut short his vacation and come to Louisiana.  But here’s the thing… and it goes on with comparisons, facts and figures, why Obama probably won’t and that’s about it.  No endless stories of people suffering giving their opinions.  No calls from CNN for Obama to leave the vacation.  Nope.  Just a casual, neutral story mentioning that a paper wants Obama to do something.

This isn’t anything new.  Bush, Sr. was heavily criticized back in the early 90s when he failed to respond quickly enough, and the times Reagan was criticized for being on his ranch were legion, for they were many.  I remember well the outrage, often stoked by media coverage and editorials. This, however, is quite different. Sure some people appear to want Obama to do this, but that’s all.  Why the difference in coverage?  I’m sure it’s just a cosmic coincidence.

UPDATE: In fairness, more outlets have brought forth the criticisms and talked about those who feel Obama’s insistence on finishing his vacation wasn’t the best idea.  No, it’s not to the level of Bush’s Katrina or even his Dad’s Yellowstone, but at least it’s something.  All I want is a media, not a propaganda ministry.