Coverage Of The 2009 Inauguration: Another Example Of Liberal Media Hypocrisy

On January 20, 2005, the liberal entity also known as Salon published this piece by Eric Boehlert, a former Salon contributor.This article criticizes another one, which had been published in the NYT only four days prior.

The tone of the Salon piece is quite critical, as are the words. The argument is not unreasonable in some respects. But in others, it fails the test. So to start the thinking process, let's look at this snippet from the Salon piece:

This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.

Despite the sniping partisan tone (which one would can expect from this publication), I don't find it unreasonable to question why there was even the slightest hint of a frivolous celebration. In a time of war, I find nothing wrong with holding more modest significant government events, the inaugural ceremony included. It could have been done quietly, without a parade, without an inaugural ball, and certainly without spending a fortune.

But if the criticism was good back then, when it was George Bush on center stage, one would think it is only reasonable to apply this same standard, to the upcoming inauguration of Barack Obama.

Enter, this article from the DC Examiner.

In 2005, with an estimated 300,000 in attendance, the second inauguration of President Bush cost the city more than $17 million, some of which was reimbursed with federal funds. This year, officials estimate nearly five times that many people for the swearing in of President-elect Barack Obama

.

It is even being reported abroad that this one is going to break the bank.

Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history.

The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.

But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m.

Now, a reasonably ethical person who has the slightest hint of integrity would expect another critical op-ed piece castigating this inauguration, in the same manner the one in 2005 was. Right?

Well, here is the opinion page of today's Salon, and frankly I find nothing that even brings up the 2009 inauguration. What you will find includes (but are not limited to) the following articles:

Why The US Has Already Lost In Afghanistan, by Ann Jones.

Greening The Stimulus, by Bill McKibben.

Al Franken Stole The Election? Prove It Or Shut Up, by Joe Conason.

Remember this: Up to this point on Jan. 15, there's still time for them to do it. But I doubt they will and I will be greatly surprised if they do.

We certainly will not see Boehlert have the guts to do the same in this instance. He is well-known as a senior fellow from Media Matters, a current writer for the Huffington Post, and author of the book, Lapdogs: How The Press Rolled Over for Bush. In other words, he is nothing more than a Bush-hating, leftist hack.

Again, I must stress, we expect this kind of thing out of the liberal media. But what is most disturbing is this article from the AP.

So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?

To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.

"This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.

"Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.

And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. "Just say you're doing it to help the economy," chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge.

See the double standard? What's worse now is, not only are we still at war, the economy is in shambles too. This is twice the problem that GWB faced in 2005; yet, some of the people that stand to make some money are talking the glam and the glitz up, for their own selfish greedy reasons. And they say Republicans are full of greed.

Back then, it was a waste of money in dire times. But now, it's good to do this because it creates a spirit of optimism. You can call it whatever you want, I call it hypocrisy.