Are Reporters Too Wary of Bush and Republicans

Renana Brooks, a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington who said she had counseled several White House correspondents, said the last few years had given rise to "White House reporter syndrome," in which competitive high achievers feel restricted and controlled and become emotionally isolated from others who are not steeped in the same experience. She said the syndrome was evident in the Cheney case, which she described as an inconsequential event that produced an outsize feeding frenzy. She said some reporters used the occasion to compensate for not having pressed harder before the Iraq war. "It's like any post-traumatic stress," she said, "like when someone dies and you think you could have saved them."“White House reporter syndrome?” The doctor is in.

Let's see now, the VP shot someone; didn't report it until it was too late to test for alcohol; blamed the victim initially; and then magnanimously took the blame later once the damage control was completed. To say this was an inconsequential story shows the psychologist's bias; that someone would post this nonsense shows bias. It's all so convenient... the reporters have a syndrome of some sort. Why, how could it be otherwise? How unreasonable for them to be wary of a presidential spokesman who insults a leading senator by referring to them as 'yodelling?' Where was this site's psycho-babble calling Scot McClelan immature and unprofessional? Or where was the psycho-babble analyzing a president who is borderline illiterate and incapable of substantive thought? Where was the analysis pointing out GWB behaves like he has tunnel-vision and is so overwhelmed by events he retreats into soundbites he thinks he understands? Of course, what can we expect of 'reporters' who think alternative perspectives are not needed since we can trust panels exclusively made up of republicans and conservatives? I