Objectivity shmogjectivity

Howard Kurtz has an epiphany in today's Washington Post article (here). You really ought to be sitting down if you plan to read further. Oh, you already are. Well, have you steeled your spine? Try not to flinch. Here it is (cue the screechy Psycho music):

The press has not been objective in its reporting of Barack Obama.

Gasp! Shriek! Cough-sputter. Poor Janet Leigh!

Sorry. Kind of a "no-duh" epiphany. Gives you some idea about the tiny closet in which the press resides. Kurtz exposes example after example of treacly junior high school fawning over our next President, stuff you've likely heard or seen for yourself (and felt like you needed a bath afterward) to make his point.

While I find most of the article spot on, to my mind he has erred with where he believes the press will ultimately find itself. He anticipates an end to this gooey honeymoon, this love affair laced with eros. He concludes:

Obama's days of walking on water won't last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality.

I don't think so. In the few moments of post-election sobriety, a few journalists recognized the improprieties of "the night before," but no sooner had the ink dried on their piece, they returned to the bar for another shot of Scotch on the Ba-racks with an Oba-martini chaser. Pretty soon all was comfortably numb once again.

Yes, Kennedy had his Bay of Pigs. Considering the unbelievable stuff Obama has survived politically to this point, he'd have everyone believing the Cuban mess was Barry Goldwater's fault.

I pray that I'm wrong, and that we'll see objectivity in the press at some point before 2016.