AP gets "Bronze" in Worst Person for calling Obama "inexperienced in foreign affairs"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann awarded the "Bronze" to the Associated Press in his nightly Worst Person in the World segment for calling Sen. Barack Obama "inexperienced in foreign affairs" in a June 5 news analysis. Calling the analysis a "really slanted piece," Olbermann said: "When the AP starts taking sides and starts reading like The Washington Times, or The Nation, we're all in a lot of trouble."
On the June 6 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded the "Bronze" to the Associated Press in his nightly Worst Person in the World segment for calling Sen. Barack Obama "inexperienced in foreign affairs." Describing the June 5 news analysis by AP diplomatic writer Barry Schweid as a "really slanted piece," Olbermann said, "Nothing in media is utterly objective, but its clients keep the Associated Press in business in order to have one entity trying to cut it straight down the middle." He concluded: "When the AP starts taking sides and starts reading like The Washington Times, or The Nation, we're all in a lot of trouble."
From the June 6 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: First, time for Countdown's number two story: our Worst Persons in the World. The bronze to the Associated Press -- preparing a really slanted piece for its thousands of newspaper, radio, TV, and Internet clients about the McCain-Obama race and foreign policy. Barry Schweid wrote: "Obama, by contrast, is decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. His political success until now is powered to a large extent by his youthful optimism for 'change.' While that may ignite enthusiasm, it could also inspire allegations of naiveté." The article then quotes Secretary of State Rice, of all people, criticizing Obama's willingness to engage Iran, leaving out other viewpoints, like from that appeaser who says Obama's right, and we need to engage Iran -- Robert Gates, President Bush's secretary of Defense.
Nothing in media is utterly objective, but its clients keep the Associated Press in business in order to have one entity trying to cut it straight down the middle. When the AP starts taking sides and starts reading like The Washington Times, or The Nation, we're all in a lot of trouble.
I do not want to upset Bottleblonde so here goes my post on KO.
I 100% support his statement. For AP to even suggest he is inexperienced is sad and we are in trouble. Was Bush , Clinton and Reagan inexperienced according to AP?
Sueeld
I am sure Julia and Bottleblonde (nomobush, notthatgeorge, ellie717,sue) will have issues with that.
Note the timestamp of Sueeld's post with the dig at me.
Here's a previous post.
I have been asking JLyons to stop with this, so please do not make me apart of your infighting.
So, she's been asking Jlyons to stop it, but somehow it's okay for her (Sueeld) to do it?
Here's another one.
I have always tried to be respectful to others.
- SueEld / Tuesday June 10, 2008 10:33:52 AM
So, she's always tried to be respectful of others, but just the day before she posts this above. This is similar to how she told JuliaJayne a few days ago that she should not be criticized for her comments because she had not attacked KO in months, but when I did a search, I found that she had n fact attacked him less than 2 months ago! And after I posted her own words, Jlyons continues to accuse me of vile and baseless attacks. Somehow quoting someone's own words posted on this site is a vile and baseless attack in her view.
Slanted?
Give me a frigin break Olbermann.
Why does Olbermann think this article is slanted? Because it dared to mention Obama was: decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. Hey Keithy...he is.
Or that Obama's political success until now is powered to a large extent by his youthful optimism for "change." While that may ignite enthusiasm it also could inspire allegations of naivete. Ding ding ding...true again.
Keith Obamamann, if anyone has been the champion of slanted reporting --it's you.
Give yourself the award.
Jeter
I disagree with you but that post made me laugh.
Ketih Obamaman?
You made me smile, thanks.
JLyon,
I'm glad it made you smile. I think Keith has earned that moniker ;-)
I have a feeling a few of the Libs here won't find it as amusing...
I can't stand Keith [as you know] I like Obama, would prefer him over McCain, but that doesn't mean I'm entirely comfortable with his inexperience. Bottom line: this article was hardly slanted IMO. This is really a stretch, even for Keith Obamamann. ;-)
Well it looks like Olbermann and MMFA are back together again. I am sure they did not like his rants against Senator Clinton. I never liked him before , i thought he was a blowhard, now i do not even watch him or his anti -Hillary network. As Bill Clinton said, never had a candidate been treated with so much disrespect like her.
McCain has virturally no experience in foreign affairs,
Other than sucking up to some defense contractors and lobbyists. Is this the kind of "experience" we want?......HELL, NO!
Jeter
You're dead right on this issue. How dare anyone criticize Obama?
The AP story was even handed...giving plenty of ink to Obama's position of national defense:
-- Obama is advancing the possibility of "tough and principled" diplomacy with Iranian leaders --
-- "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel." --
When the AP raised the question of negotiating with Iran they cited Rice as opposed to Obama's stance and Albright in favor of his stance.
The only ones with their skirts twisted are Olbermann and mmfa...which is to be expected. Only the most ardent, partisan Obama supporters would find much wrong with the AP story...if they took the time to read it.
"Why does Olbermann think this article is slanted? Because it dared to mention Obama was: decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. Hey Keithy...he is."--Jeter
The problem is that journalists aren't supposed to make assertions and conclusions for themselves on something that is obviously subjective. If they want to quote someone with an opinion, then fine. There is a separation between facts and opinions in places where real journalism is supposed to be practiced. This is a subtle point to people who are not familiar with journalistic standards, but it is pretty clear to journalists that I know.
Tommy,
You have a decent point, but I think the comparisson was diluted by some grammatical sloppiness.
"Obama, by contrast, is decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. His political success until now is powered to a large extent by his youthful optimism for "change." While that may ignite enthusiasm it also could inspire allegations of naivete.
The author used the comparative form for "younger", but not for "inexperienced". If the author had said Obama was "less experienced" than McCain, I don't think anyone would have cared or batted an eye. Reading the article, you would think Obama has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs. I can see that objection to that.
Exactly right, Eddie. This is just another example of why Media Matters is here, and why Tommy posts here. He tries to distract us from the good work they do and from the righteousness of their postings.
This one, for example. The clear meaning of what the commentator said was "inexperienced". That's a distortion of reality, and it forwards the conservative agenda to say that Obama is inexperienced.
Any article that cites McCain's foreign policy without mentioning that it's an absolute laughingstock is not being factual.
I know it's liberal to call McCain a laughingstock, but you can't write about reality without being liberal anymore.
Obama, by contrast, is decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. His political success until now is powered to a large extent by his youthful optimism for "change." While that may ignite enthusiasm it also could inspire allegations of naivete"
Those twp paragraphs, while not wildly misinformative, do seem to assert certain things which are not in evidence. McCain hasn't shown any hard reasoning in some years and his naval background doesn't impress me as "foreign affairs" experience. In fact his recent statements about the players in Iraq signal that he isn't that well informed. I will take somebody with little to no foreign affairs experience any day that could take a fresh look, get advice from experienced (and non political) advisers without an agenda (like BushCo. had), and make informed, intelligent decisions. There are some areas in life that experience isn't necessarily an asset. No amount of experience is going to make McCain a person who can use diplomacy, moral force (since he's largely sqandered his), nor can it confer a certain type of inate wisdom on him. He has already shown that wisdom that CAN come from experience is lacking.
The rank dishonesty of Olbermann's complaint is evident when he criticizes the article for quoting Rice, but NEVER MENTIONS the fact that it then quotes Albright who supports Obama's position. He wouldn't do that if he didn't intend deliberately to deceive the listener.
Further, the "piece"--as KO calls it--is clearly labeled as an "ANALYSIS". Just because it's by an AP writer, doesn't mean it's a NEWS story; it's analysis, which means of course that opinion and interpretation is to be expected. For Olbermann not to let us know that, either, just adds to his own lack of credibility.
This guy, once a real hero to me, has ruined his own reputation for honesty and calling out the frauds. His year-long venomous attack on Hillary Clinton is now going to be followed by five months of attacking any criticism of Mr. Obama by anyone. What a hypocritical flake. The very first thing he said after Mrs. Clinton's speech Saturday was an attack on her for saying too much about herself. This, while even Hillary-haters like Robinson and Matthews were praising her for once.
And I'm really disappointed in MMFA too. Not one single time has it called out Keith for his distortions of Mrs. Clinton's statements and policies. Not one time. Now, why is that??
I don't watch Keith often but some of his pieces have been great. Regarding Sen. Clinton, I turned most of those things off when someone started up. It was too much of a pile on, imo
I agree that an "analysis" piece can include opinion, but too many analysts are not considering what is really important. Just quoting people to bolster an opinion without considering whether the "experience" thing has any merit isn't smart commentary...Julia's critique above is much better analysis than what the ap reported.
JULIA NAILS IT.
These are ASSERTIONS, OPINIONS, presented without backup evidence. They are stated as FACT, and they are lauditory towards McCain while derisive towards Obama.
In short, this is a partisan campaign ad/commentary.
If McCain PAYS for it, it doesn't look any different.
AP is supposed to be in the FACT business. On this issue alone ... the foreign policy "experience" of the candidates ... there was abundant opportunity for AP to bolster their ASSERTIONS with facts. The reader might not agree (for example, JULIA's excellent point that military service does not NECESSARILY equate to foreign policy experience), but at least the reader would have something to go on to make up their minds, instead of being handed "FACTS" which are only baseless assertions. By a NEWS source.