(I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't …)

In his column today, Howard Kurtz excerpts a passage from a column by Ari Melber in which Melber writes: “Obama is rightly annoyed by the made-for-TV quality of oil spill criticism -- the main character needs to show more anger in this scene.” Kurtz then responds:

Sure, but I've also read plenty of print journalists saying Obama needs to show more emotion in the oil crisis.

Read? Kurtz has been one of those print journalists.

During Kurtz's online Q&A yesterday, he wrote: “The press has really pummeled Obama for not showing more emotion about the oil disaster, and while the White House rejects that criticism, he does seem to be ratcheting up his response.”

The press has criticized Obama for not showing emotion? Howard Kurtz has so criticized Obama.

Kurtz added: “The president was elected in part because he seemed cool and calm as the financial crisis erupted; he doesn't really do angry, at least in public; so people are going to wonder whether he's now engaging in a bit of theatrics.”

People are going to wonder if Obama is “engaging” in “theatrics”? Howard Kurtz has wondered that.

So what's with Kurtz's recent tendency to pretend it is other journalists who are playing Goldilocks when it comes to presidential displays of emotions? Does he really not remember what he wrote just a few days ago? Or is he embarrassed by it?

Either way, Kurtz has helped invent a media narrative, which he's now covering as though he had nothing to do with it. It's like a White House reporter asking Robert Gibbs a question about some pseudo-scandal, then beginning his report “The White House faced intense questioning today ...”