About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Russert persisted in questioning Obama on Farrakhan -- even after his repeated "denunciation[s]" of Farrakhan's "unacceptable and reprehensible" comments

February 27, 2008 4:53 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: During the February 26 Democratic primary debate, Tim Russert repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama about his endorsement by Louis Farrakhan without noting that the campaign was quoted criticizing Farrakhan in the very article Russert cited to note the minister's support, that Obama himself said in a speech the day before the debate that he is a "consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan," or that Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments in his response to Russert's initial question on the subject.

43 Comments

During the February 26 MSNBC Democratic primary debate, co-moderator and NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama concerning his endorsement by controversial minister Louis Farrakhan without noting that the campaign was quoted criticizing Farrakhan in the very article Russert cited to note the minister's support, that Obama himself said in a speech the day before the debate that he is a "consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan," or that Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments in his response to Russert's initial question on the subject.

Further, in three separate posts while liveblogging the debate for the MSNBC.com blog First Read, NBC News political director Chuck Todd criticized Obama's statements, at one point asking, "Why didn't Obama simply say he rejected Farrakhan's support? That's an answer he's going to wish he had over." But at no time did Todd note that Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments before and during the debate. (By contrast, in a First Read post from later on February 26, NBC and National Journal correspondent Aswini Anburajan asserted: "Obama wins with the word denounce which is more applicable to use when you find someone's positions distasteful.")

Russert began the discussion of Farrakhan by asking Obama, "On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: 'Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago.' Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?" Indeed, that was the headline of a February 25 Tribune article discussing Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama. But Russert did not note the article's subhead: "Senator has criticized him, says support not sought." Nor did he mention that the article quoted Obama spokesman Bill Burton as saying: "Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan's past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister's support."

In response to Russert's question, Obama said:

OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

Following Obama's answer, Russert asked, "Do you reject his support?" Obama then replied, "Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy," adding: "I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments." Russert continued, stating: "The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism 'gutter religion.' " Obama replied, "I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it." Indeed, in his answer to Russert's initial question, the first thing Obama said was, "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments," calling them "unacceptable and reprehensible."

Russert persisted, stating, "The title of one of your books, Audacity of Hope [Crown, 2006], you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan 'epitomizes greatness,' " before asking Obama, "What do you do to assure Jewish Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?" Trumpet Newsmagazine, a publication founded by Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama is a parishioner and Wright was a minister, awarded Farrakhan the "Lifetime Achievement 'Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter Award' " in 2007. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen reported that Trumpet said Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness." But Russert did not acknowledge that Obama had said in a statement after the announcement of the award that it was "not a decision with which I agree" or that in his statement, Obama denounced Farrakhan's "anti-Semitic statements."

Obama's January 15 statement, from his campaign website:

"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."

Further, following Farrakhan's endorsement, Obama gave a speech on February 25 at a Jewish community meeting in Cleveland in which he stated:

OBAMA: It is true that my Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things. ... He does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is that, recently this is probably, I guess last year. An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behave of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to [the] Jewish community and I said so.

Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago and as a consequence he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them.

From the February 26 MSNBC Democratic primary debate:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments. On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?

OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?

OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. [laughter] You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."

OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it. This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, Audacity of Hope, you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness." He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Muammar Qaddafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."

What do you do to assure Jewish Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.

And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.

You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.

But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign, and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.

When I was -- just the last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.

BRIAN WILLIAMS (co-moderator): Senator --

CLINTON: Tim, I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.

And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?

CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far-reaching.

OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Marker (February 27, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
         
      Why would Timmy do anything except ask worthless, biased questions, he's a repug.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
         
      Now this I think is a legitimate gripe and I think this is where Obama should have ridiculed Russerts efforts with his there is no distinction argument.  He didn't and that is what left him open to his opponent in the debate capitalizing on it. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2j (February 28, 2008 4:04 am ET)
           
        Nah the entire problem is that Bush is the liar and folks like Tim just allow him to go on and on lying.  I have no idea why anyone would want to become President now.  Debt as far as the eye can see, recession and/or depression lurking, a decimated military after his stupid wars, Afghanistan sliding back into the quagmire and you notice,the Bush cowboy rhetoric of "dead or alive" regarding Bin Laden is a joke now.  Bush has flunked out every step of the way.  He will go down as the most inept President in our entire history.  and of course now, the military has succeeded in bribing a bunch of thugs into the military and have effectively trained them as urban thugs who will be in our cities for years to come.  No success in Iraq nor Afghanistan, deficits, criminal neglect of decent equipment for our military, the mess goes on and on.  But you are right, Russert still sucks up to him.  Russert is a traitor.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 27, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
         
      I think in this case, Russert helped Obama get to the nuances of the issue. He gave Obama a chance to answer specific questions that may have arisen with some groups after his initial denunciation. For instance: Ok, I'm jewish, so you say you renounce Farrakhan, but your pastor is with him on the anti-Jew thing. Can I take your denunciation seriously? And Obama answered that too. Obama did well.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 5:12 pm ET)
           

        Dex,

        I gotta agree with you here. Russert actually did Obama a favor. This question & it's answer have now been thoroughly asked & answered. Better to get it on the record now then having it linger out there for the Right to distort.

        Well of course Hannity will still bring it up, but he's an idiot.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by kromecom48 (February 28, 2008 9:39 am ET)
             
          Jeter, I was ready to go on the attack against Russert here, but I think you may have a valid point. Although I do believe Russert's indignant and accusatory tone suggests some degree of hostility toward Obama, it did provide a definitive resolution to the faux controversy. Russert is definitely a conservative -- but so what. I think many of us here just want him to be as fair as possible given his distinction as Washington Bureau Chief for NBC.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 4:57 pm ET)
         
      If Hillary hadn't added her semantic dustup regarding denounce vs. reject, perhaps this ridiculous endorsement issue would have died a quick death, as it should have.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by TomJoad (February 27, 2008 5:16 pm ET)
           

        right...right... so Hillary should be held accountable for Russert's behaviour! Of course, now i see it...

         as for accusing other people of semantics ...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 5:19 pm ET)
             

          She is the one who tried to make it look like Obama wasn't as forthright about unwanted endorsements as she was, which is ridiculous.  He made her look foolish.

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by TomJoad (February 27, 2008 5:37 pm ET)
               
            this post is about Russert, repeating questions that have been answered, for debateable but fairly obvious reasons. its really not that hard to understand.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 5:44 pm ET)
                 
              Well, Mrs. Clinton's words are included here as well, so you might want to contact MMFA directly and have them removed, so no more "light" is shed on her part in the Farakkhan thing.  Better you stay in the "dark".
              Report Abuse
              • Author by TomJoad (February 27, 2008 5:55 pm ET)
                   

                "Tim Russert repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama about his endorsement by Louis Farrakhan without noting that the campaign was quoted criticizing Farrakhan in the very article Russert cited to note the minister's support, that Obama himself said in a speech the day before the debate that he is a "consistent denouncer of Louis Farrakhan," or that Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments in his response to Russert's initial question on the subject."

                That's what the post is about... do you have an opinion on Russert's questioning style? or do you just want to blame hillary clinton? Are you giving Russert a pass in being selective with your outrage?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
                     

                  For the record, yes, I thought Russert's handling of this issue was flagrant.  But Hillary's response to it was equally disturbing to me, and I am far more interested in how politicians deal with these things than reporters.

                  Satisfied? 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by TomJoad (February 27, 2008 6:16 pm ET)
                       

                    Sure.

                    By the way, this website is called Media Matters for America, not 'please opine on the actions of politicians you may or may not like.' I mean obviously that comes into it, but first and foremost... you know...

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
                         

                      Ok, I'll remember that. So next time someone opines on George W. Bush, a politician, you will let them know what this site is for? 

                      Good. 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by TomJoad (February 27, 2008 6:26 pm ET)
                           
                        er, you didnt even mention russerts name, this is just an opportunity for you to denounce Hillary Clinton, and apaprently blame her for Russert's actions. Its clear you missed the point of this post (either deliberately or ignorantly).
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 6:32 pm ET)
                             
                          Nice dodge my good man.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by TomJoad (February 27, 2008 6:46 pm ET)
                               

                            George Bush is discussed here all the time, and its normally as  a segway from something relating to the post. you feel the need to offer your opinion on something, immediately, with no reference to the post.

                            my response to your post is simply, russert is being shown here by mmfa as having advanced a line of questioning for obama without any need, for obvious reasons. yet your post seems to blame HC. Russert is the issue here, because its a discussion of media tactics, not of hillary clinton. you can comment on what ever you feel the need to comment, but i think you're being irrelevant.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 6:53 pm ET)
                                 

                              Then why is Obama's answer to Hillary about "denounce vs.reject" highlighted? If it's irrelevant to the point of this thread, why include it at all?  For that matter, why include her words at all, this is about Obama and Russert, according to you.

                              The answer is one of deflection.  Deflect away from Hillary and onto the evil media person instead.  Admit it, save a lot of time. 

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by TomJoad (February 27, 2008 6:58 pm ET)
                                   
                                er, its included because it provides an answer to Russert's redundant questioning. thats pretty obvious.
                                Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (February 27, 2008 5:00 pm ET)
         
      Here's my question- If the criteria for being a moderator at the democratic 'debates' is to repeatedly ask the same dam thing over and over even though it's BEEN answered, why don't they REPEATEDLY ask the republicans questions that have been already been asked?  DOH! I just realized there ARE no more rebuplican debates (because Ron paul would slay McHeinous in an actual debate) AND because if they were asked the same question over and over, YOU WOULD GET DIFFERENT ANSWERS ALL THE TIME!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (February 27, 2008 5:10 pm ET)
           

        "DOH! I just realized there ARE no more rebuplican debates (because Ron paul would slay McHeinous in an actual debate)"

        Would? I'd say he did, quite a few times in fact.  Except for that unfortunate incident where the candidates got to ask questions to each other.  It made Ron Paul look a little loony, IMO. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (February 27, 2008 5:02 pm ET)
         

      What Digby said:

      Don't worry, it's one of the shortest ones: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-do-we-defeat-tim-russert-by-digby.html

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by JLyons (February 27, 2008 5:10 pm ET)
         
      Russerts Performance last night was short of unacceptable for a msm type. He was pushing and pushing Obama on this issue ,and it was clear it was meant to be nothing but play games. Also asking about the Russian Presidents name was uncalled for. Get a life Russert.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (February 27, 2008 5:37 pm ET)
         
      All you had to do was listen to Matthews fawning over Russert for finally "getting the marlin into the boat" regarding HRC's answer to which vote she would like to have back to understand how the NBC moderators approached the debates.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Preston (February 27, 2008 5:44 pm ET)
           
        Yeah, I found that comment by Matthews very telling.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 5:48 pm ET)
           
        I think on this too had Clinton just conceded to the words they wanted her to use from the get go...since the words she has been using about her vote meant exactly the same this wouldn't have been an ongoing issue.  I think on this she falls into the same trap Obama did...hopefully now that she used the words they wanted and so did he both issues can be put to bed.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (February 27, 2008 5:53 pm ET)
         
      I just want to say thanks to tim russert for such a fine question. It was undoubtedly the most important issue facing Americans today, now we can rest easy knowing his stance on such an important issue. I'm sure glad these moderators stopped wasting debate time on silly stupid issues like the war or the economy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (February 27, 2008 9:55 pm ET)
         

      Do you think that the democrat party is going to revive the 'Keating 5' scandal?

      In the meantime, here is something to chew on...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (February 27, 2008 11:53 pm ET)
           

        No, because there is no such thing as the "democrat party."

         Do you think the idiots are going to keep calling the party by the wrong name? Because you have shown yourself to be one of them.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (February 28, 2008 12:33 am ET)
           

        ProudMoron

        That is impossible since there is no such thing a Democrat Party. Since you are too ignorant to even know the name of the largest political party in the United States you are too stupid to even possibly have a point.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle anise57conifer (February 27, 2008 11:18 pm ET)
         

      If you simply think Russert is an " idiot " you don't have a clue to their agenda or even how to appreciate the opposition . Know your Enemy .  Mathews has been endorsing mcSame since day one and every right wing accusation , no matter how stupid, irrelevant  has been regurgitated on NBC and the rest of the cable cesspool .

      NBC doesn't call McCain on his most obvious misleading statements , Al qaeda " will take over Iraq", a bald face lie and improbability . By the Pentagon's words, they are 5 % of fighters . NBC will never challenge their " straight shooter " . They will never challenge him on how sewage is pouring into the streets of Iraq , how their medical system is destroyed , how unemployment is high, kids are suffering from malnutrition, and millions are STILL homeless . Yet the Cable CESSPOOL , will allow him to call Iraq a " success " . NBC also had their "hero" special about J. McSame , an hour of blatant, biased propaganda to promote their guy .

      It's divide and conquer time on Obama , that's why he was put on the spot, if he completely rejects Farrakhan, he will alienate some black voters and if doesn't he get the wrath of the Israeli lobby and cable "news" and if anybody thinks they didn't know what they were doing , better wake up .

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by joseph_b26 (February 28, 2008 4:29 am ET)
         

      Why

      It appeared Tim Russert was going after Barack Obama. Some might argue, Russert was trying to get Obama to denounce his race. We don't do that. There is something universal about the word "Brother" within the black culture. It is harmless and not as concerning as Russert might have you believe. Obama stated he did not support Minster Farrakhan's views, so what more did he want. Russert clearly "rubbed" me the wrong way.

      On another note, why is Russert going after Obama? He has not been fair and balanced toward Hillary Clinton, so why start now. I think Obama has gotten too big to bring down in the general election. I think the folks at MSNBC thought they would get the Democrats to trash their front-runner for someone they thought was easier to beat in the general election. I became so tired of the MSM talking about Clinton I turned the station off completely. I will no longer watch CNN or MSNBC because of the bias influence they brought to the Democratic primary process. Joseph 
      Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle encamped12swings (February 28, 2008 9:49 am ET)
         
      The view that people have taken of this exchange is evidence of the media bias towards Obama.  If anything, Russert wasn't tough enough as he didn't follow up regarding Obama's association with the Rev. Wright.  In addition to honoring Farrakhan and meeting with Qaddafi, Rev. Wright has made anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements to his congregation.  Obama has called Wright a mentor of his.  Russert needed to ask Obama why he has not quit his church and denounced his relationship with the Rev. Wright.  Of course, the answer is obvious - Obama gets too much support from the tens of thousands of people associated with the church, which demonstrates that Obama is a politician like everyone else and doesn't walk on water.  The rest of Obama's answer should satisfy anyone who questioned his support of Israel.  However, his relationship with the Rev. Wright is still a question that will become a big issue in the general election.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (February 28, 2008 1:02 pm ET)
           
        Criticisms of Wright are legitmate. Obama has denounced Wrights honoring of Farrakhan. I have gone to Churches that took stands I didnt believe in and I didnt quit. They are not speaking for me they are not brainwashing camps. A minister can hold their own views and as long as I am comfortable with their religious message that is ok. I dont see the problem. Obama denounced Farrakhan he criticised Wright for honoring him. Thats enough for me. I dont know ANYBODY I agree with 100% of the time. I dont expect any different from my church.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jmi27068 (February 28, 2008 10:34 am ET)
         
      There is a huge difference between denounce and reject and I don't think Obama, if he understood the difference, would really want to go the way he did. He would have been better off to say reject.

      def. reject (verb): dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste.

      def. denounce (verb): publicly declare to be wrong or evil.

      The Catholic church denounced Martin Luther because it believed him wrong and evil. They rejected his 95 Theses as being inadequate and inappropriate because they questioned church dogma.

      I don't think Mr. Obama really wanted to go there. It would have been better for him to say that he rejected Farrakhan and left it at that instead of parsing his words.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (February 28, 2008 5:29 pm ET)
         
      I have been searching MMFA for something very disturbing on CNN last night. It was

      Anderson Cooper's show at about 6 PM. In the screen was footage of Obama, the

      story being about his former minister. The closed captioning worded the story as

      such, but on the screen was a picture of Farrakhan, the image held there for several

      seconds. The implication was that Farrakhan was Obama's minister. Did anyone else

      see this or am I going nuts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by big2xrube6146 (February 29, 2008 8:39 am ET)
         
         This is something that Hannity brought up about 6 weeks ago. Now Obama denounce it to Russert in the debate and this shuuld be the end of it. But since Clinton is losing ground the so call conservitive media has got to come up with some new trash on Obama. This is pure _hit and its all about ratings for the news media. Lets get on to the real issues.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.