More painful reporting on the White House/Fox News dispute. This time from the AP:

Dunn's stance cheered many of the president's supporters who seethe over anti-Obama stories on Fox opinion shows, but has caused a backlash among some who say it exposed the administration as thin-skinned.

Who exactly are the “some” referenced in the AP article? As far as I can tell from the AP's reporting, the only “some” caught up in a backlash--the only “some” deeply troubled by the White House's actions--are Beltway media insiders.

Note to America, Kathleen Parker, David Gergen and David Carr have officially pooh-poohed the White House's push back against Fox.

But here's the question for the AP: Does that really qualify as news? Does the fact that the chattering class is in heated agreement really constitute a “backlash”? Seems like an obvious stretch to me.

UPDATED: Commentary's Peter Wehner, becoming the umpteenth writer to insist that Fox News should positively not be criticized by the White House, concocts the same phony premise as the AP:

This whole anti-Fox gambit will come across to a lot of people as misguided and petty, the product of a White House that is unusually thin-skinned and somewhat paranoid – and, perhaps, as one that can't be trusted with power.

If by “a lot of people” Wehner means, like, American citizens, I don't think he's right, simply because I don't think they much care about the inside baseball dispute being played out. But if by “a lot of people” Wehner means people who write political commentary for a living, than yes he's absolutely correct. They do see any attempt to fact check Fox News as being “misguided and petty.”

But the same question still stands: Does that really qualify as news or insight?