"He says, she says" journalism is reaching an all time low.

The latest non-story that has been carefully crafted to sound like news may be the flimsiest ever. Let's deconstruct this face-plant of a "news" item on CNN.

Like most propaganda it begins soberly enough:

The White House found itself on the defensive Friday over what would ordinarily be considered the most uncontroversial of events: a back-to-school speech to the nation's children.

The White House says President Obama's address next week to schoolchildren isn't a policy speech.

The White House said the address, set for Tuesday, and accompanying suggested lesson plans are simply meant to encourage students to study hard and stay in school.

Sure, but of course:

Many conservative parents aren't buying it.

Interesting, but WHY?

Let's turn to an expert on the matter, a "suburban Colorado mother," Shanneen Barron. Mrs. Barron has this to add to the "debate:"

"I'm an American. They are Americans, and I don't feel that's OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now."

Not very specific there, Shanneen.

So, you dislike this president.

And as a result you feel the speech will be coercive? Oh, right; you can't even make that much sense... Reagan teaching kids about the importance of TAX CUTS is totally normal. Barack Obama telling your kids to stay in school is something to be "scared" of. Good on ya.

But the blame should really go to CNN for not asking their "woman on the street" the completely obvious followup:

"Yes, but for what specific reason are you concerned?"

That would be some actual journalism. The objective reality that she GAVE NO CONCRETE REASON is ignored.

They just go on.

Wellesley, Massachusetts, superintendent Bella Wong, is deciding on a class-by-class basis, leaving the decision in the hands of individual teachers.

She says:

"The president of the United States has asked us to facilitate his outreach to students. And in that vein, we have decided to honor the request," Wong told CNN. "We'll trust in his judgment."

But not enough to override individual teacher's "choices"? Huh? Nice job of legitimizing this insanity, Bella.

Well, it MUST be controversial if right-wing hacks with real legislative gigs SAY it is:

Tim Pawlenty:

"At a minimum it's disruptive. Number two, it's uninvited. And number three, if people would like to hear his message they can, on a voluntary basis, go to YouTube or some other source and get it. I don't think he needs to force it upon the nation's school children,"

I wonder if the president showed up at a school assembly he'd complain it was "uninvited," urging his kids to be less thrilled. Jim Greer joins the chorus of fact-free claims:

"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology,"

I'd be too, Jim.

Unfortunately he just wants them to work hard and stay in school. The REAL socialist ideology, including the now-shelved study materials suggesting an activity where kids can write Obama on how they'd like to "help" the president, will have to wait...

But of course now we are 2/3rds through the article. Time for CNN to grace us with the tiny bit of possible (fact-based) justification for what looks like just "feelings" so far:

Some of the controversy surrounding Obama's speech stems from a proposed lesson plan created by the Education Department to accompany the address. An initial version of the plan recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."

Shouldn't that read "ALL of the controversy"?

Thanks CNN. This reluctantly presented ONLY snippet of a possible, actual, factual "reason" to distrust the address has also now been scrapped. Up until this point we have folk's negative feelings about the president presented as some sort of fact. But even this thin justification is gone. Now we have:

After pressure from conservatives, the White House said that the plan was not artfully worded, and distributed a revised version encouraging students to write letters about how they can "achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."

A number of the president's critics, however, were not placated.

WOW. You mean they STILL have an issue with it? Of course they do.

"Goals" is socialist shorthand that belongs on a collective farm, NOT in school:

"As far as I'm concerned this is not civics education -- it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell, a Republican.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the whole dispute Friday as part of "the silly season."

Yes, the president addressing kids gives the "appearance" of ... what? Why not up the ante and say it gives the appearance of Obama "propositioning" your kids? I mean he is ASKING them to do something UNINVITED.

Pervert.

It's always "silly season" at CNN, and we have them and the other MSM outlets who parrot the craziest shit from the right as "news" to thank for our voluntary defeat on healthcare.

Presenting this dreck as a lead "news" story is precisely why these guys have zero credibility anymore; and unfortunately, why facts and common sense LOSE.

There is no there there.

Or at least, it's only there when the right says it is. I have yet to read any stories about people on the left being "scared" by Senator Grassley, Micheal Steele or Michelle Bachman. But the unease of random housewives and admitted enemies of this administration is NEWS.

Maybe that's tomorrow's lead?? It IS the other "side," is it not?