The Washington Post story about President Obama meeting with lawmakers had a completely misleading headline. It sounds oh so inclusive but when you actually read the story, guess who is missing at the dinner meeting?

The New York Times and Washington Post both enthusiastically greeted the announcement of President Obama's plans (conveniently announced after the election, constitutional objections aside) to bypass Congress and declare amnesty for some illegal immigrants, or as the Times cutely put it, "to enforce the nation’s laws with discretion."

Continuing a broader mainstream media pattern Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post hit Obama almost exclusively (and emotionally) from the left on his decision to hold off on his brand of unilateral immigration "reform" until after the 2014 election cycle.

While the Cable News Network continues to suffer from low ratings, its corporate headquarters has made a number of changes in an effort to hold down costs and change its focus. The latest move came this week, when more than a dozen employees in the cable television channel's digital politics division learned that their positions will be eliminated by the end of the month.

According to an article by Peter Sterne on the website, the workers “were told that they would have to re-apply to new positions with new job descriptions.”

Forget about the newly released White House emails – MSNBC personalities will never admit that the Benghazi scandal is anything more than a Republican talking point. On Saturday’s Weekends with Alex Witt, fill-in host Richard Lui at least brought up the new revelations in the scandal, but he and his guests continued to treat it like a big, fat nothing burger.

Noting that the House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry to testify about Benghazi, Lui skeptically asked Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, “[I]s this about 2014? Because we're just really months away from the election.” Sweet, being the liberal Obama acolyte she is, answered in the affirmative:

On Thursday, Washington Post reporter Ed O’Keefe blogged: “An incredible thing happened this week: A bill written by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has passed Congress.” It was a bill designed to block entry into the country for Iran’s new ambassador to the United Nations, who aided the radical Iranians who held Americans hostage for 444 days in 1979 and 1980.

On Saturday, the Post put the controversy on page one and played “Hide the Ted.” There was no mention of Cruz anywhere in the 946-word article. The only proud politician quoted was liberal Chucky Schumer. Reporter Anne Gearan began:

On page 2 of Thursday’s Washington Post was an article noticing “Republicans absent from March on Washington.” But reporter Ed O’Keefe turned that fact around on the GOP, noting that invitations were declined from three Bushes, two House leaders, and John McCain.

O’Keefe comically quoted Rev. Leah Daughtry claiming they tried “very vigorously” to find a Republican – and didn’t mention her recent partisan credentials: “Leah D. Daughtry is the CEO of the 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee and chief of staff to Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.” The most jaw-dropping part of the story came when O’Keefe trotted out former RNC chairman Michael Steele to denounce his fellow Republicans for bailing out:     

The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe awarded the “rock star” label to amnesty-advocating Rep. Luis Gutierrez on the front of Thursday’s Style section: “From California to Nevada to Florida, the congressman from Chicago is received like a rock star: People cheer when he enters the room; they pump their fists and stomp their feet. And when he’s finished speaking, they press forward to get close to him, tugging at his shirt and refusing to leave until he agrees to have his photo taken with them.”

Then O’Keefe touts how is a star of Spanish-language media in America, and Univision anchor Jorge Ramos drags out the “right side of history” braggadocio:

Virginia's junior U.S. senator, Timothy Kaine (D) became the first member of the world's greatest deliberative body to deliver a speech in Spanish. The former governor did so during debate on immigration reform on the Senate floor on Tuesday.

Covering the development, Washington Post staffer Ed O'Keefe gave readers an 18-paragraph story devoted to the history-making oration in his June 12 page A2 story headlined, "Kaine's Spanish speech on Senate floor is a first." Yet nowhere in the entire article did O'Keefe find any critics to complain that, maybe, just maybe, Kaine's ploy was a cynical effort at pandering to Hispanic Americans. Neither was there any concern about the logistics of debate in a chamber that is accustomed to speech and debate being conducted for the record in English.

On last Friday’s Washington Week, PBS moderator Gwen Ifill brought in a panel of four liberal journalists to dissect the three scandals that have plagued the Obama administration the past couple of weeks. Predictably, most of the panelists attempted to downplay the seriousness of the Benghazi fiasco.

Midway through the Benghazi discussion, Ifill turned to The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe and posed the question that has surely been on every left-wing reporter’s mind for months: “But Ed, why is this -- why is this stuck? Why is this a story that never went away?”

The House Republican caucus is an insane asylum divorced from reality.

That, essentially, was the complaint waged by Washington Post reporters David A. Fahrenthold and Ed O'Keefe in the first six paragraphs of their page A2 May 16 story, "A persistent GOP battle against health law":

Birtherism isn't all that bad to the liberal media when a rising conservative star may be the target. Just ask the Washington Post and the New York Times, two liberal papers that devoted serious attention to the question of whether Cruz might be constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.

Post staffers Ed O’Keefe and Aaron Blake devoted an article to the matter in the May 7 paper's Style section: the question of Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency.  He was born in Canada, but had an American mother, thus making him eligible for 2016, but O'Keefe and Blake glommed on to the fact that the hypothetical objection that one must be born on American soil to be "natural born" has never been definitively adjudicated. This isn't isolated to the Washington Post.