Media falsely characterized Bill Clinton, Obama as having "lashed out," "fire[d] back angrily" at reporters
SUMMARY: CNN's Wolf Blitzer asserted, as did a Washington Post blog entry, that Bill Clinton "lashed out" at CNN congressional correspondent Jessica Yellin after she asked him a question following a campaign event in South Carolina that day. Recounting the exchange to Blitzer, Yellin agreed, "He lashed out, Wolf." Similarly, an ABCNews.com report described a "testy exchange" between Barack Obama and New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny. But videos of the two exchanges do not support these sensational descriptions.
Twice in the span of two days, news outlets have misrepresented separate exchanges that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and former President Bill Clinton (D) had with reporters on the presidential campaign trail. CNN and The Washington Post described Clinton as having "lashed out" at a CNN correspondent, while ABC News characterized Obama as having "fired back angrily" at a New York Times reporter. But videos of the two exchanges do not support these sensational descriptions.
During the January 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer asserted that Bill Clinton "lashed out" at CNN congressional correspondent Jessica Yellin after she asked him a question following a campaign event in South Carolina that day. Recounting the exchange to Blitzer, Yellin agreed, "He lashed out, Wolf." Additionally, CNN's Political Ticker blog featured a report on the exchange that claimed Clinton "lashed out" at Yellin, and Washington Post reporter Anne E. Kornblut wrote in a January 23 entry for the Post's political blog, The Trail, that Clinton "lashed out" and "snapped at" Yellin. However, video of the exchange does not bear out that description. Indeed, a January 24 New York Times report on the same exchange noted that "Mr. Clinton's remarks were delivered in an even tone." The Situation Room report on the exchange featured a clip of the video, and the Political Ticker report linked to the full video.
Additionally, as Talking Points Memo blogger Greg Sargent documented, a January 22 ABCNews.com report misrepresented an exchange in South Carolina between New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny and Obama, which followed Zeleny's question on whether Bill Clinton was getting "in his head." ABC described it a "testy exchange," in which Obama "fired back angrily" and repeatedly "confronted" Zeleny. Sargent provided video of the exchange and noted, "The whole tone of the [ABC] story implied that Obama had had a very confrontational moment with Zeleny. ... Did it happen this way? Nope. ... [I]t's clear that the tone of the exchange wasn't anywhere near as acrimonious as ABC claimed it was. When Obama said, 'don't try cheap stunts like that,' he was smiling -- he certainly didn't 'fire back angrily.' " Sargent continued: "By packaging a story implying a sharp confrontation with that headline about Bill 'getting in Obama's head,' ABC strongly implied that Bill is getting in Obama's head and rattling him. But the video plainly shows that the event doesn't support that storyline."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the January 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Let's go straight to CNN's Jessica Yellin. She's in Charleston, South Carolina. Jessica, the former president is not mincing any words. And you were on the receiving end as he lashed out. Give our viewers a sense of what is going on.
[...]
BLITZER: And after that event, he went and he spoke briefly to reporters. You were right there in that rope line. You asked him a serious question. And give us a sense of what he said in response.
YELLIN: He lashed out, Wolf. I asked him -- I'd a conversation earlier today with Dick Harpootlian, who is the former head of the Democratic Party here and now a Barack Obama supporter. And Harpootlian expressed what he called his immense disappointment with the way the Clintons have run the campaign. He said it's, quote, "reprehensible," and he even compared the way they are running their campaign to the great Republican mastermind, Lee Atwater, who was a master of finding wedge issues and dividing people against one another.
So I asked Bill Clinton to respond to these charges and whether he is playing the race card in an inappropriate way. Here's what he said.
CLINTON [video clip]: Once you accuse somebody of racism or bigotry or something, the facts become irrelevant. There are facts here. And the final thing I would like to say is, you're asking me about this, you sat through this whole meeting. Not one single, solitary soul asked about any of this. And they never do. They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover.
YELLIN: Well, I'll tell you, I called back Dick Harpootlian afterwards and he said that's a classic form of dissembling, trying to take the attention off of the Clinton campaign and what they are saying. They maintain from camp Obama that this is still a below-the-belt campaign the Clintons are running. The back-and-forth does not stop -- Wolf.
This is just more of the "conflict-driven" hyperbole, not conservative mis-information.
Bill Clinton could pat Obama on the back and they'd say he hit him.
This is definitely conservative misinformation...
Nice work here by Media Matters. The corporate chattering heads (Blitzer, etc.) love to portray the Democrats as "angry." This is an obvious put down. A not so subtle way of insinuating that the Democrats are not fit to lead.
If a Con has an exchange similar to Clinton's, he's described as "direct," or "forceful," or a "straight-talker." These corporate Cons know exactly what they're doing.
Not only ANGRY, but violent and unhinged.
The poor reporters should be drawing combat pay.
Covering Democrats is very dangerous work.
How those reporters must long to be covering those nice, polite, and helpful Republicans!
What's troubling about all of this are these completely phony culpabilities. Even if Clinton did "lash out," (he didn't) then so what? There's nothing wrong with that.
All this phony sanctimoniousness from the MSM. To them, if you're not crying or screaming, you're not a story. It's the gross tabloidization of everything. Incredibly anti-intellectual.
“Lashed out” is most commonly used in the context of someone who is on the defensive, and who finally addresses those who are implying he/her is wrong about something, or has done something wrong, or is just weak generally. Therefore, even if the audience rejects the connotation that Clinton’s response was angry or inappropriate in some way, they may accept the judgment of the two “journalists” that he is probably on the wrong side of the issue involved.
People largely accept the legitimacy of the media, which means they believe the journalists are neutral and fair observers of the situation. They give the journalist’s opinion, often subtlety hidden in the context, more weight than the opinions of the parties involved. Similar to how referees are viewed as compared to the competing athletes. People will wait for the ref to signal first down and largely ignore the players on each team pointing in opposite directionsToday’s MEDIA in America is more power hungry and profit driven than they are informative or accurate. Most politically savvy Democrats know this and are repulsed by the majority of the MSM and deride their analyses. However, the Democratic Presidential campaigns fall victim to them every four years. When our candidates allow the MSM to create the narrative and then campaign on that narrative, it is a recipe for a loss come November.
America lost in 2000 because Al Gore listened to the MSM as they wondered if he should distance himself from Bill Clinton. Mr. Gore obliged by keeping the president as far from his campaign as possible, even going so far as to name Joe Lieberman as his VP, a move that was greeted by the MSM as “another way to distance himself from the disgraced president”. Funny thing happened on the way to being disgraced though, a 65% approval rating from the American people while being impeached. Al Gore lost the presidency by 537 votes in Florida. Ralph Nader received 97,000 votes in Florida. I would wager that 538 of those were like me, refusing to support Gore because he “distanced himself from the Clinton Administration.” If Gore listened to the people, instead of the DC media chatterers, we never would have known George W Bush.
The MEDIA lost the 2004 elections for the Democrats when they covered the push for war in Iraq in late 2002 and in early 2003. They created the narrative that America must defend itself from Saddam and if the Bush Administration said it, by God it must be true. They repeated claims of mushroom clouds and terrorists getting their hands on Saddam’s chemical and biological arsenal. They treated government spinners as if they were truth squads and they never once questioned the character of the man in the White House. I can’t remember a time when the Clintons spoke a word without it being vilified as cold, calculating or power hungry. Yet, the Bush administration is a fountain of lies and deceit that resulted in real life consequences for the people of this country.
The MEDIA, in 2008, is again attempting to influence whom and how the Democratic Party nominates its presidential contender. It is evident in the way they are trying to perpetuate a myth that white democrats are not voting for Obama because of the racial politics being played by the Clintons. They perpetuate this conflict despite knowing that Democrats who vote base on race have been republicans for the last 30 years. Hillary Clinton describes Barack Obama as a “gifted, young African American with so much to offer” and the media says, “what is she really trying say? He is the black candidate, are the Clintons purposely trying to play the race card?” As far as I can tell, the media wants the race card to be played, so much so that they will call it such even where the evidence is as thin as can be. In fact, the only evidence they have is the fall-back line, “the Clintons will say anything” and guess who has now thrown that line into his campaign; Obama. It is the beginning of the end of our chances for victory in 2008.
However, Democrats can push aside egos and unite behind our own narrative, the way it should be. Undo the media’s fixation with the racial politics and the “say anything” narrative currently being pushed by the MSM. Hillary could do it today by naming Barack Obama her running mate if she were to win the nomination. Barack Obama could do it today by naming Hillary Clinton his running mate if he were to win the nomination. If the top two candidates can’t come together in order to defeat this narrative of race and disdain on both sides for the other, then the MEDIA will win again. And the Democrats will lose again, as will America.
What does he mean "lashed out"? HE is the one who's YELLIN.
(Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up.)
I couldn't figure out why no one got my joke -I should check gender before producing puns. It should have read...
What does she mean "lashed out"? SHE is the one who's YELLIN.
OK, now somebody please laugh! :)
Actually, they probably got a "tip" from someone who was watching MSNBC last night. Not sure if it was Olbermann or Abrams - but one of them was making the exact same observations.
And I agree with the story, it was overkill - does that count as "misinformation"? I think so.
I see...
But it's okay for some chattering head on CNN to make the judgement?
Except that MMfA can point out that someone made a claim that is both subjective and biased without making a judgment one way or the other. So MMfA is in fact doing it's job.
For instance, if someone said "The Purdue Boilermakers rule" you could, with other information, make a reasonable statement that the speaker is biased without saying anything to the opposite.
Regardless, the Boilermakers DO rule.
The media is adding fuel to the fire by portraying Obama's and Clinton's reactions dishonestly?
IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
I saw the tape, and to me it looked like Bill "lashed out" a little. So now MM tells its flock whether someone appears to be angry? God forbid someone reach a different opinion than the patronizing lefties from MM.
I'm not sure why MMFA has a problem with "lashed out", that's what Clinton appeared to be doing. I suppose it could be described other ways too. Shrug.
No biggie here.
It didn't look to me like he lashed out at all...
This was nothing but a fiction inside the mind of a corporate Con.
No biggie here.
- jeter2 /"
In other news today, Jeter2 angrily lashed out at reporters who questioned his response to a Clinton and Obama item on Media Matters. Let's ask our panel of experts, "why is Jeter2 so angry?"
MARY:
It's not really a joking matter.
Most of us have jobs, and have HAD jobs. We applied for those jobs, and were evaluated. Most jobs will keep an employment file, and a record of incidents which occurred while on the job, and periodic reviews.
Hillary is applying for a job, and the PRESS is supposed to be helping write her resume. This can be done honestly, or DIShonestly.
Certain words and phrases in an employment evaluation are RED FLAGS to potential future employers. An employee who is described as having "LASHED OUT" at others ... that is the kind of employee nobody wishes to hire. It's CODE for unstable, irrational, violent, TROUBLE.
The MSM is doing its best to write a "letter of recommendation" for Hillary, TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, that will dissuade the voters from giving her a job. It's nothing specific, mind you ... just subjective impressions, feelings, observations. But the INTENT is to convey to the American People that this woman, Hillary, and the people around her are BAD people, angry and violent people, people who should not be trusted.
"shrill", "witch", "lashing out" (and a hundred other such phrases) -- this choice of language, ALL COMING FROM OUR SUPPOSEDLY OBJECTIVE PRESS, are all words that, if seen in an employment file, say clearly "DO NOT HIRE THIS PERSON".
The word choice by our MSM is no accident. The words are carefully chosen to convey an impression on all potential voters. And those who opt to INVESTIGATE the charges/characterizations find that they are FALSE impressions made with the intent to smear the target, and deceive the audience.
The moral? Do not believe those in today's Media. They are rightwingers carrying the Republicans' water, and they LIE. Constantly. NEVER take what they say at face value ... investigate, and determine the TRUTH for yourself. This very site is a good place to start that search for truth.
I think the media does carry water for multi-national corporations, which mostly want the Republican agenda.
Jeter ho hums but we know very well that framing and language drive impressions amongst voters who aren't paying very good attention.
This would be a good way for Blitzkrieg to put it:
"Former president Bill Clinton 'took issue' with the foolish narrative spun by CNNs own hack Yellin.
A snip here, a snip there...
I had my suspicions about Yellen the first time I saw her.
The Clinton clip was only a small portion of the verbal spanking he gave her.
Funny, she didn't bother to report on the real subject of Clinton's comments.
But of course, why should she bother? It makes for much better TV when you don't need to be concerned with the facts.
Suspicion confirmed.
BC: "Once you accuse somebody of racism or bigotry or something, the facts become irrelevant."
Looks like Bill thinks the Obama's are resorting to a tactic commonly used by the leftwing, but now on one of their own. That is, instead of addressing an opponent's argument, just label him a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, or what have you. That way you don't actually have to think.
Thomp...
You should put in an application to CNN!!
It sounds like you agree with yourself...
which is important. It's very difficult to argue with someone if they don't at least agree with their own self? (themself) or (themselves?) Who knows.
esorting to a tactic commonly used by the leftwing, but now on one of their own
Exsqueeze me? Rove perfected that tactic way back when GWBush was running against Ann Richards. She'd attack his postion, they'd say she was mean and nasty. It continued into his Presidency. Attack his desire to invade Iraq, and you were labeled a traitor, unpatriotic, etc.
Sorry, but regressives have OWNED that tactic for some time now.
When you own the Media, then...
you can own the tactics..................the Con job!!
DEX:
Being tough is admirable in Republicans. It's shameful and disgraceful in Democrats. Once you learn THIS, you can apply for your press pass.
Words do matter, especially when wielded by journalists, reporters and others in the 'word' trade.
The phrase, 'lashing out' implies someone is furious, uncontrolled and not rational. Anyone who watches the entire clip of Clinton vs. Yellin will see that he is calm, reasonable and speaks in a conversational tone throughout the exchange.
Ironically, within an hour of so of the Blitzer article's posting the headline was changed to something like, Bill 'gets upset with'. CNN must have gotten quite a few complaints about their mischracterization of Mr. Clinton's behavior. For once, they seem to have listened to the viewers.
A hilarious satire of the “issues” of this thread (and ones like it) was presented by Jon Stewart on 01/24/08….
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148480&title=mitt-romney-erupts&byDate=true
An even more hilarious parody followed…
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148479&title=daily-show-down&to=2
This is a MUST SEEE!!!