This is a pretty inane statement. Even if you accept highly edited video from a sting carried about by political activists with partisan motives as entirely valid, the notion of the White House being ‘complicit’ with the activities of a single immigration lawyer in San Diego is pretty silly. Almost as silly as proposing that the media would hold a story because they wanted to give a president time to come up with a response. The American news media? That’s a pretty wide reach.

Responsible journalism (something we see very little of from any segment of the mainstream media these days) requires time to examine material and verify sources and authenticity before running a story based on said material. While I doubt our media today is very concerned with responsible journalism, third party material is still generally examined very closely and the third party submitting it researched a bit before the material is run.

On the merits of the material itself, the video uses the documentary style of Bill Maher and Ben Stein. It’s not serious investigative journalism and has obviously been highly edited, with the narration of the ‘journalists’ filling in the blanks the editing doesn’t show us. This kind of clear manipulation of the material, combined with the partisan agenda of the ‘journalists’ in question, creates a lot of reason for legitimate questions about its validity. It’s not about whether or not they are conservative, the agenda matters less than the fact that there IS an agenda.

A good parallel is Michael Moore’s ‘Sicko.’ Moore’s agenda clearly colors the work and his presentation of facts is selective, designed to support his argument. Regardless of one’s position on health care reform, or one’s agreement with Moore’s positions, one cal tell the material is not genuine documentary but propaganda to sell Moore’s argument simply by watching.

This ‘sting’ is much like that, only of much lower standard. Which is why I mention Maher and Stein. It’s very easy to stage an ambush interview and make someone look stupid, criminal, or anything else you want with careful editing.

I think another likely explanation was they wanted to give the White House time to come up with a plausible response which of course exonerated Obama from any complicity, and also to give him time to come up with an appropriate reaction and rebuke, one which would serve to satisfy the right while not alienating his liberal base.

The idea that he might have worried about offending the Left, if that turns out to be the case, tells you all you need to know about the Left, and about Obama.

I guess it’s not SLAVERY if it’s just girls, though.