Joho the Blog
|
|
|
« Blogging the Libby trial || Back to Blog | Bureaucratic security (Or: Yup, the terrorists have won.) » February 01, 2007
During the hottest days of the Dean campaign, I traveled on the press bus for a bit and found myself talking with two well-known reporters, for Newsweek and the NY Times. In the course of the conversation I asked them how it happened in 2000 that there was endless media coverage of Gore as a liar when that was itself a lie orchestrated by his opponents. They shook their heads and admitted they were spun, and vowed it wouldn't happen again. Then they painted Dean as having a temper, even though there were no—no—incidents in which he lost his temper. Then they spent 3 months on the Swift Boat controversy, which was news only because the media paid attention to it. So, I don't know if I'm heartbroken or just weary to see the media leading with the Joe Biden "story." Here's the import of what Biden said: Hey, it's great that we finally have a viable, attractive black candidate! That's exactly what everyone, including the media, have been saying. It is the buzz about Obama. Now, do you want to take my paraphrase and say that I must mean that Jesse Jackson isn't attractive? Did I just call Carol Moseley Braun ugly? Bull. Sure, Biden's choice of "clean" was sub-optimal. He says he meant "fresh," and I believe him; part of Obama's charm is precisely that he popped up seemingly out of nowhere (yeah, I know his biography hardly constitutes "nowhere"), without baggage. Biden, in short, was saying what everyone is saying, was complimenting Obama (rather generously for someone announcing his own candidacy), and spoke the way we humans do. We humans don't always choose the perfect word. But that's ok, because our words get their meaning from the context of self, situation and sentence. To ignore all that in order to give words their worst meaning is what not understanding is about. The real headline for the Biden story should have been: "Candidates speaks like a human! Media refuse to understand him." [Tags: politics joe_biden barak_obama candidates campaign media journalism ] Posted
by D. Weinberger at February 1, 2007 12:56 PM
|
Comments
Nobody would ever call a white politician "articulate" because -duh- they have to be to be succesful, so to say this about Obama is showing that you have some pretty bloody low expectations of him, as if it's a miracle he can speak well, when that's the minimum requirement you may ask of any politician (well, apart from Bush maybe...)
Posted by: Martin Wisse | February 1, 2007 01:03 PM
Actually, Martin, I've heard people call all sorts of candidates articulate. The 'bright, articulate, go-getter' meme is a common, almost cliched phrase by now for all sorts of successful people.
Biden's phrasing was awkward, but to jump from that to 'Joe is a racist' is silly. I read the quote and got what he meant because I wasn't looking to rip him apart and find something that I could blow out of proportion. Given the media's continuing propensity for doing this, I'm stunned that anyone would run for national office anymore.
David - I don't think the media is anywhere close to as innocent as you paint them. They LOVE these slips precisely because it gives them something juicy to crow about for days or weeks or months. Writers get more column inches, reporters more airtime, channels higher ratings. It's not that they can't help themselves - they WANT these circuses and will do anything to create them from the smallest issue.
The dirty not-secret is that we don't really need 24 hours news, much less several outlets for it - there aren't that many mass interest stories per day. So, instead of delving into small but important real stories (ala Global Voices) we get pap, tragedy-of-the-week stories and molehills made into mountains. And the big media folks wonder why people are disillusioned...sigh.
Posted by: rick gregory | February 1, 2007 01:47 PM
This summer he joked about "the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking." THIS from the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
Biden is an idiot and an embarrassment. Party affiliation shouldn't give rich, white men a pass on insensitive, idiotic statements. The GOP tossed Trent Lott out as majority Biden should be tossed from the Foreign Relation Committee.
Posted by: jonathan peterson | February 1, 2007 04:13 PM
There is a lot more than that. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/12/05/publiceye/entry2232091.shtml
It'd be one thing if it he didn't keep saying these things.
Posted by: Cassford | February 1, 2007 05:14 PM
biden was my democratic party choice behind obama. after this, he's fallen out of the ranks as far as i'm concerned. jonathan hit the nail on the head with the past quote.
biden is smart with policy, but he has an air about him of a cigar smoking, country club joe, who drops juicy tidbits to get his buddies chuckling on the inside.
i despise that act.
Posted by: sean coon | February 1, 2007 08:33 PM
So let me see if I get this right: when a journalist refuses to recognize that somebody of the other party is using code words to reach a racist audience, that journalist is practicing bad journalism; and then when a journalist does exactly what you want, but to a member of your side, that is an example of bad journalism too?
I doesn't take a trained monkey to recognise the code word; even you refrained wisely from mentioning it in your entry.
"Actually, Martin, I've heard people call all sorts of candidates articulate. "
One hears so many things. Would you happen to have some links for me though? My Google must be broken, because I only seem to be able to find the code word.
Posted by: Branko Collin | February 2, 2007 04:00 PM
I can't open the link for mobility identity
Posted by: Janelel M. Roach | February 2, 2007 05:45 PM
It is a shame we can't use these blogs such as this one to try and straighten out the social
contract as we know it today. It appears the more studies are done, the less consensus?
Keep on bringing us the unvarnished truth!
Posted by: Eadric Streona | February 2, 2007 06:16 PM
It is a shame we can't use these blogs such as this one to try and straighten out the social
contract as we know it today. It appears the more studies are done, the less consensus?
Keep on bringing us the unvarnished truth!
Posted by: Eadric Streona | February 2, 2007 06:17 PM
It is a shame we can't use these blogs such as this one to try and straighten out the social
contract as we know it today. It appears the more studies are done, the less consensus?
Keep on bringing us the unvarnished truth!
Posted by: Eadric Streona | February 2, 2007 06:17 PM
On on the other side of the aisle remember Dan Quayle saying, "I wish I had studied Latin in school so I could speak with you all in Latin America"?
Never happened. It was a joke - then reported as truth but not by anyone who actually was there. How do you report a quote if you didn't hear the person say it?
Along the parallel line of "what makes news" I find myself often asking how something is news - and the the answer hits me -- "Oh, we have video."
Posted by: John Hutzler | February 2, 2007 10:45 PM
Branko, that other post of mine you point to is actually about understanding statements in context. So is this one. I think I'm being consistent about that, although clearly we disagree about how to describe those contexts.
I'm more bothered by the additional evidence that Biden - who I generally like on policy and on the Jon Stewart show - is, as Sean Coon trenchantly puts it, "a cigar smoking, country club joe, who drops juicy tidbits to get his buddies chuckling on the inside."
(And the wrong response to that last comment: "Dude, it's wrong to call everyone who smokes cigars a racist.")
Posted by: David Weinberger | February 3, 2007 08:25 AM