|
|
March 18, 2008
Obama tells the Best Political Team on Television: You Have a ChoiceIn Wolf Blitzer's instant analysis, Obama's big speech on race in America boils down to a "pre-emptive strike" against attacks yet to come. In fact it was a speech aimed right at him and other makers of political television.(I don’t usually do quick reax posts, but….) I was watching CNN for Obama’s speech. Moments after it concluded Wolf Blitzer was asked to tell us what he heard in it. Wolf’s ear is the big ear for the Best Political Team on Television, according to CNN. So he went first. And according to Blitzer, Obama’s speech boils down to a “pre-emptive strike” against various attacks that are still to come, in the form of videos, ads, and news controversies that are sure to keep Reverend Jeremiah Wright and “race” in play as issues in the campaign. (For his exact words see the bottom of this post.) Wasn’t the speech about that very pattern? This is a style of analysis—and a level of thought—we have become utterly used to, especially from Blitzer but also many others on TV: everything is a move in the game of getting elected, and it’s our job in political television to explain to you, the slightly clueless viewer at home, what today’s tactics are, then to estimate whether they will work. That Blitzer, offered by his network the first word on that speech, did the savvier-than-thou, horse race thing tells you about his priorities (mistakenly “static,” as Obama said about Wright) and his imaginative range as an interpreter of politics (pretty close to zero.) For as Greg Sargent at TPM said, “Obama’s speech, throughout, asks its listeners to transcend themselves — it asks them to choose nuance over cartoonish political controversy; it asks them to acknowledge stuff about race they don’t want to acknowledge; it asks them to think big instead of small.” And as Charles Murray—yes, that Charles Murray—at The Corner said “It is so far above the standard we’re used to from our pols… rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America.” In fact it was a speech aimed right at Blitzer, at the best political team on television, and the makers of our election year spectacle. Obama had moments earlier told Blitzer. “You’ve scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.” And so he had— him as much as anyone on television. Obama had just said to Blitzer, look: “If all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way…” And so if the reactions you report on are reactions to your reporting and video looping how are you, the talent in political television, not an actor with me in this cycle? Wolf, Obama had just said, “We have a choice in this country.” And your team at CNN has to make a choice, too. You should be asking yourselves, what’s our choice, as broadcasters and journalists… … We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. You can do that. That’s one option. But I’m told you are the best political team on television. Surely you can think of something better to do between now and April 22. Think they were they listening to that part of the speech? UPDATE: Jon Stewart doesn’t. He did a way better version of this post. Hang on for the end, where savvy pundits dissect the Gettysburg Address. And don’t miss the CNN reporter doing interviews in the field who asks a construction worker in a hard hat the following question: “What do you think it’s going to take for Barack Obama to win the working class white man’s vote?” (Hat tip to Rhetorica.) Andrew Tyndall summarizes on-air reactions to Obama’s speech at the major networks, but he does not include the cablers like CNN. I now have the transcript of Blitzer’s horse-race mind at work. Notice that the question he was asked: “What did you think the speech was about?” Wolf, you know what, I want to start with you. What did you think the speech was about? Thanks to Ron Brynaert of The Raw Story.
Posted by Jay Rosen at March 18, 2008 1:55 PM
Comments
I was wondering what my professional responsibility would be if I were a reporter covering a politician's speech that actually affected me. Would I be unqualified to report on it because I lacked "objectivity"? Posted by: bab23 at March 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Permalink I felt that he was trying to manipulate me. I was not swayed by this pretty speech. The tone and words used in this last speech comes from the Constitution which also Abraham Lincoln's used in one of his famous speech. Obama is NO Lincoln. These "nagging" questions remain. I'm sorry. How dare I, the people, nag him with doubts and questions...nag, nag, nag. I guess Obama thinks "the people" are his wife and his out of patience with us. How dare us ask questions!! I'm sorry, but I am not swayed as I used to be by his brilliant delivery because the proof is in the pudding. While Obama's campaign was based on a message of change, hope and unity his pastor, mentor and advisor spread a message of hate, bigotry and separatism. Obama heard that message for 20 years and compensated Wright by making him his campaign advisor as well as a member of a committee of churches!!! I guess that Rolling Stone article says it well "if you want to know Obama and his phylosophy just look at Jeremiah Wright." Incidentally anyone can find that Rolling Stone article... Posted by: Tina at March 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Permalink Maybe I'm one of the few who don't think Wright's remarks are racist. They maybe heated, angry, and exaggerated, but they don't mark him as a racist to me. Just a firebrand. I don't see what the big fuss is about. Posted by: Chris Anderson at March 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Permalink Tina, with all due respect, that quote is nonsense. Obama, far more than most of us, is in a position where the results of his philosophy can be judged by his actions in the public sphere, and there's absolutely nothing of the rejectionist Wright to be found in his political career; quite, to my mind unfortunately, the opposite. If you want to rely on magazine articles addressing Obama's life of the mind and spirit outside his political career to shape your opinion, you'd be at least equally well served by Jonathan Raban's rather more brilliant essay on Obama in the current London Review of Books. Jay, I doubt any of the major talking heads or political analysts are capable of the modest degree of professional and personal introspection necessary to make the choice you're hoping for. Posted by: weldon berger at March 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Permalink Wright is a bad guy. Obama is a friend of this bad guy. Obama could have stood up there and sung "Old Mcdonald" and the press would swoon: "a beautiful speech" ...gush, gush... Obama represents the media's view of America - all bad; he is their "dream come true". Posted by: graywolf at March 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Permalink Surely you can think of something better to do between now and April 22. Not really. Because to embrace Obama's vision of political discourse is to embrace their own irrelevancy. Wolf subsists and prospers as a member of the secular clergy, translating and interpreting the supposedly arcane minutiae of politics and world events for the masses. And just as in the clergies of old, they've grown from carrying the truth, to interpreting it, to subsuming it, to intentionally obscuring it to retain their own privilege. Obama comes (along with John Stewart and other influential decriers of media discourse) as a Martin Luther to their papacy. Posted by: sidereal at March 18, 2008 4:09 PM | Permalink Wolf Blitzer is a dunce. He interviewed Jerry Bremer the other day and there was, of course, a lot of talk about what had gone wrong in Iraq and who was to blame. Wolf didnt...even...mention the two idiotic Bremer decisions that had horrendous consequences - de-Baathification and dismantling the Iraqi Army. Didn't...even...mention them. What kind of journalism is that? Is there no one left who can do this? Posted by: John B at March 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Permalink It's not that I expect--in the probabilistic sense-- anything different from Wolf Blitzer and the best political team on television. But I do wish to make the point that we have a right to expect better. Did you see Charles Murray's take at National Review? That would be Charles Murray, often credited on the right with ending welfare.... Read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text... Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie. graywolf: I was just wondering if you ever said or did anything wrong in your lifetime? If I were to see a snippet of a video of you saying or doing that thing, should I conclude that you are a bad guy? Or are you maybe a bit more complex than that? Posted by: skylights at March 18, 2008 4:32 PM | Permalink I think that the press, as much as anybody, perpetuates racism, because the press, as much as anybody, continues day after day in the practice of race-based analysis. Obama is exactly right. Posted by: Stephen Downes at March 18, 2008 5:57 PM | Permalink I don't know why you'd be surprised about Murray's reaction. Obama disparaged welfare and affirmative action and busing, and said white racism was not endemic, but mostly a legacy. "Nuance" in this case means incorporating right-wing tropes in order to make your candidacy more palatable to the dominant color. Posted by: jack at March 18, 2008 6:57 PM | Permalink No doubt the Wright flap, and the current press fixation on it, played into the timing of the speech, but it was one that Obama was going to give anyway. My expectations for the the media are by now so low, that I expected a response such as Wolf's, as if Obama had fired off a magic bullet, as if he'd say his words once, and they'd either "work" or not, and we'd be able to tell as soon as the next asinine warp-worded poll results came back. Instead, I think the speech was an opening of another phase of Obama's campaign, an inevitable one if he is to take his message outside of the Democratic primary voters. Its important to remember that almost all of the chatter and clatter about Obama's supposed vague invocations of hope, and the motivations of his supporters, has come from his opponents' campaigns, and from the media, who are only too happy to repeat and amplify such things, because it creates telegenic heat and noise. Obama has never avoided the issue of race, but he has, in keeping with the politics and demographics of Democratic primary voters, seen fit to emphasize first other aspects of his campaign. He was always going to get to it, but it makes sense for him to deal with these issues head-on, now, when he has an established profile with respect to the array of issues which will provide the substantive framework for our response to race. Had Obama came out of the gates focusing on race, it would have increased his vulnerability to the attempts to paint him black, as the Clintons tried to do in South Carolina, when they dismissed him as an ethnic, regional quasi-candidate. As the results of the primaries have settled into firm numbers and committed delegates, and the outcome becomes increasingly assured, the time is right to begin the necessary discussion and debate on issues of race. His opponents have, for months now, played this low game of hinting, mostly to unidentified segments of the electorate that are always "elsewhere", that Americans will never really be ready to vote for an African American. In their use of coded words and elliptical allusion, Obama's opponents have been able to avoid being too directly insulting to any one group, in their underlying and ugly assumption that bigotry is always the last held card. Everyone could read the code as applying to someone else, even as they may have accepted the ultimate message. Obama is going now into the heart of a hard audience, in Western Pennsylvania. With working class Pennsylvania looming ahead, Obama is free now to air the issue, and to confront it directly before the people, without the filtered lens of the media. Pennsylvanians will hear his words from his own mouth, that in our vulnerability and suffering and uncertainty, we are more alike than different. We want and need the same things. We are hurt by the same things. We are hurt by the same game, wherein one side is continually set against the other in a posture of either a defensive crouch, or outright opposition. Obama's opponents have played this game because they think it benefits their personal, narrow interests. That's plain enough to see and understand. But why is the press so willing to officiate and handicap? I don't think Wolf even heard the hanging question. "The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization." Posted by: Mark J. McPherson at March 18, 2008 8:17 PM | Permalink "graywolf: I was just wondering if you ever said or did anything wrong in your lifetime? " Yes, there was a time in my life when I OD'ed daily on jerk pills. I didn't make DVD's of me cursing my own country. Wright, under the US Constitution, has a perfect right to be a bad guy. Obama doesn't have an inherent right to be President of a country - which it is becoming more clear - he has contempt for. BUT, my biggest problem is the total corruption and dishonesty of the media - acting as an arm of Obama's campaign. Politicians come and go. SNL had it 100%... Posted by: graywolf at March 18, 2008 8:20 PM | Permalink Here we have a contender for the horsiest journalist in the race, Jay Carney of Time. And without gushing about how inspiring the speech was, he sees what was newsworthy and historically weird about it. He said the speech... defied the usual conventions dictating how candidates should manage a crisis in their campaigns. In addressing the controversy over some of the language in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, Obama put a new twist on his message of hope about a post-racial politics in America: he said America's not there yet, and that his candidacy, even if it succeeds, isn't enough to bring her there. Rather than try to counter the injection of race into the campaign, Obama administered an extra dose, hoping the live virus can also act as a vaccine. Maybe I'm one of the few who don't think Wright's remarks are racist. They maybe heated, angry, and exaggerated, but they don't mark him as a racist to me. "The US government created AIDS to kill black people" may not be "racist" but it sure is "nuts." No wait, sorry, it is racist. It's a blood libel against white people. It's a bit worse than an old lady being afraid of black people on the street. Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 19, 2008 10:06 AM | Permalink It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... (1) That's a pretty poor standard. Better than most? Yes. Good enough to outweegh being buddies with a nut like Wright? Nope. Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 19, 2008 10:09 AM | Permalink If I were to see a snippet of a video of you saying or doing that thing, should I conclude that you are a bad guy? Depends - does the video show me preaching in front of the church I built up from nothing, and did you buy the video off of the church's website? Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 19, 2008 10:16 AM | Permalink To me the biggest press-criticism issue here is the dog that took so long to get around to barking. These videos were freely available on the TUCC website. If appears that a large part of the audience considers them important, significant information about a Presidential candidate, which to my mind makes them "newsworthy." They're extremely sensational, and make for good ratings. Articles were written about Obama's "flag pin" issue, to which his pastor's anti-American views are clearly relevant. There were dozens of reasons, good and bad, high and low, to report this story. If I'm a Democratic voter I'm going to be asking the press "Why didn't you tell us about this before Super Tuesday?" The National Enquirer scooped the New York Times on this story. But then, the National Enquirer scooped the New York Times on the Jesse Jackson extra-marital affair and corruption story. Connecting these two dots with the Jayson Blair incident it appears that one of the rules at the NYT is "never question a black liberal, no matter how much they deserve it." This is compatible with Dan Okrent's observation that yes, of course the NYT is a socially liberal paper. Does the rest of the press follow this rule too, or were they just too lazy to bother ordering and watching a few of Wright's videos? Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 19, 2008 10:31 AM | Permalink I was watching CNN for Obama’s speech. Moments after it concluded Wolf Blitzer Moments after it concluded, anyone with sense had changed the channel or turned off the TV. You're shooting fish in a barrel here. The post-speech discussion is like the Superbowl post-game show. People aren't watching it because they're expecting to here something enlightening, they're watching it because they already have the TV on and tuned to that channel. You don't have to supply quality programming to deliver those eyeballs to the advertisers, pretty much any kind of decently produced, vaguely related filler will do. CNN chooses to claim their filler is "the best political team on television." They're kinda exaggerating. So? Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 19, 2008 10:35 AM | Permalink The Chicago media has questioned Obama today (3-19)on his changing story when it comes to whether he ever heard Wright issue inflammatory speech from the pulpit. He has told the reporters, "no." He said "yes" in the speech. Is this kind of reporting legitimate? I think it is because it goes to his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth. It has nothing to do with race. If all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube.... Or we can go for depth, nuance, real understanding. So far I've got an admittedly tiny sample of what goes on at the TUCC, and Obama's assurance that it's not typical. OK, it's time for some reporter to get copies of all the sermons out there, listen to them all, and give me an overview of what TUCC is really all about. That would be information I could use. It might end up being helpful to Obama's campaign, but there's also a risk it might not. Any takers among the "Fourth Estate"'s brave and hardworking speakers of truth to power? Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 19, 2008 11:35 AM | Permalink Is this kind of reporting legitimate? I think it is because it goes to his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth. So far so good. It has nothing to do with race. Sadly, no. He's black so any criticism of him, however legitimate, will be spun as racism. Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 19, 2008 11:37 AM | Permalink Jay - This is one of the most cogent assessments I have ever read on the current situation. Not that the corporate news machine hasn't always crossed the line from an editorial perspective; and perhaps, suffered the personal biases of reporters. After all we're human beings. But as the technology that delivers news has developed multiple channels to provide information, it is continually repackaged and reformatted within the same news cycle (remember when that word didn't exist?) so that the same basic facts can be either rearranged or restated through other voices in order to extract every possible bit of marketing power to every possible demographic. The encyclopaedic, un-tilted version of events is pretty much only available through one's own eyes, and a hand-full of journalists. I am sorry to tell you this is a race issue. A black president in the U.S. right now? No, due to all the hand outs we as white Americans have dished out already. We need to start cutting back on these hand outs. and let black America fetch for themselves for a change. Obama would just enhance the hand outs. His action with Rev. Wright is proof! He should have denounced him all together. Now he made it easy for Hillary to win Posted by: Mike Montgomery at March 19, 2008 12:08 PM | Permalink Sadly, no. He's black so any criticism of him, however legitimate, will be spun as racism. The criticism has nothing to do with race, that's what I meant. Sadly, spinning it likely will have to do with race. Obama is a joke, but I am not laughing his judgement as he runs his campaign on Obama is a PHONY a use car salesmen in a suit with a silver tongue Obama isn't what he claims to be, & his judgement is wrong for America God Bless AMERICA not DAM DAM TO OBAMA- I am NOT FOOLED Posted by: Zulu at March 19, 2008 12:37 PM | Permalink I don't know Wright said.Hillary doesn't know what it is like Obama's skin is black hm Hillary & Bill still do- & have done ALOT Blacks wake up! HILLARY CLINTON, for gays also and for blacks please- stop this pity train GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS the REAL HERO's OUR TROOPS keep us FREE no dam there. we love you Hillary Posted by: Zulu at March 19, 2008 12:57 PM | Permalink Jay, I think responses to this speech are starting to resemble a Rorschach test. Posted by: Mark Anderson at March 19, 2008 1:07 PM | Permalink Correction: "judging by the reactions in general..." Posted by: Mark Anderson at March 19, 2008 1:09 PM | Permalink What has gotten into ABC News? They're actually checking Sant Barry's words for logical contradictions. Must be a bunch of racists over there. Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 19, 2008 2:46 PM | Permalink Barak Obama, Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes Isn’t this like the non-apology of sorry you were offended. Considered controversial? How about hateful, crazy, unjustifiable by any reason.
We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. Did not the doctrine of his church as well as the rhetoric of Rev Wright breed division, conflict and cynicism? He does not ask others to transcend themselves, he does not offer nuance, he offers victimhood. Rev Wright can not help himself, bigoted whites cannot help themselves, but Obama can start the healing process. He does not ask others to transcend, he offers absolution through him, by taking a leap of faith that Obama can do for America what he could not do for his Pastor or his wife, challenge and heal their bigoted and divisive beliefs.
Ferdy’s Chicago media and ABC news get this right, they do not tell us what to think about the speech, they ask and look to see if Obama was honest, if the facts support his rhetoric. Posted by: abad man at March 19, 2008 9:34 PM | Permalink What has gotten into ABC News? They're actually checking Sant Barry's words for logical contradictions. Must be a bunch of racists over there. oh, that was just a short lived phase. They are now all over Hillary's appointment calendar, and headline the fact that she was in the White House on the day that Monica's dress got stained... except that she just "may have" been there... So I don't know if CNN got the message, but ABC sure didn't Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 19, 2008 10:27 PM | Permalink Actually, Blitzer was half right -- but it wasn't a pre-emptive strike, it was an effort to change the subject. At its core, the Wright controversy isn't really about "race" -- its about radical politics. If Wright had been white, and it hadn't been a black church, and expressed the same level of political/social radicalism he would have been just as "controversial". It doesn't matter what color your skin in if you say "God Damn America" -- and if you are closely associated with the person who says it, you've got a problem. Obama took advantage of the fact that this version of radical political/social thought was "black", and used that to change the whole subject to "race in America". Now, quite frankly, I happen to agree with Wright. I'm pretty "radical" myself. And I don't have a problem with Obama being a member of that church. What I have a problem with is that this speech should have been given when the "racial controversy" broke out before the South Carolina primary. But Obama didn't give it then, because Clinton was being hurt by the controversy. And while I agree that the media needs to do a much better job of covering racial issues, they shouldn't do so because Obama said so. They should do so because every time some well known white person says something racist in the media, there is a call for a "serious dialogue about race" which immediately degenerates to a discussion of black people using the "N" word in rap music and/or Al Sharpton. Obama has manipulated the race issue from day one. But that shouldn't stop the media from doing the right thing. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 19, 2008 10:49 PM | Permalink p.lukasiak re: Hillary stories- Huh? Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 20, 2008 8:12 AM | Permalink Scott Rosenberg, ex-Salon, techie political journalist: Obama gambles on complexity. So I fired up the browser and tuned in. I was listening on the radio in my car and tuned out halfway through the speech. Not because the speech was too long, but because by that point my mental list of evasions, half truths and false moral equivalances had already overflowed my Fisking buffer. But it was even more a challenge to his audience, to all of us, to listen with less impatience, to think for one moment a little less about the short strokes of one presidential race and a little more about the long arc of our national story. So now if I'm unmoved by Obama's long-winded equivocations it's because I have a short attention span? Well, at least that's a pleasant change from the usual accusations of racism. On the other hand, it's all too reminiscent of the Kerry supporters who tried to pass off his self-contradictory doubletalk as "nuance." To me "think for one moment a little less about the short strokes of one presidential race" is just an attempt to distract from the fact that Obama is buddies with a hatemonger. Posted by: Ralph Phelan at March 20, 2008 1:33 PM | Permalink I think it's interesting that even though noticing what's different about it (compared to the usual candidate speech) does not require any sympathy for Obama's politics, or compel the conclusion that it was "great," historic and so on... those who do not have any sympathy for his politics and don't think there was anything great about the speech frequently go overboard; they say there was nothing different about the way it approached the task of talking about race, which is just wrong on a descriptive level. Jay, you nailed it. As Nicholas Kristof said in today's NY Times, it was the most important political speech of the past 50 years. And Wolf Blitzer is an idiot. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 20, 2008 6:06 PM | Permalink Many well-meaning Americans perceive Mr. Wright as fundamentally a hate-monger who preaches antagonism toward whites. But those who know his church say that is an unrecognizable caricature: He is a complex figure and sometimes a reckless speaker, but one of his central messages is not anti-white hostility but black self-reliance. Couldn't the same be said of Farrakhan? Mr. Wright has indeed made some outrageous statements. But he should be judged as well by his actions — including a vigorous effort to address poverty, ill health, injustice and AIDS in his ministry. We verge dangerously close to "at least he made the trains run on time" territory. As for Kristof's claim that the speech was a "symphony" -- I think some basic honesty and moral clarity would have sounded better. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at March 20, 2008 7:22 PM | Permalink those who do not have any sympathy for his politics and don't think there was anything great about the speech frequently go overboard; speaking of going overboard... As Nicholas Kristof said in today's NY Times, it was the most important political speech of the past 50 years. and jay... they say there was nothing different about the way it approached the task of talking about race, which is just wrong on a descriptive level. just what did you find that was unique about it? In what way, for example, was it significantly dofferent (on the substantive level of the '[approach to] the task of talking about race') from Bill Clinton's speech on race on the anniversary of the Million Man March?
Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 20, 2008 8:30 PM | Permalink they say there was nothing different about the way it approached the task of talking about race, which is just wrong on a descriptive level.We must have different definitions of different. It would have been different if he called for us not to be black or white but rather united in our humanity in America. It would have been different if Obama had simply praised his grandmother for giving him a loving home (which to be fair he did) despite her prejudices instead of going on to use those prejudices to justify Wright’s bigotry It would have been different if Obama had accepted responsibility for his support of Wright and admitted he has personally fallen short of what he asks of others. It would have been different if he had not tried to explain away Wrights actions by citing past injustices. It would have been different If Obama pledged to take the first step and put this black separatist church behind him because it represents a sad past and he chooses a better future. It would have been different if Obama had put his flowery rhetoric into action in the past, present, or even promised to do it in the future. But then he would have not had to make this speech you think so highly of. His speech was eloquent, well spoken, and well delivered but at its heart as dishonest a speech as any in the past 50 years. An honest speech, delivered from his heart and reflected by his actions, no matter how plainly spoken, now that would have been different. Posted by: abad man at March 20, 2008 9:05 PM | Permalink "they say there was nothing different about the way it approached the task of talking about race, which is just wrong on a descriptive level." A lot of commentators have mentioned that they could not recall a speech about race in the US that was so candid. That might have something more to do with historical memory than the arrival of something new or different. Posted by: jack at March 20, 2008 9:57 PM | Permalink Paul: I would have read Clinton's speech after the Millon Man March to give you a good answer. Certainly some have gone overboard in their praise. Who said otherwise? what's weird to me is that most of the criticism of Obama's speech is coming from the right... I was equally unimpressed, but from a leftist perspective. For instance, I think it was dead wrong for Obama to try and equate what I consider the legitimate anger and resentment of African Americans whose conditions are a very real legacy of slavery, segregation, and discrimination with the anger and resent of white people over Affirmative Action. I mean, get real -- people "less qualified" than you get hired for the "wrong reasons" all the time -- you can be the best qualified, because somebody else knows somebody, or (a personal example) not get hired because another applicant was a woman who played softball, and the company needed women for its co-ed softball league team. And of course we all resent that kind of stuff -- but its only when it involves black people that it suddenly becomes a "political issue" -- something to not just be annoyed about, but something that must be changed!!! The very idea of drawing any kind of equivalemce between the anger and resentment arising from living your entire life in an inner city slum, and the anger/resentment at losing a jor or a promotion to someone who is black, is nothing but pure pandering to white audiences. And, IMHO, it was precisely this kind of pandering to white that resulted in all the kudos for Obama's speech. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 21, 2008 12:03 AM | Permalink He didn't equate. You did. He talked of both without saying they were equal. Of course he didn't say they were radically unequal, either. The speech assumed the audience was intelligent. This was a compliment, and I suspect was received as a gift. It also assumed many in the audience were educated. I was grateful for this, as the educated are not much addressed in American politics. Jay -- unfortunately I have been busy this week so have only just posted Tyndall Report's analysis of how the Tuesday network nightly newscasts covered Obama's speech. It is instructive to see how just a short turnaround can improve the quality of television journalism compared with Blitzer's immediacy. Noonan's point about long soundbites is absolutely borne out. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at March 21, 2008 11:39 AM | Permalink He didn't equate. You did. He talked of both without saying they were equal. I guess you missed this line, which is where he started talking about white anger/resentment after talking about black anger/resentment.... In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. he's not saying they are "equal", he's saying they are "analogous" or "eqivalent". Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 21, 2008 4:17 PM | Permalink I say he's rounding off the differences without equating, and that's the right thing to do in a political speech. You say he's analogizing and that's equating, which is the wrong thing to do in a political speech. Fine with me. Andrew: do you have any transcript of what Blizer's "pre-emptive strike" comments were? I would love to quote his first paragraph or so, where his horse race brain just took over and certain powers of reduction were on display. Can you help?
Tyndall Report does not have a TVEyes account but somone reading here must have one. Come on gang! Let's help the professor out with a search for Blitzer's pre-emptive strike soundbite. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at March 21, 2008 5:09 PM | Permalink So does Sen Obama wants CNN to be included of his apologists and worshippers just as Keith Olberman, Chris Mathews and David Gregory are? Just give him the presidency so we can save money. The same way that you guys gave Pres Bush the presidency. Posted by: Raul at March 22, 2008 12:47 AM | Permalink Wright is right. God damn America if the people don't wake up. 1 million dead in Iraq so the lying chimp can win an election and steal some oil. I agree with wright,m and i am a whitey..,... Posted by: dan at March 22, 2008 2:09 AM | Permalink As someone not involved in campaigning or defending either candidate but a daily viewer of CNN, I want to say that CNN has bent over backwards to support and push Obama's candidacy to the point I am fed up with watching such uneven coverage. For anyone saying CNN is biased against Obama, you have to be joking! They have outlawed Clinton supporters from their airwaves, they have kept every and all Obama supporters and even picked up new ones never usually seen on CNN, and they give him way more airtime than Clinton ever gets. There are almost daily anti Clinton rants from Jack Cafferty and mostly all her coverage starts from a negative postion rather than an unbiased one, while all Obama's stories begin on the postive for what he has done or they play him as a victim by claiming someone else has said or done something not positive about him. To claim that Obama's speech was a challenge to CNN is laughable. He couldn't pay to afford the time he gets on air at CNN while hardly anyone is put on to talk for and not against Clinton. It is almost criminal to have a news channel be so biased in favour of one and against another. Posted by: A Canadian at March 22, 2008 2:27 AM | Permalink Best political team on Television? I used to go to CNN when I wanted the latest on the spot info, and watch BBC, Dutch and Belgian news for thoughtful, intelligent, well balanced analysis and discussion. American news teams seem like Laurel and Hardy when compared with any of the European news teams, and it should be embarrassing to Wolf and the rest. Nowadays I only pop over to CNN to check up on them once in a while. The world is paying so much attention to this election cycle that I get just as up to the minute reporting from the Europeans as the U.S. broadcasters. Unfortunately, America is a TV nation and y’all will believe just about anything they loop, as long as it is only a sound bite and fits within your ten second attention span. Anyone who actually listened to what Obama expressed (yes, with WORDS, which last time I looked was our primary form of communication) had to be impressed with not just the articulation of those thoughts, but the uniquely insightful, courageous, honest, ideas of this visionary. America has an opportunity here with Obama to take a giant step forward in the history of man. Please don’t blow it. Posted by: ExPat Bob at March 22, 2008 4:56 AM | Permalink Response to: Posted by: Tina at March 18, 2008 2:24 PM;Posted by: Neuro-conservative at March 20, 2008 7:22 PM;Posted by: graywolf at March 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Posted by: Anthony at March 22, 2008 5:47 AM | Permalink I now have the transcript of Blitzer's horse-race mind at work. Notice that the question he was asked: "What did you think the speech was about?" Wolf, you know what, I want to start with you. What did you think the speech was about? Hat tip to Ron Brynaert of Raw Story. One thing I’ve noticed about Obama’s speech is that a lot of folks are expending a lot of words and energy to convince us that Obama’s speech was nothing special, which further convinces me it was something special. Obama was not trying to judge the black experience versus the white experience, or their respective rights to be angry. His point was precisely the opposite: to get away from viewing this issue as, in his words, “a zero sum game” whereby one keeps score on who has screwed whom over the most, and the prejudice and social and economic paralysis that inevitably ensues from such a focus. What he was equating is the anger felt by each constituency, not their relative justifications for it, only that the anger is deeply-felt, real and justifiable on some level for both. While it is often misguided and misdirected, as it was at times with his pastor who cursed the country for all wrongs it has done to his audience as well as a white who blamed the loss of a job or job opportunity on affirmative action, it is “grounded in legitimate concerns, “as Obama put it, and we need to drill down to the underlying social and economic issues, past and present, feeding the anger. He was not trying to forecast the results of that drilling down, just that we need to do the intermediate process of looking at victimization not only in terms of our own experience, but that of constituencies we may not yet understand or, worse, blame for the current state of our own. I would argue that the process he is describing is both logical and necessary to bridge the gaps in our understanding of one another, and that the identification of this process and the responsibility for all constituencies, regardless of the actual victimization they have endured, to undertake these steps, not to mention the clear evidence in the speech itself that Obama personally has already put his words into action, is precisely where this speech makes the leap to landmark and extraordinary. And I fully agree with Jay's take that the need to get past looking at just the anger and the politics that ensues was directed squarely at the media as well. Pandering is the motivation behind the words that were spoken and is an easy thing of which to accuse someone, but often a difficult thing to prove or disprove, which is why the accusation always seems to be an easy out for those who wish to avoid the underlying argument. One is then left to review the words that were spoken and the audience to which it was delivered, because pandering is typically marked by its being directed toward the audience’s feelings and emotions over those of audiences and constituencies not present and the frequent use of buzzwords and other “dog whistle” language. The audience is usually made up of the like-minded. CNN’s account described the audience as a relatively small, diverse crowd. Any reading of the transcript of this speech reveals few, if any, of the characteristics one normally associates with pandering. ------------ Jay, here’s a link to CNN that you might find helpful in your request above. It has some limited transcripts of the CNN commentators after Obama’a speech: (Click on the interactive tab if the page does not open at the transcripts.) ------------ Btw, I added your site to my favorites around the time that your “Retreat from Empiricism ...” piece ran in the Huffington Post and have always enjoyed your posts and your readers’ comments here; at least, those who have figured out that this is a journalism blog. Posted by: rollotomasi at March 22, 2008 10:41 AM | Permalink Sen Obama got it right, look at the past, who was the ones that carried the water for the Bush Iraq war, it was CNN, FOX NEWS, it was most of all the media that carried Bush illigal invasion of Iraq, when the media can't do their jobs in reporting the truth, then they are no longer a free media, they become the political hicks and water boy of internal terrorist, I rearly watch American News anymore because of their participation of destoying this country, their deception of the turth have done more dammage to this country, than the crimes itself, if you want the truth about America then you need to watch foreign staion like the BBC, who reporters are not bought and paid for, We all will be judge by our during on earth, when the media have to use mini clips to get their points across and not the clip in hole content, then you know that they are out right lying. Posted by: Jerry at March 22, 2008 11:07 AM | Permalink The Jon Stewart version of this post really has to be seen. Watch for the question from the CNN reporter to a construction worker in a hard hat. "What do you think it's going to take for Barack Obama to win the working class white man's vote?" There is something profoundly point-missing and screwed up about that particular question. Who can put their finger on it? Thanks, rollo. You're right. Many who drop by completely ignore or never notice the fact that this is a journalism blog and just launch into their political speeches. More annoying are those who know it's a journalism blog and disguise their political speeches as observations about the news media. ...everything is a move in the game of getting elected, and it’s our job in political television to explain to you, the slightly clueless viewer at home, what today’s tactics are, then to estimate whether they will work. To be sure that is an accurate characterization of Wolf Blitzer's mindset when he made his "pre-emptive strike" comment. Unfortunately, because his response was so inane, I am not convinced that it is a good example to demonstrate the overall PressThink point. First and foremost, the problem with Blitzer's response is not its underlying horse race mentality -- a mentality that is unable to see any discourse during a political campaign except in its marginal impact on the prospects for victory or defeat -- it is that even as horse race journalism it was stunningly inept. Consider the following imaginary answer: "This address represents one of the options a candidate has at his disposal when beleaguered by serious, possible disqualifying challenges. One option for Obama in response to the questions about his association with Wright could have been to go negative, to launch a pre-emptive strike against his opponents by criticizing them for playing the race card. Obama chose not to do that today. Instead he gave a high-minded formal address. The antecedent for this type of response was John F Kennedy's famous speech about his Catholicism. Instead of going negative, this option involves going "contextual" -- trying to put a particular problem in a broader cultural and historical context. Earlier this year, Mitt Romney tried to use the same option to discuss his Mormonism. That was unsuccessful because it lacked intellectual heft. For Obama's speech to succeed it has to pass that intellectual test and at first glance it appears to have done so -- although that will be subject to scrutiny in days to come. Yet in electoral terms his intellectual prowess may be a two edged sword: his base of support has already been persuaded by his already-known skills in argument; the white working class electoral bloc that needs to be reassured because of the Jeremiah Wright association has so far been more attracted to Rodham Clinton's pragmatic, programatic style rather than to Obama's abstractions. Yet more lofty abstractions may not seal the deal." These three imaginary paragraphs are firmly inside the discourse of horse race journalism but would not have been so obviously offensive as Blitzer's. This is not meant in defense of the horse race as a reporting model. As you know I take more of an anthropological view when considering campaign coverage, seeing it as a quadrennial ritual where underlying sociological assumptions are tested, which leaves the horse race -- or the reality gameshow, in my words -- as an organizing structure rather than the actual object of reportage. That is a partial explanation for why the Obama speech has failed to be shoehorned into the discourse that Blitzer prefers and has taken on a life of itself outside CNN, even outside the campaign. Its persuasiveness is being assessed on its merits, not in terms of its impact on Obama's electoral prospects. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at March 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Permalink I wasn't impressed at all by Obama's speech. it might have seemed a lot more sincere had he not condemned Don Imus for much less inflammatory comments made the previous year. It seems Mr. Obama is talking out both sides of his mouth; out one side you can't even say the word black IF you are white but it's alright to say damn America and rich white people if you're black: it's the "black" experience talking. Well if you follow Mr. Obama's logic to it's ridiculous extreme you would have to understand Muslim rage and the Muslim experience to know why they flew planes into our buildings. For years people like Al Sharpton and J. Jackson have instantly condemned white people for saying some pretty innocuous things about blacks and NOW that it's one of their guys making racial slurs well it's time to forgive and understand; my advice to them is try being forgiving and understanding yourself. No one is saying Mr. Obama had to confront his racist pastor but he could have left that church, people leave for far less justifiable reasons, the congregation could have asked that he be removed as pastor, but no, instead they chose to sit cheer as Mr. Wright said GD America just days after the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. Now Mr. Obama has continued not only to go to that church but he continues to defend the spewer of this hate rhetoric and he expects understanding when he offered Mr. Imus none. It may be time for Americans to have a discussion on race but until Obama leaves his anti-semitic hate spewing church I don't think he's the one to lead it. His call for change seems like a calculated ploy in light of his defense of his minister. He claims we see his minister in a static way and don't see all the "good" he done: I'm sure Louis Farakhan enjoys that award Mr. Wright gave him; but I think the same charge could be leveled against Sharpton and Obama who were only too eager to throw Imus under the bus despite his years of helping sick and dieing children. As liberals and democrats we have spent years calling Mr.Bush and his party racist and now that it is us on the grill we ask for a get out racist jail free pass because of the "black" experience. Well Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Wright, you have met the racists and they is you. Posted by: Carson Stidom at March 22, 2008 2:06 PM | Permalink Now, the usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details. I believe we've had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. What Obama said was, "Believe me, I am not a racist like that racist over there. And yes I threw my grandmother under the bus and I will throw anyone else who opposes me under the bus too. I can't get the AAs votes if I disown my preacher because he is my number one agitater. Yes I heard him say disparaging things but HEY, that is what I wanted him to say. Yes I chose my preacher, he did not choose me, and I chose him for a reason. As my #1 agitater he can rile the black voters so they will get mad enough to come out in large numbers and vote for me, AMEN. Posted by: nova at March 22, 2008 3:30 PM | Permalink This was one of THE most authentic political speeches I have ever heard. I get so tired of listening to politicians spew forth PR drivel. Posted by: Russell Page at March 24, 2008 3:42 PM | Permalink Obama, he was against racism ( Imus) before he was for it ( "Rev" Wright....god what an ironic name ) I just can't see me voting for such a social flip-flopper. Posted by: Carson Stidom at March 25, 2008 10:13 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
