So sad! Obama is eating up the useful idiots’ ad revenue UPDATE: Useful idiots ready to throw a tea party over WH background briefings

I may have felt sorry for these network nitwits if they didn’t completely bring this upon themselves.

But executives at the big four U.S. TV networks are seething behind the scenes that President Barack Obama has cost them about $30 million in cumulative ad revenue this year with his three prime-time news conferences.

Now top network executives quietly are hoping that Fox’s decision not to air Obama’s April 29 news conference will serve as precedent for denying future White House requests for prime airtime.

“We will continue to make our decisions on White House requests on a case-by-case basis, but the Fox decision gives us cover to reject a request if we feel that there is no urgent breaking news that is going to be discussed,” said one network executive, who, like all, would not go on the record fearing repercussions from the Obama administration.

Another network executive confided, “Nobody wants to take on the White House, so we’ll have to tiptoe through this.”

These nitwits have battered wife syndrome. They’re madly in love with an abusive narcissist who scares the crap out of them. Yet they continue to employ “journalists” and “reporters” to bring us the news, all the while walking on eggshells so as not to offend the thug they helped elect.

There’s a name for these people: useful idiots.

Update: This is just too good to pass up. Did they really believe this was going to be the most transparent administration ever?

As Washington prepares for President Barack Obama’s first White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, members of the White House press corps are grumbling about a spate of background briefings by “senior administration officials” who can’t be quoted by name.

But will they do anything about it?

After a “senior administration official” briefed reporters on a conference call about Chrysler last week, the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven circulated an email among her colleagues suggesting some kind of joint action to protest the use of not-for-attribution sessions.