1600 people couldn’t be wrong, right?

John Guerriero didn’t think so. While covering former President George W. Bush’s speech and question and answer session at the Manufacturer’s Association annual event, the veteran Erie Times-News reporter described “a relaxed and engaging citizen-in-chief.” Portions of Guerriero’s reporting went into the The Associated Press wire piece about the occasion was equally even-keeled.

However Washington Times reporter Joseph Curl saw it differently. In an article headlined, “Bush takes swipes at Obama policies,” Curl equated Bush’s reaffirmation of his capitalist and anti-terrorism ideologies, hardly breaking news, as attacks on the Obama administration.

Even though Curl admitted that President Bush repeatedly said that he would not directly criticize President Obama, the Times reporter took Bush’s defense of his eight years of policies as an attack on Obama.

In my review of the reporting, all it took was one reporter; even better, one headline writer of an influential newspaper to send the political class all chattering.

The Drudge Report had the screaming headline: “It’s On: W Slams O!” at 4:45 AM Thursday. That was enough to send FoxNews, The Huffington Post, MSNBC, USAToday.com, and even the NBC Nightly News into a feeding frenzy over the “fact” that President Bush took the gloves off.

That was news to the $180 a plate glitterati at the Bayfront Convention Center!

JET-TV’s Kim Thomas interviewed political leaders that were at the event, including Manufacturer’s and Business Association President Ralph Pontillo:

I’m at a loss as to why the national media is trying to spin this in a negative way when in fact the President never once spoke out against the current administration under any of the questions he was asked or in his presentation whatsoever.

We were not able to confirm any existence of the transcript of President Bush’s remarks before post time. But isn’t it curious and troubling to have everyone actually at an event relate first-person content that is totally at odds at what is now considered reported “fact” by a national media who did not even attend?

Or is this evidence of a national press corps that is so sensitive to any public comments that are contrary to the current administration’s policy, that just a restating of pre-January 20th philosophy is considered a slam.