News organizations concerned about access issues at the Obama White House

Representatives from Obama’s press office held a conference call with photo editors, who are concerned that the administration prefers distributing photos taken by a White House photographer in cases where photojournalists have been permitted access in the past…

…Television network bureau chiefs also protested the exclusion of video cameras from the second oath of office…

…Four reporters witnessed the oath of office and shared their observations with others, and a White House photo was released.

“We think it was done in a way that was upfront and transparent,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a briefing when questioned why video cameras were not present.

What goes around, comes around. How enamored are the media with their messiah now?

In a nonstop round of interviews, McClellan has been hit with scathing criticism. Katie Couric asked him how it felt to be called a “turncoat” whose take on the President was “kind of creepy.” Mark McEwen said the author was being called a “backstabber” and an “ingrate.” Mandy Grunwald noted that if the President hadn’t given McClellan the “opportunity of a lifetime,” he might still be a Capitol Hill aide, not a “multimillion-dollar book writer and commentator” (inside the White House make that “commentraitor”). And James Carville says Washington has become The Truman Show.

Even McClellan, at one time, wouldn’t have approved of McClellan. Commenting on previous memoirs, McClellan said, “You have a responsibility not to embarrass the President. It hurts the country. It’s just stupidity and weakness.”

He shows us Bush’s familiar warts–the chaos he creates, his poll-driven policymaking, his scouring, literally, of a government directory for Attorney General nominees, and the easy way he lies.

While we don’t learn much that’s new about Bush, we do learn a lot about McClellan. He’s weepy and can find the cloud in any silver lining.

What’s that? You haven’t seen this article among the Obama-fawning, BDS-plagued media?

Of course not, because the real article was written in 1999 about former White House Press Secretary George Stephanopoulos’ tell-all book bashing then-President Clinton.

So what’s different now?