Press is citing, not covering, Obama
President Barack Obama appears to be breaking every record kept on U.S. presidential press coverage.
Over the first six months of this year, he was cited in a staggering 1.1 million stories across mainstream, Internet and social media - an average of 6,100 references a day. That's more than triple what Obama's last two predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, got in the mainstream press during their first six months.
Despite all this Obama coverage, I still don't know which hospital he born in (two have been listed by major sources), his medical history (unlike McCain, who released hundred of pages) or his academic, passport, legal or State Senate records.
Similarly, every day we see or hear something about the Federal Reserve, yet this privately owned bank has never been audited by an outside firm. The Fed admits to making billions each year handling the nation's credit and now it has something like $2 trillion in assets as well. Why is it fighting an outside audit?
Health care is all the rage but despite the media hoopla, you have to go to the Internet to find any discussion of what is in the more than 1,000 pages of the proposed House bill to "reform" health care.
In a world with hundreds of TV channels and radio outlets plus an Internet that provides sources from around the world, isn't there something wrong about this situation? Why am I smeared as a "nut" for wanting simple answers about people, institutions and issues that shape every American's life?
Grant D. Noble
Lake Forest