Wash. Times runs column on Obama under the headline: "Black horse"
SUMMARY: A Washington Times column reporting that Chris Matthews spoke about Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy and the "galloping horse of history" ran under the headline "Black horse."
The Washington Times used the headline "Black horse" for a February 5 "Inside the Beltway" column by John McCaslin reporting on comments made by MSNBC host Chris Matthews about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential candidacy. The column quoted Matthews as saying: "Every couple of generations the galloping horse of history rides by ... [a]nd it's up to that generation whether to mount the horse and ride it." According to McCaslin, Matthews also said, "[I]f Americans were to nominate Barack Obama, it would be one of those moments in history when we choose a Franklin Roosevelt, a John Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan -- other times when voters jumped on the galloping horse of history and rode it."
After being named the Times' new executive editor, John Solomon praised the newspaper for its "insightful analysis, cutting-edge investigative reporting and diverse coverage." On Monday, Solomon distributed "Seven Guiding Principles for The Washington Times Newsroom." Under the first principle, "Excellence," Solomon wrote that the Times' reporting must avoid "wavering from a neutral, civil voice."
From McCaslin's February 5 column:
Black horse
How big of a deal would it be if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois emerged from today's Super Tuesday voting as the leading Democratic contender for the White House?
"Every couple of generations the galloping horse of history rides by," MSNBC's Chris Matthews told Inside the Beltway yesterday. "And it's up to that generation whether to mount the horse and ride it."
Mr. Matthews explained that "if Americans were to nominate Barack Obama, it would be one of those moments in history when we choose a Franklin Roosevelt, a John Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan -- other times when voters jumped on the galloping horse of history and rode it."
And he expects that the entire world would respond in kind, not only with curiosity and intrigue, but with awe.
"If the country picked Obama, everybody in the world would pay attention. They'd be wondering, 'What's going on over there?' It would stagger the world, be so dramatic for our friends, for our enemies, for everybody," he said.
Otherwise, Mr. Matthews guessed that a White House race that might otherwise pit Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton against Sen. John McCain or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would not have near the same impact.
"Every couple of generations the galloping horse of history rides by,"
Where does Matthews come up with this stuff? The galloping horse of history??? Whatever Chris.
The Washington Times headline is ridiculous, it should be removed.
But J, I wonder if Matthews' gushing over Obama will make the MMFA Matthews Monitor?
I wonder if Matthews' gushing over Obama will make the MMFA Matthews Monitor?
Ha! Not bloody likely ;-)
As you, me, & Thomp mentioned on another thread it's ok for journalists to gush & show themselves as partisans as long as it's Dem/Libs they are directing it towards.
Congratulations, you've stumbled upon a partisan website run by a partisan organization.
Attn; Fox Viewers and all subsequent threads detailing their bias.
Congratulations, you've stumbled upon a partisan newschannel run by partisan organization.
Media Matters doesn't bother to tell us whether they're "fair and balanced"--they're content to do their fact-checking and let their work speak for itself. You know, "we report, you decide"?
"No, they are catchphrases and ad lingo to generate viewers and increase ratings. Just like Fox's We Report. You Decide."
??? Dude, its so weak! thats not even what he's getting out. It is easy to demonstrate that Fox News doesn't just 'report' they also lie and misinform, as a number of studies have shown re: Fox viewers understanding of the war in iraq etc etc. Fair and Balanced is a false hood. which part of that are you disagreeing with, and on what basis? otherwise, give up. cos you comparison is meaningless
"Fair and Balanced" is a false marketing claim.
So is their "The Most Powerful Name in News", but it's the same thing, a marketing slogan - and from what I remember they were legally challenged a few years ago to get rid of the fair and balanced slogan, and the judge threw it out of court, or something like that.
Everyone knows it is what it is - a tool for their sales staff and gimicky ad lingo for their viewers. Harmless.
"the most..."
"the most..."
"the most..."
There is nothing relative about Fox News' claim.
A federal judge refused fox's request to have the phrase removed. Afterwards Fox dropped it's suit.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/12/entertainment/main567800.shtml
hahahaha thats a redundant attempt at comparison. It's not within the scope of MMfA's mission to detail the way Obama is treated by Matthews unless the treatment involves conservative information. Fox News is a Television News Channel that purports to be OBJECTIVE and BALANCED, yet is clearly partisan.
But at least you're trying lol...
"Congratulations, you've stumbled upon a partisan newschannel run by partisan organization."
Now if we can just get Fox News to say this, at least in the same way MMFA does.
So a [conservative] partisan column written by a [conservative] partisan columnist should be ok?
Hey if it's ok for MMFA to be partisan, then it's just double standards on this websites part to point out others that are partisan as well.
Tommy, when are they taking to task for displaying partisanship? It's only when they lie, or spread false information, that they are taken to task, you should know that by now
Maybe because they are given time on national television saying the most disgusting and despicable things? I wouldn't call lying and distortion partisanship. <p>You can have some of these people on tv but if "journalists" allow them to be on their shows without questioning their factual basis or challenging them when they say something that's sexist or racist, then there should be a website like Media Matters pointing that out.</p>
It is unfortunate when MMFA has to do reporters' jobs for them.
Hi Jeter,
I think the posts on Matthews come up because he is seen by many, if not most, as a "liberal democrat." I count on hosts like him to display as little partisanship as possible. I expect shows like the O'Reilly Factor, Countdown, etc to be more opinion.
Just how I see it.
The curiosity and anticipation must be eating away at your very soul.
A stupid title, for a lame and over dramatic analogy.
"Seems to me that MMFA has taken a figure of speech and attempted to make a racial issue out of it."
To the contrary, the columnist has taken a figure of speech and made it racial.
"Black Horse", at least to my knowledge, is not a figure of speech, "Dark Horse" is.
To our credit, we both used the term "racial", not "racist".
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnMcCaslin/2008/02/05/black_horse
They simply meant to invoke race. That's all.
Of course there is. And no I don't believe for one second this was some type of oversight. I might believe that if it was spoken but this is the written word which I assume gets passed by some sort of editor if not a fact checker as well and no one caught it? Right.
The term I was thinking of was "dark horse", and maybe that is what the times meant as well but used the word black instead of dark. Is there a difference in your mind?
Maybe? Let's see one must assume that someone, somewhere received a degree in journalism to write for a paper that was sometimes called President Ronald Reagan's preferred newspaper. I mean it must be accurate if the President preferred it, right?
So here I am with only a high school diploma and I can Google and find that Noun: dark horse
Why wouldn't those smart educated folks at the Washington Times use "dark horse" since they were making a political statement? Could one assume that they used the term "black horse" because they were speaking about a black candidate, Obama? Was is simply innocent? Would I simply be seeing racial subtlety where there is none?.
Someone please explain it cause I don't want to have my racial sensitivities cloud my judgement.
Actually I think it was a mistake, but not necessarily an innocent one. It isn't hard to imagine a white reporter reaching for the phrase "dark horse," remembering it badly, thinking of Obama's skin color and coming up with "black horse" instead. That is an unfortunate kind of subtle racism at play. It's the kind that makes a normally open minded person who is friends and coworker of a diverse mix of people suddenly apply the characteristics of a thuggish and rude teen to all of black youth when they would never do the same sort of thing if it were a white teen. It's the kind that makes some people automatically assume "illegal alien" everytime they hear someone speaking Spanish. It's the kind that worries about terrorists when they see an Indian on a plane. Stupid, knee jerk thinking by stereotype from people who think that they are beyond thinking of people in terms of race.
But where in the !#$~! were the editors of this rag? Is there no one working there that thought to themselves, "Hmmm, I don't recall ever hearing the phrase 'black horse' used this way, perhaps we should change it to the accepted cliche 'dark horse'."
It was a Freudian slip. When something you were thinking subconsciously comes out by accident.
i don't think they meant to invoke race. i think they just didn't know the proper phrase. these news people, both tv pundits and writers are basically ignorant. some guy on fox the other day reporting on the berkeley attitude towards the marine recruiting office asked what the code pink fatsos had against the army.
it was the marines, not the army, but he didn't know the difference. in the same vein, i've seen marines being interviewed by unknowledgeable persons asking, well, soldier. a marine is not a soldier. geez.
they get this stuff wrong all the time.
I think it was – and I think that even if the term “Dark Horse” was used, MMFA would have still made something of it. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with it and I’m sick of the way every utterance of anything Obama gets a going over with a magnifying glass to check that it is “politically correct” and not "racially insensitive".
It seems that Liberal Democrats act like they expect the world to ignore Obama’s racial makeup – and if they don’t, they are automatically “racist” or “playing the race card”? I guess this is why I always hated labels. If I HAD to label myself, I’d consider myself a “liberal Democrat” – but please don’t put me in the same group as these nit-pickers.
Just like when the word “Queen” or “Princess” is used to describe Hillary – this is sexist? No it’s only someone trying to suggest Hillary as coming across to them as acting like a sovereign ruler. If the word “King” or “Prince” was used to describe Romney – would that be sexist, too?
From Wikipedia… “A dark horse candidate is one who is nominated unexpectedly, without previously having been discussed or considered as a likely choice.”
Whether it was “Black Horse” or “Dark Horse”, it sounds like it was meant only to imply the Wikipedia definition. Is Obama “Black” or “Dark”? – Yes. Is it an appropriate “catchy” title for a story? – Yes.
MMFA: Stop the thought police crap already, please. It’s hard to defend my name as a liberal when you take ”political correctness” to an extreme like this. You’re only bolstering the Republicans “nambly-pambly” stereotype of Dems.
At the same time, I see nothing wrong with it and I’m sick of the way every utterance of anything Obama gets a going over with a magnifying glass to check that it is “politically correct” and not "racially insensitive" It seems that Liberal Democrats act like they expect the world to ignore Obama’s racial makeup – and if they don’t, they are automatically “racist” or “playing the race card”?
The Washington Times is a newspaper which one would assume would have reporters with a degree in English. If I, with my HS diploma could find that the correct phrase is "dark horse" NOT "black horse" why couldn't the newspaper do the same? Is it to much to ask for or should we ignore it? And what else should we ignore?
Fin is what I would term a racist. He believes that whites are a superior race and blacks are inferior. He thinks we would be better off with we were a segregated society, less chance for minorities to slow whites down. THAT is a racist! Pointing out racially insensitive remarks DOES NOT automatically make one racist. Why is that so hard for folks to understand the difference?
I don't believe that any one is blind to Obama's color but I also don't believe that calling folks out when they cross the line is wrong either. How will anyone ever learn if you don't say something, especially about a public newspaper. I don‘t want Obama called “black horse“ and I don‘t want sexist terms like “broad or “she devil“ applied to Hillary.
One thing I've learned during THIS election season is it's not just conservatives/Republicans with issues of race. Liberals/Democrats while much better than conservatives/Republicans regarding race STILL have a long long way to go themselves.
Maybe I watch too much stand-up at Comedy Central – or maybe it’s because I’m gay and have been called faqqot all my life – but to me, this sort of thing seems just another fact of life. It just rolls down my back like water off a duck. It’s not so much my insensitivity as callousness.
The fact that Fin has a reputation for such drivel is all the more reason for me to just “consider the source” and leave it be. If you ask me, the more we show our outrage to such language, the more fuel it is for people like him to use it. He’s going to have his audience out there who revels in the use of such language whether we object to it or not.
I just think it just make us seem a bit thin-skinned to cry about name calling and innuendos, especially when it is not blatant. (You have to admit this one is quite benign.) Everyone does it – on both sides. Isn’t there enough REAL “conservative misinformation” and outright lies being published and echoed by the media for MMFA to expose - without having to make us look like a bunch of whiners?
If someone reports on McCain and a "White Knight" it would be inappropriate. Would it not?
If you say so. But I'd see nothing wrong with it. He is white, no?
Do you not understand the mind of a journalist? Look at headlines in newspapers across the country every day. They are filled with catchy words or inuendos intended to grab your attention. A lot of them might not be in "good taste" but it's done all the time, even in the most respected newspapers and publications.
I simply saw it for what it was: a clear example of needlessly injecting race into the presidential elections.
Exactly! Why interject race when there is a perfectly acceptable word to use. I'm sure the story would still have appeared if the Times had used "dark horse" but there is a reasonable explanation at least.
"Black Horse" is not offensive; it is stupid and pointless.
"I simply saw it for what it was: a clear example of needlessly injecting race into the presidential elections. If someone reports on McCain and a "White Knight" it would be inappropriate. Would it not?"
Fine, if you feel that injecting race is being pointless and stupid then we tend to agree. Although, if it is inappropriate then cold it not be offensive? I'm just wondering, was it pointless and stupid because it was inappropriate or was it inappropriate because it was offensive?
McCainThe "geriatric night"
I'm sorry, I didn't think this was a big issue until I read some of the post on this thread. Freudian slip? Honest mistake? Racial oversensitivity? Give me a friggin break. Dark horse is the term. Everyone knows this and a member of the media definitely knows this. If he's writing for the Washington Times he knew this. That phrase was thrown in there on purpose, for what purpose, I'll let some of you naieve posters debate, but it was intentional. Like Hillary Clinton's use of "spadework" to describe Baracks inexperience, just another innocent slip of the tonuge. I've been really disappointed with folks I thought were progressives. When it comes to race it's easy to see that we have a looooooong way to go in this country!
ACHRISPAGE6992 you are free to believe what you will about black folks and being overly sensitive to racial issues. You are also free to discuss your views publicly and not only as a blogger. I swear I have yet to hear two white guys having any discussion like this around a group of black people. Why does it matter? Because I seriously doubt you'd go around your job saying, "What's the big deal the Washington Times called Barack the Black Horse in the race. Gosh black people are so oversensitive." That's a joke. WE ALL KNOW BARACK IS BLACK AND HAS A MUSLIM MIDDLE NAME AND GOES TO A CHURCH THAT BELIEVES IN UPLIFTMENT OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY AND . . . .
Like I've posted in defense of Hillary, can we please get some criticism of Barack that isn't centered around the color of his skin or what kindergarten class he went to when he was 5 years old?!?