| Media Drops Ball on Obama |
|
|
|
| by Carolyn Barta | Sun, Feb 17, 2008, 03:20 PM |
|
The media is caught up in Obama mania. During the week of Valentine's Day, the media was giving Obama one big fat kiss. Even Fox's Bill O'Reilly said Obama is "virtually unstoppable." CNN's "Reliable Sources" reported Sunday, in a story called "Writing Hillary's Obit," on the seeming infatuation of journalists with Obama, so much so that they've almost tossed Clinton overboard at the height of the race for the nomination. Meanwhile, as American journalists cover "The Speech," it falls to the Brits to ask, "But could he deliver?" The cover story in the Feb. 14 issue of The Economist poses the question: What would a President Obama, as opposed to Phenomenon Obama, really mean for America and the world?" While The Economist suggests "the serious questioning of Obama should begin now," I'm suggesting that journalists have been asleep at the wheel up to now. People have a general idea of Obama's life story. He was born to a young white mother and black father from Kenya, spent much of his childhood in Hawaii, went to school on scholarships, graduated from Columbia, became a community organizer, got his law degree at Harvard where he was editor of the law review, became a state senator in Illinois and then was elected to the U.S. senator in 2004, a couple of years before it was time to run for president. His search for his identify, revealed in his 1995 book, "Dreams from My Father," fills in some of the gaps, but not all. There is no question that Obama has, as written in The Economist, "persuaded huge numbers of people around the world to reconsider politics in an optimistic way." He eschews racial politics and the liberal-conservative divided in a way that is appealing to Americans rightfully jaded by the country's politics. Can we overcome? "Yes, we can." It's the refrain we all want to believe. But tell me more. I want to know how successful was Obama as a community organizer, as a state senator. What do his colleagues say about him in Illinois? What do his classmates from Punahou in Hawaii, from Occidental in California, from Columbia, from Harvard remember about him? What are his accomplishments in his short time in the Senate? Simply put, where is the shoe-leather, investigative reporting from traditional journalists? There's plenty of punditry on cable and the blogs and video on YouTube, but where is the hard reporting? Hillary Clinton has been vetted from here to kingdom come, from her days in Arkansas as a lawyer and first lady, in the White House with Bill and as a senator. Obama has been spared that kind of investigative reporting that both Clintons were subject to, that Ross Perot was subject to. So what happens if Obama is the nominee and the Republicans do the investigations? At this point, it looks like John McCain would have a harder time defeating Obama than Hillary. But that's before the Republicans drag him through whatever mud they can find. For sure, they will brand him with the "L" word, just as they did John Kerry. Better to know now what ammunition might be used against him. As Hillary Clinton has said, she won't be "swift-boated." Will Obama? The National Journal has rated Obama as "the most liberal senator in 2007," and the media has yet to scrutinize that label. Among the votes characterized as "liberal" were his votes to implement the bipartisan 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide health insurance for more children, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and maiantain a federal minimum wage. Is he really "the most liberal senator," and what does that mean, exactly? When Obama won in Iowa, my expectation was that the media would, indeed, examine his voting record and do the kind of in-depth profile we have come to expect from the media. With his Super Tuesday wins, I thought surely we're going to see some real reporting. I'm still looking. It's time for the boys and girls on the bus to get off the bus, off the plane, out of the rallies that draw thousands of people and tell the American people more about this man before he became a "phenom."
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (25)
...
written by Young Dallasite , February 17, 2008 Look, the meida will never scrutinize Obama. They were willing even to cast Hillary aside for this man, they will stop at nothing to see him elected. I hear the media tell me that I should be worried about McCain's age, but nowhere does it say I should worry about Obama's utter lack of experiance. Nowhere.
...
written by Brown Bess , February 18, 2008 You mean you want to see as much scrutiny and digging into Obama as we've seen invested in Bush in the last 9 years? That's what I think we have.
...
written by Steve Heath , February 18, 2008 I've seen very little from the media reporting the sordid and pathetic pasts of both Clinton and McCain. It seems that Americans dutifully choose between very stained and flawed candidates that the monied interests deem acceptable to their interests - for both parties. Its as if scandals and skeletons in the closet are desirable to keep our "leaders" in line.
...
written by ElHombre , February 18, 2008 This is two separate stories mixed together. The first is about how little of a single candidate's qualifications to be the POTUS we've read about (and imagine how much suffering the US might have avoided had the media done anything remotely like this about Bush and Cheney back in '00. Anyone who did was branded 'shrill', ala Paul Krugman. But I digress...). Much of this can be garnered through the application of the 3 rules of political reporting I remember the late, great Molly Ivins using: Check the record, Check the record, Check the record. That the media has chosen to report far more on the horse race aspects than the ideas and positions of ALL of the candidates themselves is a symptom of a far larger media problem. Ms. Berta has chosen to focus on a single branch at the expense of a burning forest.
...
written by Right Wing Republican Volunteer , February 18, 2008 When Dems in one of Fox News' focus groups were asked to name one Obama accomplishment, they looked kind of stumped until one woman came up with "well...uh...he's black." :-)
...
written by rita , February 18, 2008 Well, Carolyn... are you part of that media? Do some investigations into one of your specific questions and let us know what you have found out.
...
written by Ken Dickson , February 18, 2008 the media is too kind to this fella! he has never "run" anything except a political campaign...he has never made a payroll, hired & fired folks, nor has any idea how the average taxpayer lives & works. He only is well spoken, has the right "buzz words" the average guy wants to hear, but look beneath the surface & his programs cost MONEY! Where does that come from? The taxpayer that has made payroll, worked for a living, etc. We need help now or we will be in the socialist camp before we know it!
...
written by Tom Pauken , February 18, 2008 Carolyn, other than a recent profile in Vanity Fair (which let us know that Obama was ambitious, no surprise there), there has been very little on what essentially is a blank slate of a politician who wants to be President. The adulation from the public and the media reminds me of that accorded John F. Kennedy in the 1960 campaign. Kennedy was a young Senator with very few accomplishments. But, at least, Kennedy had a distinguished military service, while Obama was a "community organizer" in an Alinsky-style political organization instead. While his speeches are impressive, does Obama have the depth to deal with the serious problems our country faces. I am reminded of what Walter Mondale said about Gary Hart: Where's the beef? I keep waiting for Hillary to say something similar about Obama.
...
written by Bias , February 18, 2008 Why not just declare your bias for Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama has risen on his own efforts. Hillary Clinton has risen on the last name of a former President and every possible advantage. Your best shot is the media hasn't done its responsibility to take him down.
...
written by James W. Walker , February 18, 2008 Recall that Billary's New Hampshire campaign manager lost his job simply by questioning what would happen if Obama gets the nomination and the media wakes up and starts asking questions. What concerns me is whether the "L" label is as bad as it was 8 years ago. After all, McCain is not the conservative movement's standard bearer - never has been. Obama is certainly a Liberal, but is he truly that far left? Even his health care proposal is ever so slightly to the right of Billary's typical big brother take over. I also wonder that if the media wakes up and starts digging and finds that he used and sold cocaine and several other illegal substances, is it really going to matter to so many of the newly minted voters he is attracting. The answer to your question may be that no one is looking into it because no one voting for him really cares. We will likely find out because the people running McCain's campaign will have plenty of time and resources to begin the investigatory process to be revealed right after the convention. I doubt we will see anything until he gets the nomination and then whatever is out there will be unleashed. It could be very interesting. Do you think that guy in New Hampshire will be vindicated? I do.
...
written by Sal "The Muckraker" Costello , February 18, 2008 In recent years, OPPONENTS are the ones that dig up the dirt. The media then digs in and rolls around in it 24/7. The Clinton machine has found no skeletons in the closet to date. And, we all know they know how to dig up dirt. I think it's refreshing to not have a cokehead, someone who's proven that can't run a successful business, war monger, or a polarizing figure on the ballot.
...
written by lol , February 18, 2008 Opponents dig up the dirt on Democrats. The press digs it up on Republicans. We don't know what the Clintons have found, because the slightest derogatory reference to Obama creates this big firestorm of accusations of racism. That's already happened to Hillary. Sal, how do we know what we have? That's the whole point--you have no basis for your last paragraph.
...
written by Old Red , February 18, 2008 If the press is so good at digging up dirt on Republicans how come they never found out about Bush's drunk driving conviction until a week before the election, and then only because the arresting officer called a local TV station and told them about it? Clinton's private affair was national news but the "liberal" press didn't even look for what was a public record regarding a Republican.
...
written by Ramon Cabalero , February 18, 2008 Obama is for a college football playoff so we will finally know who is the champ! Thats something!
...
written by HSH , February 18, 2008 Carolyn: Let me help you. The Atlantic, December 2007 (or could be November, my issue is at home) cover story, written by Andrew Sullivan. The New York Times published a long front page article on Obama's Illinois Senate record a few Sundays back. True, more has been written about Clinton. But the info is out there if you can to find and read it.
...
written by RR , February 18, 2008 Hillary wouldn't ask "where's the beef," because she wouldn't ever plagiarize, would she???
...
written by Confused , February 18, 2008 Look at Obama's long-standing financial relationship with executives at Exelon Corporation, along with the record of donations he has received from them...there is lots there to get one's attention...considering Exelon's record of price manipulation in Obama's own home state - on his watch.
...
written by Confused , February 18, 2008 One can be confused as to whether Obama is a true party builder or whether this campaign all about his own personal ego and agenda. Doing a little bit of research, one learns that Obama's political history and his rise in the Democratic party goes like this: In his first election (just after writing his first self serving self promotion book, a great PR move) Obama pushes aside a grassroots activist Democrat incumbent (African-American woman, no less) to secure his IL Senate seat. Not four years into his state Senate tenure, Obama had the audacity to run against another grassroots focused Democrat incumbent (former Black Panther) US House Rep. Bobby Rush in the D primary and got slaughtered. Next, we learn that Obama's US Senate race in 2004 was won by default - no R opponent. Much of the money Obama raised came from corporations such as Exelon. That's a whole other matter for investigation. How is it, Obama as a first term neophyte Senator (with a record in the Senate for doing nothing consequential for the party), has the audacity to believe he has the right be the party's representative over a more qualified and serious deserving long standing Democrat Senator? Carolyn, even by New York standards, that's serious chutzpah.
...
written by RR , February 19, 2008 It's called "The Audacity of Hope," Confused. And wasn't Alan Keyes his Republican opponent in 2004?
...
written by john k , February 19, 2008 I think we should give him a bit more time to mellow and mature and create a past before we endow him with our future.
...
written by Not so Confused , February 19, 2008 john k, well said. RR, it's more like the Audacity of Ego. Or, reading the tome, one could better conclude it's the Audacity of Idealism. [Side note: If Rev. Huckabee wrote the same book, wouldn't you say he was a zealot evangelical pontificator and audacious white guy?] Obama's book was written when he decided to run for office - it's part of that PR equation. He kicked out a grassroots african-american female Democratic incumbent Senator to take her seat. Book writing for Obama have made for great paydays that have allowed Obama to acquire fancy $1.6 million house in the nice neighborhood. Are we the people to believe that having HIS hope means he's truly a man of the people? Sen. Clinton serves on the Armed Services Committee. And what about Senator Obama? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Face it, Obama (and his generation - he's all of 46, born in 1961, his first presidential vote was in 1980!) is the direct beneficiary of all the actions, stances, protests and REAL change carried out by Clinton and her generation. So, Obama has the audacity of hope for what, exactly? The harsher reality is that Obama with all his academic smarts, has not even been a policy leader, thought leader or even a good revolutionary on any important national or international issue. That's what makes the choice between the two so ironic: she has better more hard won academic credentials (having earned them when women DID NOT walk and were not welcome in the halls of power - no tenured law professor women). Even so, Senator Clinton has worked and marched and led on behalf of ALL minorities - including latinos and women, and she has made lasting contributions in these areas. Moreover, Senator Clinton is well qualified and much more deserving to be the party's candidate of choice. Idealism and idealogy are closely related. For example, radical fundamentalists are idealists. Think about that.
...
written by George , February 21, 2008 Watch the debate this week. I justm paid very good money to attend a fund raiser on Tutle Creek Blvd on the 29th. Hillary is still my girl. It is nice to hear a great speech. We have been putting up with a guy who is still working on his first complete sentence. Texas gave the world George W. Bush. It is time for you to watch and learn for a while.
...
written by Richie Sheridan , February 21, 2008 Just like the Dallas Citizens Council, no candidate for President of the United States get as far as Barak Obama without the allowance of the "Puppet Masters". Perhaps the puppet masters have realized the mess they've created, with the obvious assistance of the media, and Obama is their way out without being tarred and feathered. The media is being purposely held back just like a dog handler holding the leashes of rabid dobbermans, which you know how rabid the media can be. There's stuff on Obama, but it is being kept under wraps.
...
written by Robert Palmer , February 23, 2008 The media didn't check Obama or McCain (or am I the only one old enough to remember the Keating Five?) Write comment
|
|
When the analyses of media coverage of the 2008 campaign are written -- as they always are -- one question will be uppermost: Where was the hard-nosed, investigative reporting into the life of Barack Obama before he became a presidential phenomenom? He surely is that -- a phenom, and that aspect of the campaign is being covered...and covered...and covered.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
