Let me get this straight. Adam Nagourney writes a shockingly awful story, premised on the idea that the mere existence of Obama should immediately ameliorate centuries of race conflict, and he's mad that Obama called him out on it? Please read the story yourself. But the basic thrust of it seems to be this: the press is shocked--shocked!--that Barack Obama sees the media through the lens of his own interest.

Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."

You don't fucking say. Really now, I have no respect for this at all--if you can't push through politicians stonewalling you, if you can't get past flacks re-routing you, if you're intimidated because their assorted henchmen are threatening you, you should just give up. Hearing the press complain about Obama, is like listening to a boxer complain about getting punched. The candidates aren't your friends. They aren't there to hand out warm milk and cookies. They aren't supposed to tuck you in on the campaign plane. The Obama campaign is doing what any competent campaign would do--attempting to control the narrative. Reporters are supposed to cut through that. The Obama guys are doing their job. Now go do yours.

UPDATE: For the record, I felt the same way when reporters complained about the secretiveness of the Bush White House and how they actually tried to prevent press leaks. What are they supposed to do? Encourage leaks?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.