"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
The media proved Bill Clinton right
Speaking in North Carolina last Friday, Bill Clinton talked about a potential general election matchup between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Bill Clinton's comments were quickly distorted by several news reports; here's what he actually said:
BILL CLINTON: I believe those are the three reasons you ought to be for her: She'd be the best for the veterans, she'd be the best commander in chief, and she would certainly be the best at managing this economy. And finally, according to the evidence today, she's also the most electable. She's running ahead of Senator McCain in Ohio; her opponent's running behind. She is ahead in Florida and Arkansas, a state that voted for me twice, 'cause I was the governor -- they sort of had to, I guess -- and voted for President Carter once. They haven't voted for another Democrat in 44 years. This week's survey in Arkansas: Senator McCain is leading Hillary's opponent by 16 points; Hillary's leading him by 15 points. So she can win this election. And, and, we need to change the direction of this country.
But it won't be an easy race. John McCain is an honorable man, and as all of you know, he has paid the highest price you can pay for the United States, short of giving your life. And he and Hillary are friends; they like and respect each other. They have big disagreements on foreign policy and economic policy, they have taken reluctant Republican senators all over the world to prove that global warming is real but there is a way to deal with it that grows the economy and doesn't shrink it. And we now have a bipartisan majority in the Senate to do something about this. That's the kind of leadership this country needs.
And I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics. So that's my argument for her. She'd be the best for veterans, the best commander in chief, the best for the economy, and is the most electable.
You can watch video of Clinton's comments here.
Clinton's comments were quite clear: The former president simply said that his wife is the best candidate on the issues, and that it would be "a great thing" to have an election about those issues rather than one about "all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Those last comments -- about how great it would be to have an election about issues rather than "all this other stuff" -- are most easily read as a critique of the news media for obsessing over candidates' haircuts and houses and earth tones and sighing and middle names and how many buttons are on their suits and whether they'd be fun to have a beer with. That's the nonsense that has defined our politics for the past decade thanks to the news media, and Clinton seemed to be making what should be the obvious point that it would be better to focus on candidates' foreign policy views and economic policies than on what they like on their cheesesteaks or whether they "look French."
If, as seems obvious, Clinton was tweaking the news media for focusing on trivia and nonsensical phony controversies rather than on important issues, many journalists quickly -- and unwittingly -- proved his point.
MSNBC's Alex Witt, for example, described Clinton as having "raised the issue of patriotism" in his comments, instructing viewers to "[l]isten carefully to what he says here." MSNBC then played a short excerpt of Clinton's comments, while an on-screen graphic read: "RACE & THE RACE."
Now, go back and read Clinton's comments. Watch them again. He didn't say anything about "race." Nothing at all. Not a word. In portraying Clinton's comments as having something to do with race, MSNBC was inventing a controversy where none existed -- and, in doing so, grossly misleading its audience. Nor was Witt right to say Clinton "raised the issue of patriotism." He hadn't done so -- he hadn't suggested that anyone lacks patriotism, or that anyone is more patriotic than anyone else. It just didn't happen.
But that quickly became conventional wisdom among the news media.
Maureen Dowd, displaying a stunning lack of self-awareness, wrote:
On Friday in Charlotte, N.C., Bill Clinton, the man who once thanked an R.O.T.C. recruiter "for saving me from the draft" during Vietnam, sounded like Sean Hannity without the finesse.
Extolling John McCain as "an honorable man," and talking about McCain's friendship with his wife, the former president told veterans: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Some people consider the Clintons to be the "stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Yeah, and others think Maureen Dowd is the stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics. Those people are right. As Bob Somerby explained in March 2007:
In Dowd's work, John Edwards is routinely "the Breck Girl" (five times so far -- and counting), and Gore is "so feminized that he's practically lactating." Indeed, two days before we voted in November 2000, Dowd devoted her entire column, for the sixth time, to an imaginary conversation between Gore and his bald spot. "I feel pretty," her headline said (pretending to quote Gore's inner thoughts).That was the image this idiot wanted you carrying off to the voting booth with you! Such is the state of Maureen Dowd's broken soul. And such is the state of her cohort [Ann Coulter].
And now, in the spirit of fair play and brotherhood, she is extending this type of "analysis" to Barack Obama. In the past few weeks, she has described Obama as "legally blonde" (in her headline); as "Scarlett O'Hara" (in her next column); as a "Dreamboy," as "Obambi," and now, in her latest absurd piece, as a "schoolboy" (text below). Do you get the feeling that Dowd may have a few race-and-gender issues floating around in her inane, tortured mind?
The New Republic's Marty Peretz jumped in, agreeing with Dowd's interpretation of Clintons' comments:
What Bill Clinton was saying in full consciousness is that yes, John McCain loves America and that, yes, so does Hillary. And that Barack Obama does not. What else could he possibly have meant? And that nasty little line about that other kind of politics (Obama's) intruding on our lives! None of this is a slip. It is deliberate. It is also ugly, very ugly. If Clinton gets nominated and gets elected, we will rue the day we ever met her ... and him.
Chris Matthews agreed that there was only one possible interpretation of Clinton's comments:
MATTHEWS: There's only one way to read that. He's saying that if you pick these two people, you get two people that love their country. If you don't, you don't get two people that love your country. You get this other guy, Obama, who has all this other stuff, as if that other stuff is Obama's problem. He's getting pretty tough here, isn't he, in these last efforts to hold onto reality or something like a Clinton reality?
I'm not sure which is more troubling: the possibility that Peretz and Matthews are so slow they really cannot imagine any other possible interpretation of Clinton's comments? Or the possibility that they know perfectly well that other interpretations exist, but are dishonest enough to pretend they don't?
Whatever the reason behind Matthews' comments, Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune disagreed with him: "I don't believe that he's trying to suggest that Senator Obama is not a patriot. I think what he's saying is Senator Clinton and Senator McCain like each other and they have policy disagreements."
Freelance writer and political consultant Steve Benen agreed with Zuckman and wrote in a post on his blog, The Carpetbagger Report:
There's just nothing striking about the comments. He said Clinton and McCain are patriotic Americans who can face off in a campaign about issues. It wasn't a shot at Obama; it wasn't about Obama at all. I suppose one, if they were really anxious to parse the words and raise a fuss, could make a variety of inferences, but there's really no rational need to do so. At face value, his comments were harmless.
And syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, in a post on National Review Online's blog, The Corner, wrote that she was present for Clinton's comments and "[i]n no way did I interpret Clinton's remarks as questioning Obama's patriotism." Parker elaborated:
Clinton was making the case for his wife's electability against McCain, who last time I checked is the presumptive Republican nominee and her challenger should she win the Democratic nomination. He may have intentionally bypassed Obama in his leap to match Hillary against McCain, but he didn't say anything that could be construed as questioning Obama's patriotism. The sequence went as follows: He noted that Hillary polls ahead of McCain in Ohio and Florida and also that McCain leads "Hillary's opponent" (I quit typing here and don't recall exactly which states he mentioned in that part of his comment.) His point, obviously, was that Hillary should be the nominee and, in that case, she and McCain would face each other in the final contest.
Slate's John Dickerson likewise saw that Clinton's comments were innocuous:
Clinton appears to be imagining a post-nomination world and characterizing the debate among two senators (Hillary and McCain) as respectful because -- as he had just finished explaining to the crowd -- his wife and McCain had traveled the world together working on the issues like global warming. When he refers to "the other stuff that always seems to intrude," it's plausible to assume -- if you strip him of the horns and pitchfork for just a moment -- that what Clinton was talking about was the "stuff" that intrudes in general-election fights -- swift-boat ads and Republican claims that Democrats aren't patriots.
Still, major news outlets persisted in portraying Clinton's comments as controversial -- some by misleadingly cropping Clinton's statement. NBC's Today, for example, played a clip of Clinton saying only: "And I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country." They carefully clipped Clinton's comments to hide the fact that he was talking about the importance of having an election about issues rather than "other stuff" -- clipped it so viewers would have no idea what he was really talking about.
Days of media obsession about Bill Clinton's comments -- featuring reporters ignoring the plain meaning of what he said and reading into his remarks things that he plainly didn't say -- perversely prove Clinton's point. This is exactly the kind of "other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." This is the kind of nonsense the media want to talk about instead of meaningful issues.
And some of them, deep down inside, know this is a problem.
Here's Chris Matthews, for example, earlier this week:
MATTHEWS: It's not important what the politics of the Clinton family is now; it's what [sic] important to the country. And I really think we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom. We had eight years of this sitcom: What are the Clintons up to? How do they relate to each other? What do they feel today? Mika, it's a sitcom -- and it's gotta end. We gotta focus on America. We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons. We've gotta focus on what matters and stop this sitcom approach to politics. It doesn't matter what happened on the phone between Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. What matters is what Bill Richardson has to say about the future of the country. Bill -- Governor, why is it important to have Barack Obama our next president? That's a question.
That was on the March 24 edition of Morning Joe. Matthews didn't seem to understand that he and his colleagues are the ones responsible for the "sitcom approach to politics." But at least he understood that this approach is hurting America. Then, on that evening's broadcast of his own show, Matthews devoted a six-minute segment to speculation about Hillary Clinton's motivations and preferred outcomes in the event that she loses the Democratic nomination for president.
This is hardly the first time Matthews has lambasted the media for behaving like ... well, like Chris Matthews.
In September 2006, Matthews declared: "The news media ... sucks lately in covering the Iraq war ... We don't cover a war our guys are fighting? ... I watch the news and I don't see the war anymore. It's been taken off television. And Bush must love it, because certainly Karl Rove loves the fact that the Iraq war has gotten boring for the American people. ... I have been a voice out there against this bullshit war from the beginning."
In January 2007, Matthews followed up by saying media coverage of the war is "all about vague heroism and the medals people win. But there's nothing about what is going on in our military hospitals now. Why don't we focus on the cost of this damn thing?"
But Matthews wasn't using his own television shows -- he hosts two -- to give viewers regular, detailed, thoughtful segments about the costs of the Iraq war. Instead, he was calling Al Gore fat and leading inane segments in which he and his guests imagined poodle-skirt-wearing presidential candidates in high school.
And yet it doesn't even cross Chris Matthews' mind that when Bill Clinton talked about "other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics," maybe -- just maybe -- he was referring to the mindless chatter and sophomoric insults that Matthews and his colleagues inflict on the nation on a daily basis.
-- the mindless chatter and sophomoric insults that Matthews and his colleagues inflict on the nation on a daily basis. -- mmfa
Amen...they are mostly entertaining themselves.
So true. At least we can hope they are entertaining somebody.
Crossing Chris' mind...
Jamison, right now I don't think there's anything that Hillary or Bill could say that would not send Tweety into a spittle-flinging spree of who-cares-what-they-really-said indignation, predictably supported by a nodding panel of at least one Hillary-hating woman and at least one person of color.
On a related note, as long time Keith Olbermann fans, my wife and I now spend the first 20-25 minutes of his show only tangentially paying attention because we know what to expect - a rerun of Hard Ball but with different writers and different Hillary haters.
Karl Rove is smiling.
what a disappointment margaret carlson is. someone i thought of as fair, and she's delivering the right wing talking points that "everyone" involved in the irish peace process said hillary played little role, which is not true. and she also was part of the "hillary did not deny obama is a muslim" charade.
Has anyone looked at his ratings lately?
Does he ever still talk about them vis a vis O'Reilly, like he used to?
I ask that because most of the old Keith fans I know no longer watch him, for exactly the Hillary-hatred reason.
I suspect he's lost viewers who can't stomach his first half hour, that is always devoted to speculating about what Hillary might do, and then the next half hour, which condemns her for the thought of the possibility of what they speculated she might do.
I've turned off Olbermann and Matthews as well. Somewhere in cableland Leave it to Beaver is on and I find it much more honest than MSNBC. More of us need to stop threatening and engaging in their outrageousness and just turn them OFF.
Grab some stimulant to stay alert and just turn to PBS and C-Span for the news.
EXAMPLES LINKS ANYTHING
I'd like an example of Olbermann doing wrong
Yeah, I agree Eden...
Let's have some examples of Keith's terrible bias. As far as I know, there have been just a few trolls on this web site.
Here it is, as requested:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3v7ON5XdA
I'll give you an example.
A few days ago. The night he spent almost the whole hour in indignation over the Obama passport breach.
But the next night-- when news came that all candidates had been breached-- he glossed over the other two! He wasn't as worried about them!
I'm not saying this link shows wrong doing on KO's part but it certainly shows his preference. Perhaps his wrong doing is his total lack of balance. I have stopped watching him (and all of cable news for that matter), but has he yet to say anything nice about her this campaign season.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14859
You're right. Everything Hillary does is wrong or suspect to KO. He's always asking his guests loaded questions about her, that cast her in a negative light.
Naturally, they answer him accordingly.
Ah, the absolute blindness of Obama supporters!
Bill Clinton in 2004 at the Democratic Convention similarly referred to John Kerry and George W. Bush as two strong men who both love their country.
Days of media obsession about Bill Clintons’ comments -- featuring reporters ignoring the plain meaning of what he said and reading into his remarks things that he plainly didn’t say – perversely prove Clinton’s point. This is exactly the kind of “other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.” This is the kind of nonsense the media want to talk about instead of meaningful issues.
It's too bad that the media has fallen so far. It used to be that Walter Cronkite was one of the most trusted men in America. This story is so easily debunked, yet has roped in many here and elsewhere.
I am an extraordinarily careful reader and critic of the press. And yes, Dowd can be silly, Peretz wrong (particularly on Israel), Chris Matthews seems to have odd synapses from time to time; but this was reasonably interpreted by sometimes silly and unreasonable people to be an Obama slight at best.
Dear Media Matters, I am a 77 year old widow who supports Hillary Clinton.
I have just finished reading your article about President Bill Clinton and his comments to the Veterans. I am sitting here crying simply because this is the first time anyone has told the truth about the Clintons, without embellishments or nasty conclusions decided by those who don't want his wife to win.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart, I just wish the media would stop pounding this wonderful couple who want to serve their country and have taken so much filth from the News Media.
MSNBC are stepping over the line and have been for months, yet no one seems able to stop them. I can't always agree with Fox News but when they speak of Hillary Clinton, even if they don't agree with her it is done and said with respect.
I just wonder if the talking heads that appear on MSNBC can only make a living by pandering to them and saying what they want to hear, it is sickening for me to watch. They say the most hateful things about Hillary Clinton and I just feel she will make a much better President than her opponent Barak Obama.
There is no question Mr Obama is charming and a really great orator, but even his speech that everyone was raving about, was nothing more than an excuse for his Pastors behaviour and sounded like a description of race relations back in the 50s.
Thank you for finally saying something truthful and honest about the Clintons I wish it had come sooner and others had done the same.
Incidently, the newscaster on 60 minutes kept badgering her and asking if Obama was a Muslim, how many ways can you say NO without having that turned on you. She immediately said 'Barak said he isn't and I believe him'. Why did he keep badgering her and why wasn't he condemned and not her.
Thank you
Mrs Sonia Lazaruis
Liverp2@aol.com
Having a problem with so MUCh taken out of context, most recently the Pastor Wright that caused and still causing erupturing mouth off's and due in large part to the OUT OF FULL CONTEXT sound bytes that are repeated over and over and over until taken as IF factually representing Pastor Wright !!
It is DAMAGING TO ALL , in Wrights case, harmful to his reputation of 30 years of good works being now denigrated and villified and remaining OUT OF FULL CONTEXT. The Clintons want to complain that THEY are villified and damaged by OUT OF CONTEXT but one has to remember how savvy they and their team is at INSERTING BORDERLINED INNUENDO. Remember their supporter early on bringing up Obama's drug use as an issue (and resigning, but the "damage" was done and that intent was meant...just as the recent "judas" snarked remark by James C. against Richardson for making HIS decision to support Obama over Hillary. THe ridiculous frothing remark and CONTINUED snark was meant to DERAIL even the THOUGHT of perhaps a Richardson possibility on the ticket as VP (a combination that COULD WONK/WORK taking the strengths of both and likely to be two termers which would further delay another CLinton run...Yeah, if the CLintons can NOT win THIS won, they'd likely prefer that McC get the spot for ONE TERM so they would have a shot in 2012.
The whine of the Clintons is pathetic and they deserve NO PITY PARTY or yodel they are taken out of context, much more CONTEXT to the Clintons and FEW bother to delve or report it and they have been given a free ride far longer than others . IF OBama was of "record" in popular vote , pledged delegates BEHIND, there would be NONE claiming HE HAD THE RIGHT to ascend to be THE nominee and we all rather know that. The Clintons figure NO RULES for themselves or if there are, let them be broken such as in Mi and Fla...rules to WHICH ALL AGREED TO BEFORE THE RESPECTIVE PRIMARY VOTES and NO OBJECTION FROM THE CLINTONS until now when those "false claimed wins" are critical to extend a CHANCE , slim as even if counting those, to secure the nomination.
SORRY, NO SYMPATHY FOR THE CLINTONS and frankly, have downgraded "respect" that might otherwise be accorded the dynamic duo. Presently,reminded how have BEEN THERE< DONE THAT , HAD them in the WH and frankly, some of it was good but some of it was horrid and really do NOT like the prospect of a possible repeat !!!
My, how Hillary-friendly this site has become.
And I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics. So that's my argument for her. She'd be the best for veterans, the best commander in chief, the best for the economy, and is the most electable.
The ONLY two candidates he mentions are Hillary and McCain. AND the entire quote is to show she's a better candidate for the general election than Obama. AND he goes out of his way to speak of McCain as "an honorable man" who "has paid the highest price you can pay for the United States...." AND he never says Obama loves his country. So it is absolutely dead on accurate to characterize this quote as disparaging of Obama's patriotism. It is a totally legitimate inference -- and, frankly, an extremely clear implication.
Exactly.
Bill spent the previous paragraph making an argument I've made many times. Overall our nation is quite purple, rather than being strongly blue or red, but there are strongholds for both camps. There are states that any Republican candidate will carry, and there are states that almost certainly will send their electors to Washington in the Democratic camp.
We need to nominate a candidate that can win the popular vote in the states that are in play. Bill makes a strong case that Hillary is that candidate.
After he makes that argument, he then goes on to say that if his argument is correct, and Hillary is the nominee, then she and McCain would be the two people running. It doesn't diss Obama at all for him to then talk about the two people he suggests will be the best candidates for both parties.
First, your point about winning "purple": Obama has won in more states that are traditionally "red" than Hillary, and has received much more of the crossover vote than she has. By your logic, Obama is the stronger candidate and Bill is a a**.
As to your second point, it does indeed dis Obama to suggest that the two candidates he sees as the nominees love their country, when he has spent the entire argument dissing Obama (falsely, as I indicate above), clearly implying that another reason Obama shouldn't be the nominee is because he hates America. It's not that tough of a stretch (for anyone but a true-purple Hillary supporter) to see this.
Obama won the democrat-only vote in states that will be Red in November. Hillary won the democrat-only vote in states that might be Red or might be Blue in November.
Hillary's numbers are close to worthless in a general election context. Obama's numbers are completely worthless.
Not to worry, though. McCain is so pathetic that he loses to anyone.
Obama did well in big-time Red states with college town clusters of Democrats.
But the MSM and Obama supporters are wrong to construe that this means he can carry the rest of the state better than Hillary. Those are red state voters-- not his constituency of college towns and urban minority neighborhoods.
First, your point about winning "purple": Obama has won in more states that are traditionally "red" than Hillary, and has received much more of the crossover vote than she has. By your logic, Obama is the stronger candidate and Bill is a a**.
His winning against Hillary is not the issue. It's either one of them winning against McCain. Both Obama and Hillary have tried that argument, about which states and how many each has won against the other Democratic candidates. That measure doesn't matter when either of them used it. The measure of which one can win against the Republican candidate in states that are in play does matter. That's the argument Bill was making.
As to your second point, it does indeed dis Obama to suggest that the two candidates he sees as the nominees love their country, when he has spent the entire argument dissing Obama (falsely, as I indicate above), clearly implying that another reason Obama shouldn't be the nominee is because he hates America. It's not that tough of a stretch (for anyone but a true-purple Hillary supporter) to see this.
He did not say that only Hillary and McCain love their country. That's a common distortion of what he said and what he meant. He didn't spend his entire argument dissing Obama. He didn't imply that Obama hates America. It is not a stretch to assert that if one only looks at part of the evidence.
I'm not a Hillary supporter by any stretch of the imagination. I wish she hadn't run, and I don't think she's the best hope for the Democratic Party of the two remaining candidates. That argument can be made, and was made by Bill. It's still early, and that's not the only variable that should be considered, but it wasn't unfair for Bill to make that an issue.
He said you ignored the previous paragraphs. He was wrong. You ignored the very relevant first paragraph entirely.
There, does that make you feel better? You ignored the substance of what the poster said to concentrate on an unimportant issue. You took what Bill Clinton said out of context by only concentrating on the last paragraph and totally ignoring the first paragraph. The last paragraph does not stand on it's own.
Bill Clinton was clearly and ONLY talking about a post-primary race of Hillary v McCain.
It had nothing to do with Obama-- he was beyond that point. He was talking about the pros and cons of THAT particular matchup.
"The ONLY two candidates he mentions are Hillary and McCain. AND the entire quote is to show she's a better candidate for the general election than Obama."
That's because he was talking about a POST-PRIMARY runoff between Hillary and McCain!
Obama was nowhere in sight! He wasn't even talking about Obama being in the picture!!!! It was no slight on Obama-- he was speaking as if the other two only were running. That was the context!
Lapsed lawyer-- obviously......
JF, I have a little bone to pick with your otherwise sterling analysis, as usual.
"I'm not sure which is more troubling: the possibility that Peretz and Matthews are so slow they really cannot imagine any other possible interpretation of Clinton's comments? Or the possibility that they know perfectly well that other interpretations exist, but are dishonest enough to pretend they don't?"
I think this is a false dichotomy that gives far too much credit to P & M, too little credit to Clinton and to you, and seems to contradict the case you have made in your prior paragraphs. I'd put it this way: What is more troubling to me is the possibility that P & M know that they are MISinterpreting the comments, i.e., that their description conflicts with clearly articulated content in the original Clinton quote. I realize that it is more generous to allow for differences in perceptions, interpretations, etc. But the danger in being too generous is that reality is distorted and people in the media have a responsibility not to do this.
At least, if you don't feel as confident as I do that this third possibility is likely the sad reality, JF, you might add that this is another possibility.
OK, Im going to do a Media Matters on you Foser. Here it goes:
Foser criticizes media for scrutinizing Clinton's comments; fails to note Obama camp's own scrutiny of those comments.
In his syndicated column for the left wing blog mediamatters.org, Media Matters resident scholar Jamison Foser criticized what he called the "Days of media obsession about Bill Clinton's comments."
Foser did not include in his article the reaction of Obama campaign co-chair and retired four star general Tony "Merrill" McPeak to the Clinton comments. From the Boston Globe: "When approached by reporters after a rally yesterday in Salem, Ore., McPeak said Clinton's comments were "more like McCarthy," referring to the Wisconsin senator who in the 1950s branded political rivals, government employees, and some celebrities as being communist sympathizers, spies, or otherwise unpatriotic." From Bloomberg News: "``I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors,'' McPeak said yesterday. ``So I've had enough of it.''
-I.O.
PS. Note to Media Matters: Not bad, huh? Make sure to call me as soon as you get an opening :)
Did you forget the "Media" in "Media Matters for America's" name?
They cover media misinformation. Obama's campaign is not the media.
You didn't do their job. They aren't going to hire you. Go get a real job instead of getting paid to clutter up this site with your idiocy.
I wonder if it's even worth the bother to try and explain to some that this site is about MEDIA misinformation.
This article was NOT about whether Clinton was disparaging Obama's patriotism or not, it was about the fact that the media saw that as the ONLY way to interpret it, when it clearly is not the only way to read it.
I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand for some.
Well said Faulty...
It's hard to understand for some because they're conservatives. They've got their heads so full of Limboob mush and O'Reilly's crap, they seem to have completely lost their ability to use their god-given minds.
This is just another fantastic piece by Jamison Foser. God bless him!! This man is a true patriot in the Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine mode.
This brings me to Maureen Dowd. This woman is filth. The lowest sort of excreta that walks in our society today. She has disgraced America and American values again and again.
This is a treacherous piece of corporate sludge who truly hates America.
Of course my claim is not that Foser should have focused the piece entirely on McPeak's reaction. But certainly it would have made for more intellectual honesty if he had at least mentioned that McPeaks' reaction was far more hysteric than any of the media figures he cited. But that would have hurt his argument, so it's probably better that he did not include any mention of it whatsoever. Thanks, I understand your logic now.
No, it would NOT have weakened his argument - it would have been IRRELEVANT to the argument, as McPeak is not part of the media, he's a campaign worker.
You still don't get it, apparently.
Solon,
What I said was that Foser should have included a mention that Obama's campaign reacted just as hysterically, if not more so, than the examples from the media he cited. This would change the way in which those reactions come across to readers of the piece, who might not all be aware about how Obama's campaign co-chair reacted. The context of these journalistic "overreactions" is that they occurred after (or around the same time as) McPeak's vitriolic (by invoking the name of McCarthy) reaction. After all, we don't examine the media in an isolated prism; we judge journalistic reactions by the context in which they occur. Why do you hold a different expectation for what you call a "media watchdog" group?
That point aside, I am wondering what is your personal view on the matter. Did you feel that the Obama co-chair overreacted? Do you believe that the media's obsession over this issue truly helps the Republicans, given that polls suggest that McCain would do better against Hillary than he would against Obama?
"After all, we don't examine the media in an isolated prism; we judge journalistic reactions by the context in which they occur."
So if McCain said something that might be taken the wrong way (even if the context made it much more understandable), Democratic campaign workers screaming bloody murder over it would give the media justification for failing to examine the incident objectively? That seems like giving a lot of power to people who have a vested interest in twisting public perception to their advantage, don't you think?
NEWSFLASH, poster Interesting Observer interestingly enough FAILED to understand Media Matters mission statement while making a criticism of MMFA even though that statement has been pointed out at least three hundred times when similiar worthless criticisms of MMFA have been made. I guess its not a newsflash its the same old same old
How sad to see Media Matters continue its degeneration into a daily smokescreen for the Clinton Machine's sociopathic scorched-earth campaign. It's obvious what Slick Willy was saying. He was deliberately and blatantly insinuating that Sen. Obama is less patriotic than The Entitled One.
Honestly, the Clinton apologists are getting more absurd and desperate by the day. If only Media Matters would get back to its original mission of standing up for the facts, rather than for the Clintons' pathologically narcissistic faux-realities-du-jour.
Kudos to Sen. Obama for staying on the high road through all of this and deflecting the Clintons' unconscionable attacks with such grace. ... Say, that's just the sort of leadership and integrity we sorely need in the White House!
What about Bill's "saddle up" remarks?
He seems to be enjoying the "other stuff" between his wife and Obama.
I resent that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbemann, Dan Abrams and the MSNBC have chosen the Democratic nominee and they are doing every devious and lying trick they can find to do it. Writing emails to them is useless, they just get worse.
Last night, Dan Abrams claimed Chelsea Clinton was wrong for answering the student who asked a personal question with 'I don't think that is any of your business'
All three guests disagreed with him AND they praised Chelsea, normally that means they are right, but since it was a plus for the Hillary campaign, Dan Abrams childishly refused to accept their opinion.
I bet they will never be invited back to MSNBC.
What would happen if, for 48 hours nothing but straight and accurate news were reported and all 'opinion' were taken away in the media. What if no citizen were told what someone meant nor how they and other citizens thought about what was said? What if all we had to take in were full and complete comments...'straight from the horses mouth' so to speak? Who would we be if no one told us what we think and there was no commentary on what was said? Have we conceded that we are indeed such an ignorant and lazy society that we really can't process and think for ourselves. Why are we so willing to believe that grossly narcissistic and dishonest people, making enormous sums of money for being outrageous are more able see truth than we are? Isn't the lack of quality in our media a direct reflection of the level of societal intelligence and responsibility it serves?
In these times, the 'media' only exists because it continues to be profitable. We make it profitable. Maybe we should stop reacting to media, turn to C-Span and watch someone speak for themselves.
By your logic, someone who spouted misinformation about both Hillary and Obama would be helping both of them, therefore none of it would be conservative misinformation. It would make a lot more sense to say that lies about any Democrat serves a conservative purpose, even if it happens to help another Democrat at the same time.
Does that clear things up for you at all?
If Foser had included the McPeak quote in the article, it would have made the fact taht this pattern of "overreacting" on the part of the media is intended to work against the interests of progressives in favor of conservatives. After all, does McPeak, whose comments were more hysterical than the cited media figures, intend to work against the interests of progressives?
Solon,
Since you are on the topic of what Media Matters does and does not do, I thought I would bring this to your attention: accorinding to the about us section, Media Matters monitors "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda." Note the "and that forwards the conservative agenda." By including a mention of the statement from McPeak, it would have been less clear that the cited media figures were advancing the conservative agenda by interpreting Clinton's comments in the way they did. After all, McPeak's interpretation of Clinton's comments was far more extreme than the cited media figures, yet it can hardly be claimed that McPeak is trying to advance the conservative agenda. Had Foser included McPeak's comments in his article, he would have satisifed Media Matters' requirement of exposing conservative misinformation in the media, but also would have provided an important and relevant qualification to his own point.
Intent has nothing to do with it. Take the madrassa story, just as a random example. Conform the polls and their relative liberalism to your whims for the hypothetical. Whether it helps Hillary or not, it's still something that can be used against Obama long after this election is over, whether he wins or loses. That is clearly favorable to a conservative agenda, so nothing else nullifies that dynamic.
Your first sentence doesn't make much sense, but it sounds like your point is that since McPeak isn't trying to damage progressives in general, less severe overreactions aren't that big a deal. Again, the media should be objective, so their reactions aren't judged relative to the actions of those outside the media. And something can be beneficial to one Democrat and still be conservative misinformation because lowering the public opinion of any Democrat serves their agenda as well.
Does that cover it?
"My point is that it can less credibly be argued that the media was trying to forward the conservative agenda when McPeak, who clearly is not trying to forward that agenda, made more severe comments."
Perhaps the reason for not understanding your position is that I didn't see where Foser argued that they were trying to forward a conservative agenda. I see criticism of behavior, but I don't see any motives attributed to it. That's why I'm looking at your evidence weakening his point as having to do with the criticism of the media behavior itself.
I doubt that Peretz is rooting for Obama, honestly. Matthews is debatable, he likes Obama but he likes McCain as well. He despises Hillary, in any event. But both could make the same comments based on different motivations, which is why I said intent doesn't matter. If it happens to further a conservative agenda then it's mentioned whether that was the purpose of it or not. To use the madrassa story again, someone rooting for Hillary could be pushing that. But since it still furthers a conservative agenda, then it has to qualify as "conservative misinformation".
So fogetting about intent, how does Foser know that the media acting in this way advances the conservative agenda at all? It would be a much stronger point AFTER the primary has concluded but in the heat of the primary, I'm not sure how bashing one of the Democrats--who seems no more formidable than the other--advances conservatism.
It's not about policy, it's about politics. Denigration of Democrats obviously works in favor of Republicans. Handicapping Obama and/or Hillary in this election (and future ones) and fostering the impression that all Democratic presidential candidates are severely flawed in one way or another is beneficial to conservative rivals. Consider for a moment that even if Hillary loses the nomination that lies about her hurt Obama, because beating her is less of an accomplishment because of all of the established negatives. It would seem as if he should beat her easily, since she is such a horrible candidate.
Would you disagree?
I haven't seen all the media coverage -- I have no doubt Bill's statement was blown way out of proportion, which is par for the course. So, to that extent, I agree with this critique.
But, I'm sorry, What Bill basically said was: "Hillary is a better candidate, because she (like John McCain -- and unlike SOME people, but I won't mention any names...) loves her country."
If this was indeed "tweaking the news media for focusing on trivia," then I trust we can expect to hear Bill & Hillary sharply condemn the media for sensationalizing the Jeremiah Wright sermon (for example) and playing a soundbite out of context, etc.
If that really was what Bill meant, then his argument is absurd because there's a whole lot more trivia and scandal and "nonsensical phony controversies" surrounding Hillary & Bill -- and, therefore, (by his logic), Barack is the better candidate. Wha??
I had to go back and reread Clinton's comments to see how you could possibly interpret them that way. I was able to see how, but it would have never crossed my mind without your post. So obviously there are multiple interpretations.
My paraphrase runs "All the candidates are obviously decent people. Wouldn't it be cool if we could vote on who's better on the issues rather than waste time fighting over who's decent or not? And I think Hillary is best on the issues."
"But, I'm sorry, What Bill basically said was: "Hillary is a better candidate, because she (like John McCain -- and unlike SOME people, but I won't mention any names...) loves her country.""
He wasn't saying that at all. he as talking about a post-primary race between H and McC.
So what can be the rationale for this strategy? My guess is that the Clintons, as standard bearers for the DLC, are more closely aligned with corporate Republicans than they are with progressive Democrats. They would prefer to see a corporate Republican elected than a progressive Democrat, because in the latter case, they and their DLC buddies will lose their positions of prominence in the party. But it is a fatally flawed strategy. Even if McCain manages to defeat Obama in the general election, the Clintons will have permanently alienated a huge number of Democrats who previously admired them. Consequently, Hillary's chances of winning the party's nomination 2012 will be even smaller than they now are in 2008.
The best thing to do is to convince more people of what the media is and thus reduce its power. The media itself won't change no matter how far its numbers drop.
I'm reminded of an article in the Onion saying that half the members of a Klan rally were investigative reporters. Soon, half the audience of Hardball will be media watchdogs.
The future of news, and the savior of democracy, is the internet. It's a mixed bag but at least the truth is one of the options, plus you don't have GE or Disney telling you which subjects to care about.
If it weren't for the sea of clips posted all over the internet, I wouldn't know what Matthews and Olbermann and Maureen Dowd were saying. It is a far less stressful life to not have to breathe through the frustration of listening to such ridiculous statements. MSNBC is an entertainment network, and I turned it off after Olbermann did his commentary to Hillary. I will never return to watching that network.
These guys get lots of mileage out of their twisted comments and views, though. Clips everywhere and post after post repeating their odd statements word for word, bite for bite.
While I agree with MM that some of the media was sloppy, as usual, in parsing Bill Clinton's remarks - remarks themselves rather garbled and convoluted - there seems to be a huge difference between reading into the remarks something that clearly isn't there (anything to do with race, for example) and simply pointing out the simplest, most plausible interpretation of a specific subset of Bill's own words, a parsing that, far from being ruled out by the words' context, is actually reinforced by their setting.
The key remarks, in the 3rd paragraph are:
And I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interests of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics. So that's my argument for her. [emphasis added]
What's going on here? Bill is making an argument for Hillary's superiority as a candidate in the general election, based on her greater electability. He's saying that, with Hillary running against her honorable good friend John McCain, we are more likely to have an election free of "all this other stuff". Why? Because with Clinton-McCain we will have two candidates who love, and are devoted to, their country. Something, apparently, we wouldn't get if the Democratic nominee was Obama. The only way Bill's remark even makes sense as an argument for Hillary over Obama in the Democratic primary is if Bill is suggesting that Obama's patriotism would be questioned as a general election candidate and would keep Democrats from deservedly winning on the issues.
Bill isn't saying "wouldn't it be great if we just focus on issues". He isn't even saying "all this stuff they're saying about Obama is hateful, but let's be realistic, in the general election it's going to be a huge detriment." He's saying that it's possible to keep smears and innuedoes, all that "intrusive" stuff, out of the picture only if we had a general election "where you had two people who love their country". It appears, from Bill's own words, that he isn't even giving Obama the benefit of a doubt, an "as far as I know", on patriotism. It sounds, though I don't think he meant it, as if he's questioning Obama's patriotism himself.
Having said that, let's look again at how plausible some of the exonerating comments from columnists are.
Jill Zuckman, Chi Trib: "I think what he's saying is Senator Clinton and Senator McCain like each other and they have policy disagreements."
Yes, he said that. Just not in the controversial 3rd paragraph.
Steve Benen, the Carpetbagger Report: "It wasn't a shot at Obama; it wasn't about Obama at all."
Bill's comments are an argument about Hillary's greater electability over Obama as a less flak-magnetic candidate. Sorry. Paragraph 3 has to be about her rival in the Democratic primary or it makes no sense.
Kathleen Parker, the Corner: "The sequence went as follows: He noted that Hillary polls ahead of McCain in Ohio and Florida and also that McCain leads "Hillary's opponent"...His point, obviously, was that Hillary should be the nominee and, in that case, she and McCain would face each other in the final contest."
This analysis leaves out any mention of the 3rd paragraph content entirely, and so is irrelevant.
John Dickerson, Slate: "Clinton appears to be imagining a post-nomination world and characterizing the debate among two senators (Hillary and McCain) as respectful...what Clinton was talking about was the "stuff" that intrudes in general-election fights."
No one is questioning what Bill was "imagining". The question is why. Why would the stuff that intrudes in general elections be avoided if Hillary, not Barack, becomes the nominee? What would the Obama-specific radioactivity be that a race between two "people who love their country" avoid?
Lack of patriotism, obviously. That's all those specific comments could have been about.
The ultimate irony is that, if Clinton had simply omitted the 3rd paragraph, none of us would still be talking about what was otherwise a rather mediocre speech. That Bill Clinton's attempt to wax optimistically about the possibilities of an issue-focused campaign attracted so much attention to itself suggests that, when it comes to the dreaded "other stuff", the Clintons both attract, and generate, more issue-free commentary than the other two candidates combined.
You're sucked into Bill's web. So you miss the obvious point. He's a liar and a cheat who uses lies to create advantages for himself whenever big stakes are on the line. If you were able to have that view of him, you would be more suspicious of his carefully parsed words, the kind of words for which he is famous, as in, "It depends on the meaning of 'is.'" Of course, you may be right in this instance; it's so often impossible to tell if an accomplished liar is lying. But in view of the fact that he is a proven, egregious liar, someone willing to put the country through a mess to gain an advantage makes the standard view of his statements you allude to quite plausible.
I'd solve the problem of knowing how he truly feels by asking him if he meant to say that McCain is more presidential and otherwise valid as a candidate than Obama. Put more sarcastically, "Bill, if Obama is the dem. candidate, are you voting for McCain?"