CNN's on-screen caption during Lou Dobbs Tonight: "Obtuse Obama"
On the August 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, the on-screen text preceding CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider's report on recent comments by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) read: "Obtuse Obama." During the report itself, the on-screen text read: "Obtuse Obama: What Does He Mean?"
By contrast, when the same segment aired on the next day's edition of CNN Saturday Morning News, the on-screen text read: "Jumping on Obama."
As Media Matters for
America has documented, this is not the first time news reports
broadcast on other CNN programs have aired on Lou
Dobbs carrying different captions. On June 7, for example, a news
report on Senate deliberations of an immigration bill aired on Lou Dobbs with captions reading "Make or Break:
Critical Vote on Amnesty," and "Senate Likely to Vote Tonight on
Whether to Kill Amnesty Bill." When the same report was broadcast that day
on The Situation Room, the
caption read: "Immigration Bill on Life Support: Setbacks in Senate."
Similarly, during June 14 reports
on the Senate immigration bill broadcast on Lou
Dobbs, on-screen texts referred to "Bush's amnesty push,"
"pro-amnesty senators," and the "amnesty bill." When the
same reports were aired on The Situation Room, captions read:
"Immigration deal making: Close to a new agreement" and
"Immigration deal sweetener: Pres. Bush offer to GOP." Previous CNN reporting has noted that "amnesty" is a characterization of the bill favored by "critics."
From the August 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
LOU DOBBS (host): Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama under fire from his Democratic rivals today. They charge he's naive and inexperienced when it comes to foreign policy, and, as Bill Schneider reports, they're using the senator's own words to support their charges.
[begin video clip]
SCHNEIDER: First came the CNN/ YouTube debate when Barack Obama said he would meet with unfriendly dictators during his first year in office.
OBAMA: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
SCHNEIDER: Hillary Clinton pounced.
CLINTON: I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive.
SCHNEIDER: It's called a "not-supposed-to." You're not supposed to say you'd meet with such people without laying a lot of groundwork first.
From the 7 a.m. ET hour of the August 4 edition of CNN Saturday Morning News:
TJ HOLMES (co-anchor): Well, the CNN/ YouTube debate we saw not too long ago with the Democrats certainly sparked a lot of discussion.
VERONICA DE LA CRUZ (co-anchor): Yeah, yeah, in fact, comments made by Democratic hopeful Barack Obama have really got people talking, and when we say people, we mean --
HOLMES: His political rivals, those people.
DE LA CRUZ: Right, right, those people. CNN's Bill Schneider has more.
[begin video]
SCHNEIDER: First came the CNN/ YouTube debate when Barack Obama said he would meet with unfriendly dictators during his first year in office.
OBAMA: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.
SCHNEIDER: Hillary Clinton pounced.
CLINTON: I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive.
SCHNEIDER: It's called a "not-supposed-to." You're not supposed to say you'd meet with such people without laying a lot of groundwork first.
Definitions of obtuse on the Web:
Actually they are close to the same.
Obtuse Obama
Alliteration! Holy cow, next thing you know they're going to start rhyming. How about:
Rudy Frutty
How about:
Rudy Frutty
Don't they sell that at IHOP? :-)
calling anyone "Obtuse" on a major media network is uncalled for. CNN and Dobbs should offer an apology. it is not right.
Isn't that the network that managed to " fire " Paula Zahn ?. Sorta makes them the "obtuse " ones, doesn't it ?
The news programs are desperate for news. They want a fight between the candidates so they can avoid having to cover issues. For instance, the networks could seek out independent foreign policy experts to comment in-depth on Obama's view. CNN brought on Hillary's supporters like David Gergen and Madeline Albright to pile on Barack.
Of course, if the networks want conflict, why don't they examine why Hillary called Barack "naive and irresponsible." Would Hillary really do that if she felt confident of her lead? Front-runners rarely, if ever, insult their opponents. Is her remark really a sign of insecurity? Moreover, now that the GOP is piling on and calling Barack naive, do Democrats feel like she is trying to ruin his chance to win the general election if she can't get the nomination?
In my view, Barack is a breath of fresh air. Sure, old fashioned politicians like Hillary would never meet with our enemies for fear of having it used against her as "propoganda" but that isn't leadership, that is playing a prevent defense. Hillary is so cautious it's amazing she says anything. No doubt, there is nothing she has said that hasn't been tested in focus groups. We don't need a President afraid to lead. We need Barack!
What is most frightening about this is that I suspect that they don't actually know what "obtuse" means, i.e. "stupid", and that they probably wanted to use the word "abstruse", which means "hard to understand". Either they intentionally insulted the man or they are insufficiently versed in the Englsih language to hold the job that they do. In either case it is a disgrace.
When Obama declared forcefully he would definitely meet with world leaders "within his first year in office", that was not "obtuse" ... it was CLEAR. Hillary pointed out that a president has the responsibility NOT to assure such a high-level meeting until the diplomatic groundwork had been laid, and it was assured that the meeting could not be used for propaganda purposes BY that other leader. This shows wisdom and understanding, NOT committing to a scenario that could easily backfire. Obama WAS naive and irresponsible in that declaration, and he had to backpedal to an emphasis on the prior negotiations and diplomacy.
Obtuse? No. Naive and irresponsible? Yes. Mostly inexperienced.
Obama showed this tendency again when discussing use of nuclear weaponry. Those with experience know that, while nukes are always "on the table" as an option, they are NEVER discussed. Obama first, with nothing "obtuse" about his statement, said he would use nukes. Then he immediately backpedalled, saying something about civilians, then he scratched the whole statement and "remembered" he did not have to, and SHOULD not, discuss the use of nukes at all.
Obtuse? No. Naive and irresponsible? Yes. Mostly inexperienced.
Hillary rightfully has been calling Obama on his lack of experience. CNN reports this clear difference between the candidates with a split personality. There is moderated coverage elsewhere, but on Dobbs' program, the captions present a FALSE and BIASED interpretation; "obtuse" does not apply, because it suggests that something is UNCLEAR. It is very clear what the genesis of these statements were, who has the experience, and who does NOT.
Maybe that is what we need in office, someone that is clear and "unexperienced" in the undeceiving ways previous presidents have conducted business.
Maybe that is what we need in office, someone that is clear and "unexperienced" in the undeceiving ways previous presidents have conducted business.
urp....meant "DECEIVING" ways of previous presidents.......
I agree that there was nothing obtuse about Obama's statements. Perhaps because his statements were indeed different than we typically expect, the assumption is that there must be some hidden meaning.
However, I take issue with a couple of your comments:
1) Obama first...said he would use nukes. Then he immediately backpedalled...
I don't believe he said that at all in response to the AP question. Therefore, he never beckpedaled either. Unless I'm mistaken, the full quote was...
''I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,'' Obama said, with a pause, ''involving civilians.'' Then he quickly added, ''Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.''
2) then he scratched the whole statement and remembered he did not have to, and SHOULD not, discuss the use of nukes at all
I don't particularly agree with the idea that nuclear weapons should never be discussed. McNamara was criticized for his realtively open discussion of mutually assured destruction. Yet, it arguably made the U.S. and Soviet Union consider the consequences.
However, Obama's statement can also be interpreted as indicating something he decided should not be discussed only because it hadn't been debated. I.e., his initial response may have been accurate of his beliefs in that specific context, but not fully considered with respect to all possible future scenarios. If at the root of his initial statement is that policy that nuclear weapons should not be used in pursuit of only a segment of the populace, then I firmly support that policy.
You can be critical of Obama but calling him "Obtuse" is wrong. The man is far from it. I have the utmost respect for him , he is one of the few candidates that looks like he sticks to his convictions.
It's hard to tell with the broken posts, but that appears to be in response to me. If so, please note that I do *not* think Obama's comments were obtuse. In fact, while I have been critical of Obama on some other topics, I was not at lall critical of him here.
I thought the same thing when I read the title, OMG they are calling Obama stupid. Now many speak of his inexperience but by all accounts he is described as an exceptionally intelligent man. I looked the word up in Webster’s and the word can be used in the context that they used it. I disagree with their description and this is just Dobbs’ or the opinion of whoever did the caption. 2 a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression BTW it is my opinion that both A and B can be applied to the Commander Guy. (smile) Geez I wish I had my own show so I could opine all week long and get paid big bucks for doing so.
Some of you may remember, like I do, when tv news shows would have simply put on the screen the words "Barack Obama", or "The 2008 Candidates". (Or---even MORE quaint--NO words or crawl or graphics at all, just the (GASP!) broadcaster himself (rarely HERself back then).
These days, heaven forbid one second should elapse on our tv screens without a caption, or a flapping U.S. flag.
CNN - "We're being fair ... we didn't spell his name Osama" ...
It is apparent that few commentators on Obama's comments on Pakistan in front of the Woodrow Wilson forum have ever read his book. On pages 308 and 309 of Audacity of Hope, Barack in that book published in 2006 said pretty much the same thing as he did last week.
You appear to forget that, to an average Republican cult member, books are like Kryptonite to Superman ...
So a presidential candidate is not supposed to promise meeting with foreign dignitaries without laying a lot of ground work first? Get the hell out of here. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this comment at all. And as far as Hillary saying this was irresponsible and naive, well this is just an example of what’s wrong with the incumbents in Washington. Our isolation and lack of communication with these "dictators" is exactly why they have no idea why the majority of the world hates us. Rome dealt with its enemies in a very similar way. And we all know what happen to them. Isolationism will be the downfall of America if we don't get off our high horse.