Slate article teased as "Why Obama Is Like a Serial Killer"
In a March 22 Slate.com article, editor Jacob Weisberg questioned whether serial killers and presidential candidates are "really so easy to tell apart," and compared the backgrounds of various serial killers with those of several 2008 presidential candidates, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL), John McCain (R-AZ), and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). However, on the Slate.com homepage and washingtonpost.com, the article was teased as "Why Obama Is Like a Serial Killer" -- complete with a picture of Obama -- even though he was just one of several candidates highlighted by Weisberg.
Additionally, Weisberg repeated in his article the false claim that former vice president "Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet." This falsehood -- which originated during the 2000 presidential campaign and has endured since -- was a distortion of Gore's 1999 claim that while serving in Congress, he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."
As Media Matters for America documented, Slate.com previously teased a December 14, 2006, article on a land deal between Obama and Chicago Democratic fundraiser Antoin Rezko as "Inside Obama's Shady Real Estate Deal," despite the fact that the article explained there is "no evidence" that Obama did anything wrong.
Weisberg's article, titled "Candidates and Killers," cited several current and former presidential candidates in addition to Obama:
Questioned about David Garvin, who shot three people to death in Greenwich Village last week, one former co-worker offered the classical description of him as ''quiet and unassuming." True to form, the Phoenix neighbors of Mark Goudeau, a violent ex-con charged with crimes linked to the "Baseline Killer," described him as "a sweet, sweet guy" and a "hard worker." Michael Devlin, accused of kidnapping and imprisoning two young boys in the St. Louis suburbs, was predictably "quiet" and "nice," even "a big friendly marshmallow."
By contrast, profilers digging into Barack Obama's early days find signs of future triumph everywhere. Obama's half-sister was recently quoted in the New York Times saying, ''There was always a joke between my mom and Barack that he would be the first black president." Obama's third-grade teacher in Indonesia recalls him writing an essay for school titled, "I want to be a president" (whether in Washington or Jakarta, she did not specify). Such early impressions hardly make Obama unique. "If there was ever going to be a woman president, we thought Hillary would be at the top of the list," said a college classmate of Mrs. Clinton's. One of Giuliani's childhood friends from Massapequa recalled for Newsday, "We'd joke about it, 'Oh there's Rudolph William Louis Giuliani 3d, the first Italian-Catholic President of the United States.' "A fellow POW said that John McCain revealed his presidential ambitions in 1970 at the Hanoi Hilton. Al Gore regularly signaled his presidential plans from the crib.
Yet this is how the article was teased on Slate.com:
Similarly, on washingtonpost.com:
Weisberg also wrote:
But are spree killers and candidates really so easy to tell apart? An obsession with publicity and getting even are only the most obvious thing Rudy Giuliani and Son of Sam have in common. Newt Gingrich and Washington sniper John Allen Muhammed [sic] are both charismatic leaders, quick to anger, and a bit paranoid. John Kerry and the Unabomber are both loners -- though with different-sized cabins out West. And of course, both politician and killer tend to be credit hogs. Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet; the Zodiac killer, subject of a new movie, took credit for murders he probably didn't even commit.
Gore, however, never claimed to have "invented the Internet." Rather, on the March 9, 1999, edition of CNN's Late Edition, Gore said:
GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
My guess for the "tease" would be to grab the reader's attention with the biggest "rock star" of the campaign thus far - that being Obama. It was a marketing tactic to stir their reader's attention and get them to click to the full article - where it mentions many of the candidates.
Yes, oh Master of the Obvious, that's what a tease is. The <i>point</i> is that the tease frames Obama in the most negative light possible. But I suspect that someone who nitpicks MMFA headlines to death knows that already.
Hey how bout we keep things civil here. I often disagree with Tommy but when he makes a point -good or bad- he should at least get the same respect given to most other agreeable people on this site.When he is being goofy slap him down but geeze. Give the guy a break
He gets the respect he deserves. He said something goofy and, as usual, attempted to reframe the topic, therefore he gets "slapped down." Don't lecture me on civility, when there are countless other posts here that are nothing more than empty insults and invective, many of them written by Tommy himself.
I've got a teaser as well -
"Why our President is like a mass murderer"
Damn - I almost beat Tommy into this thread!
You mean ".... is a mass murderer"
Yes. I was going to point out there is no need for similies.
I'm just waiting for the MMFA piece about last night's Scarbrough Country where some Repub repeated the same lie about Gore that is used here.
Anyone who pats his own self on the back by taking credit for initiating the creation of the internet, has no business getting defensive when someone else pokes fun at him by skewing what he said as "inventing the internet",
Why not? There's a BIG difference between "creating" and "inventing." I can INVENT a lie about you, for instance...that you are a mass murderer. But it's only when I or someone else CREATES the rumor that it gets around.
If I say that lie to you alone and no one else, and no one else has ever said it, then I can reasonably say I INVENTED it. If I never tell it to anyone else, and you don't either...then as a rumor it was never CREATED.
It's a pity Gore and anyone else who actually knows what the words mean has to KEEP POINTING OUT that he helped CREATE the Internet and he NEVER claimed to have INVENTED it. It's a very sad commentary on our news media and our education system how few people actually seem to know the difference.
But if a conservative said the same thing, you would not be torturing logic to come up with odd linguistic distinctions and other red herrings to distract from the actual issues.
Um, who's trying to distract from the real issues? Gore's comment was completely accurate. He did indeed take the initiative in creating the internet (turning the technology already at hand into a public commercial entity). Creating, not inventing, the same way creating a bomb out of fertilizer is not the same as inventing the bomb. The dishonest howling about Gore's honest claim to credit was itself a distraction from the real issues of 2000.
Now he is creating global warming.
Yes, it's a conspiracy between him and 99.9% of scientists to...well, nobody's explained that part yet.
Get him an Oscar.
That's it! It's the unholy liberal triangle of Gore, Science and Hollywood!
The vast left-wing conspiracy finally rears its ugly cerberus-like head...
Gore never said he invented the internet, you jack ass. Get your facts straight, and stop lying.
You often harp on Democrats for not getting their message out, and yet when Gore promotes his achievments in the course of a campaign you snidely dismiss it as "patting himself on the back"? The fact is that Gore DID initiate legislation that helped in the creation of the Internet, and there's no justification for anyone who would choose to mischaracterize that in order to smear or even to make a cheap joke at Gore's expense. It's dishonest, plain and simple.
Poor Al, oh he's so done with the internet anyway........now he's off filling the planet full of Tylenol to cool off it's fever. Our Savior.
The point is the whole "invented the internet" thing is designed to get people making fun of Gore so they don't have to think about any tough issues. Why would people who supposedly have the better side of an argument want to do such a thing?
It certainly would explain Tommy's response here. He's proven time and time again that he prefers to do as little thinking as possible.
You know you might just want to acknowledge Al Gore's foresight. He saw the potential for what is now the internet and fought for funding of it. What is it about forward thinking figures that scares cons to death?
Gore took credit for something where he was due credit, and he didn't get defensive, he took it in good humour.
But go ahead and pat your "self" on the back for keeping the stupid smear alive.
Tommy, I'm disappointed in you. This morning, I created a ham sandwich. I did not, however, invent the ham sandwich. The continued faux confusion about this distinction among conservatives is, frankly, bullsh*t.
Nerzog, You missed my point.......I never said that Gore specifically said that, what I said was that he opened himself up to it being interpreted that way. it's not a big deal..........but one wonders why this website continues to bring it up every time some pundit breathes it in anyway? Who cares?
Uh, because it's a lie? Just a wild guess.
I defer to your expertise on the definition of a "lie"......nobody does it better than you.
".....nobody does it better than you."
Defines lies? I'm not sure if Clams is an expert on deceit in general, but he's certainly familiar with your lies, like the one you said about Gore above.
People above a certain intelligence level know that Gore never said he invented the Internet, even those that get glee from propagating it. So did you not know or were you getting your jollies spreading the lie one more time?
Tommy's new strategy to avoid debate is to call me a liar, but because he's repeatedly failed to come up with a single example to even remotely justify his namecalling, he's now trying to find "clever" (read: cowardly) ways to call me a liar without actually saying it directly.
Tommy, when you feel you are being willfully misquoted in an attempt to make you look stupid or pompous, you object and attempt to clear the record. Everyone does.
What is it about this that makes you try so hard to not understand it?
Val, Gore was being pompous in saying he initiated the creation of the internet......if some interpreted that into an "invention", then it went more to it's pompousness than anything else.
Pompous? Why? He saw the potential the Internet represented and supported it. That's a fact.
No, he wasn't. He was being factual.
Politicians tout their successes, it's what they do. Bush said all sorts of things about his record in Texas and how great he was.
The fact is that Gore was a leader in supporting technological advances in the Senate, and this was given as one of a number of reasons why a citizen might consider voting for him to be President.
Nothing "pompous" about it, nothing at all.
Complete bs. Are you giving us the right to interpret your remarks as we wish and pretend they are accurate descriptions of your ideas? Do you really think that is fair? Or is it only fair when people are being "pompous", because I don't see how that would exempt you either?
For those that don't remember, Tommy once made a comment about people with "room temperature IQs", then subsequently suggested a poster was in that category. When he was rightfully called out for the insult, he said that was their leap, not his. So nobody had the right to interpret Tommy when he said something with obvious meaning...but when someone interprets Gore, then that's fine, and the false impression says more about Gore than the political opponents making the interpretation.
Interesting.
So, herr dubyah isn't "pompous" by declaring he has freed Iraq and the middle east? lol. You hack.
"one wonders why this website continues to bring it up every time some pundit breathes it in anyway?" --tommy
I think you answered your own question. As long as it keeps being repeated, then it should keep being corrected. If it is then repeated again, obviously someone missed the correction. You apparently take issue with the people who are correct as opposed to taking the serial misinformers to task. I find that more than a bit odd.
I don't stop correcting my children's grammar when they make the same mistake over and over and I wouldn't consider it a pointless endeavor because they keep getting it wrong. Eventually, it will take. You gotta have some faith.
You forgot to add, tomeeeee, "this is silly". You're such a hack. Really, do you have a life....besides posting on MMFA? You do realize you spend every waking moment making a fool of yourself on the internet(s).....do you realize this or are you that much of a fool?
NO HE DIDN'T. What he said is ABSOLUTLY correct. He was taking credit for something he deserved credit for. REPUBLICANS, LIED about it and ridiculed him for it with an absloute smear. He took credit, he DESERVED credit. By your standards it doesnt matter that he was RIGHT that he DESERVED credit for doing it only that since the GOP COULD smear him with it its his fault they WERE that venal and small. This argument is not just without merit its stupid.
Anyone who is stupid enough to say Mr. Gore claimed to invent the internet is a lowlife lying scumbag anti-American GOPig, and has no business getting defensive when someone else pokes fun at him by skewing because he continues to spread lies about Mr. Gore.
Look, it's really quit simple.
Tommy didn't "invent" being a dangerously misguided, constantly wrong, integrity-deficient right wing shill (for we all know, anyone that is a self- described "conservative" can not invent anything, for they must be TOLD what to think/do) that types what the daily talking points are,
BUT he can "CREATE" moronic, outlandishly ludicrous, laughably stupid posts, simple by cutting and pasting whatever REDSTATE.com tells him, and maybe changing out a comma or such.
See the difference Tommy? Huh big guy?
Howza bout this one,
W. didn't "invent" cocaine, but he has helped "create" many a magic 8-ball, if you get the drift.
Right wing "moral authority" types didn't "invent" hypocracy, but they did "create" a new level of it by having affairs with women while their wives are pregnant, doing meth while boning a male hooker, allowing a male prostitute to pose as a "reporter" in the White House Press room, or divorcing their wives via t.v.
Get it yet, Tommy?
Tommy Tommy Tommy. Just when I started to like you come up with this crap. He is not responcable for other people bee essing his statements. You do not like your words twisted or changed so why should he put up with it. It isn't like he goes around the country "patting"himself on the back for that action. Right wing goofballs are the ones bring up that mythical quote
when did Slate become a conservative magazine?
It didn't. Obama is the most fawned over candidate from either party and that is the reason for the tease/picture of him. It had nothing to do with showing him in any negative way, anyone who sees that is just a nitpicking whiner.
So what if Media Matters posted an article with a headline that read, "Inside Guiliani's Shady Cross-Dressing Habit" and then followed it up with an article entitled, "Why Guiliani is Like a Baby Rapist"?
I'd read the entire article, if interested, and then decide on it's worthiness and fairness based on it's totality........not get all bunched up because of an obvious innocuous, teasing headline alone.
Not too long ago Tommy, you were complaining about how headlines must be an accurate portrayal of the content of the article. You ate up quite a bit of screen real estate with your argument too.
Were you wrong then, or could you be wrong now?
Worrier,
And I am saying the same thing - I just said I would read the whole article and then judge it based on that. If the headline was misleading, it should be corrected. If it's not, then they can tease all they want.
And this headline is misleading, so it should be corrected. Thanks for clearing that up.
How is the headline misleading to the actual article?
It inaccurately suggested the article was only about Obama and it is pretty obviously sensationalized.
I wish I could belive you were being honest with that, Tommy. However, I recall you arguing not long ago in another thread (not the one Clams found) that the headline was the meat of the article and thus the sole basis for judging the article. In fact, you rejected changing the headline as a solution. My response was that if that we're the case, then the next time I bought a package of ground meat I would just eat the label.
So, while I believe you've got the relative importance of the headline vs. the article right this time, I question if that's really your honest opinion or just a convenient argument.
I think Tommy has shown that he has a principle for nearly every occasion.
Tommy is our little website's versino of Groucho Marx, without the wit or the humor: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
I think this is the thread you're talking about:
[link to mediamatters.org] that totally creeeeeeeeeepy how I can do that?
And here's another classic Tommy quote:
"If an item's headline is meant to be deceptive but the truth only lies in the details within, that is intentional. If you have to research the life out of an item here because it may or may not be in context, that is sad. The item's headline should be clear of it's intent and without spin or misleading in any way..."
"Tommy" strikes me as an intellectually dishonest hypocrite, ready to bend and twist each of his arguments, as needed, to conform to his neocon agenda.
I ain't buyin' any of his BS - I've glanced at his comments and I get what he's all about. What I don't get is, why is he here? Is he playing "Occupier" trying to win hearts and minds or something?
In his defense, Tommy is one of the very few intelligent contrarians here - when he is not emotionally welded to a particular position he can be subtle, logical, and humble when the flaws in his arguments are pointed out.
When he gets backed into a corner he just digs in his heels, which is tiresome, but I still find it far more interesting than a mere amen chorus.
That is a pretty darn good assessment.
Bull Crap. I can see clearly by what he's posted so far that he's arguing in circles. Digging your heels into quick sand isn't a smart move. Nope, you haven't convinced me.
That's fine, Tommy can defend himself or not as he chooses.
Val, I respond to you because you're respectful. I am doing my best to avoid those that aren't.......a couple more to go and I can say I am "cleansed" of name callers, liars and bombthrowers.
Tommy, I see that you reserve your bomb throwing for those who are not here to defend themselves.
'[A] couple more to go and I can say I am "cleansed" of name callers...' --tommy
You mean like calling Clams Casino "creepy" for quoting you verbatim? It must be hard to always be the "victim" all of the time to us meanie liberal bullies -- quoting you back to you. Poor tommy.
You mean liar and bombthrower like YOU? You keep calling Clams a liar and I have NEVER ONCE seen you back that up though I have seen him call you on it a half dozen times at least. You do your share of flamethrowing so the pretense that you are a martyr here is just ludicrous. I agree with Vals description overall you are a reasonable guy sometimes when you are shown to be outright wrong, like here, you just get stubborn and all that rationality goes right out the window.
Tommeee just got pwned. ROFL!!!!
Sorry, Tommy, but a lot of remember your habit of doing the exact opposite here. Here's but one example:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611020009
"Why the sensastionalized headline? The accuracy of the story is not enough? Very poor excuse for a sloppy and misleading headline. One wonders why the truth-lapse in the headline here?"
Big difference - the headlines you refer to are sensational and misleading with regard to the article itself, as I specifically say.
This particular instance is not a misleading headline in context with the author's point of view in the article.
And by the way, do you have every one of my posts categorized and printed out for your perusal? That is sooooooooooo creepy.
There's a search feature, genius. There's also a thing called the Google. All I had to do was search "Tommy" and "headline" and that was the first one that came up.
I won't even bother to entertain your argument that "Why Obama is like a serial killer" isn't sensationialistic or inaccurate.
The headline goes DIRECTLY to the author's point of view, as I said - it is not misleading in anyway to the context of the article.........what about that did you miss?
Oh come on. Whether it's meant to be humorous or not, the entire article is based on one of the most primitive and overused logical fallacies ever. You could compare ANYTHING based on this line of thinking. Tommy is like a child molester because child molesters are very private people and Tommy refuses to reveal his last name. Therefore a headline that read "Tommy is Like a Child Molester" is neither inaccurate nor misleading. Need I go on?
If that's the best you've got...........go on.
Yes, logic is the best I've got.
It was a solid argument. He wasn't calling you a child molester.
Ok, I'll bite........who is hiding their identity more? - one who uses their real first name as their screenname, or one who uses a seafood entree as their screenname?
Do you really want to wade into this foolishness?
There I go again, giving Tommy too much credit. I keep forgetting that concrete thinkers can't recognize smple analogies. The Tommy/child molester thing was an example of the same logical fallacy that the Obama/serial killer article hinges on. I wasn't comparing you to a child molester. I was pointing out that it would be absurd and highly misleading to do so.
That sound you're hearing?
That's the sound of a valid point whizzing right over your head. Maybe you'll catch it on the come-around.
Tommy, maybe you should post here on the condition that there are no transcripts.
You're not under oath, fortunately.
Well, let's just say that I don't go around and obsessively search for another poster's words in order to fulfill some weird fantasy or to pray for some contradiction, somewhere..........if you think that is normal, it's all cool. Slice it anyway you want, it's not only damn bizarre, but as I said.........creeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepy.
You, are a sick pup, Tommy. Project much?
Yes, it's soooo creeeeeepy that I know how to use the search function.
You post here perhaps more than anyone else does, maybe obsessively so? Moreover, at times you do not take responsibility for the content of your posts when debated into a corner. What is ironic is that your response is similar to BilloReillys when confronted with his own words. Deny he said them, name calling and playing victim. Creeeeeeeeeeeepy similariiiiiiiiiiity.
If you dont LIKE being called on your contradictions stop making them. Snivelling that your own words are being used against you is WEAK.
I, on the other hand, do keep everyone of your posts, Tommy.
But to be fair, I am paid to do it.
That's cool Worrier, as long as you're paid to do it, then it's worth your time.
It is curious the hysterical explanations some come up with the way they scramble and google their little fingers sore to haul out a post from the past to find some inconsistency of mine. If their life demands that ritual, then who am I to question it?
I stand by my posts on this topic as I have explained fully.
"It is curious the hysterical explanations some come up with the way they scramble and google their little fingers sore to haul out a post from the past to find some inconsistency of mine." --tommy
Yeah. Like it takes more than a couple of seconds to find one of your many hypocrisies. You have already called clams casino "creepy" and then you complain about "name-callers" in this same thread. It's like you think we have no memory or something. Perhaps you are projecting.
Many conservatives get addicted to Orwells memory hole. We were supposed to foget all the changing rationales Bush used to sell this war, we are supposed to forget what Rush or O'falafel said yesterday when he contradicts it today. Since they cons use this technique to defend their heroes they just think it only fair it be used in THEIR defense.
"And by the way, do you have every one of my posts categorized and printed out for your perusal? That is sooooooooooo creepy." --tommy
It seems to me, your namecalling shows your insecurity at being held accountable for what you say.
BTW, it is pretty easy to search using google. Get with the 21st century. You can even search specifically the MMFA website if you want to by using this search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Amediamatters.org+tommy+headline+misleading&btnG=Google+Search
What about another of Slate's teasing headlines [same issue]:
What Would Jesus Smoke?The Christian doctrine on bong hits.
Apparently teasing headlines are common practice with Slate and don't quite deliver what might be expected.
The article which included Obama was NOT a smear piece about him.
Sorry MMFA this was a swing & a miss....
Good point Jeter, If Obama wasn't the media darling that he is, it could have been Romney or any candidate in that tease........if you want to grab the attention of the reader, just put your biggest star's picture up - that'll do it.
I used to like Slate, but it looks like they are trying a little too hard these days to be more cute than substantive.
Being compared to a serial killer is a dig, c'mon.
Hey Jeter,
Are you implying that when Jesus returns to us, he'll be holding?
I hope he brings enough for all of us.
I'm not worried if he doesn't have enough for all of us. The man can turn water into wine. I'm sure he could also turn wheat into weed. He Probably can turn sugar into something too.
That sounds like my kind of "Rapture".
Loaves and fishes, man.
Loaves and fishes.
This might have been a more apt comparison if the headline was, "Why Jesus is like a drug dealer."
I realize Slate was trying to be cute and if their headline was "Why politicians are like serial killers", there'd be no problem. This was a swing and a miss for Slate, not the MMFA.
Coming up, my artiucle on why Fred Thompson is a like a child molester who eats babies.
being compared to a serial killer, even in obvious jest, isn't negative?!?!?
Hannibal Lecter has that cool voice, plus he's dynamite in the kitchen.
I don't see where mmfa has said it will only criticize conservatives or their publications. Maybe I missed that. After all, isn't mmfa's criticism about the content? What does it matter who said it or where it was published?
MediaMatters needs to get a sense of humor.
Humor is subjective. There are things MMFA might find funny that you don't. That doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
If I want offensive humor or sarcasm, I read the Life section of the newspaper. Or I watch South Park. But not a legitimate news source.
Werent you molesting a small furry animal when you posted that? Isnt that funny? No? YOU Need to get a sense of humor.
I thought the tease was clever but was disappointed to see the article itself still pushs the "Gore says he invented the internet" lie, even half-jokingly. Seriously, give it a rest. That's like a "how about that airplane food?" joke. Lazy.
Rusty, I've done some research, and the internet is not an airplane.
If I were you, I'd brace myself for a brutal de-bunking, Savagerocks style!
And what's the deal with those little bags of peanuts? Am I right? Is this thing on?
Why are journalists allowed to smear with impunity? There are no consequences, no one speaks out, I'm tired of it. Turn the tables on them - See how they like it:
[link to raginggurrl.blogspot.com]
"Why Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg is Like a Child Molester"
Tommy and DCmusichound are right - there is no misinformation and no smearing here; just humor . . . nothing to see here, please move along . . .
In the next edition of Salon.com: "Why Karl Rove is a fat piece of S--t"
MJH, I'd have to read the entire article to decide. It might just be "satire".
I don't know - physique similar to Limpaugh, codename "turdblossom"...
I believe that WAS the whole article.
I think some of these corporate twits--like Weisberg--do stuff like this almost reflexively.