NY Times' Nagourney distorted Obama's "proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world" quote
SUMMARY: In a "Political Memo," Adam Nagourney distorted a quote from Sen. Barack Obama's Berlin speech in which Obama referred to himself as "a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world." Nagourney cited only the second part of the quote, telling readers to "expect" that in future ads Sen. John McCain will highlight "Mr. Obama's presenting himself as a 'fellow citizen of the world.' "
In an August 11 "Political Memo," New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama "present[ed] himself" only as a "fellow citizen of the world" during his July 24 speech in Berlin, when in fact Obama referred to himself as "a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world."
Nagourney wrote of Obama:
His appearance at a rally before 200,000 Germans in Berlin led the McCain camp to describe Mr. Obama as presumptuous and provided the scenes for the first so-called celebrity ads. (Expect more of that in future advertisements, highlighted by Mr. Obama's presenting himself as a "fellow citizen of the world.")
Nagourney left out the first part of Obama's quote, in which Obama referred to himself as "a proud citizen of the United States," much as President Reagan referred to himself in a June 17, 1982, speech to the United Nations General Assembly, in which he said, "I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world." Suggesting that McCain would try to use the quote against Obama, in addition to misrepresenting the quote, Nagourney did not note that other prominent Americans have referred to themselves similarly.
Nagourney also uncritically quoted Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain, saying of campaign ads calling Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world": "The advertising is effective because it speaks to a truth that people instantly get." But Nagourney did not note that those ads contain falsehoods. The McCain campaign ad "Family" -- which asks "Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to help your family?" -- falsely claims that "[t]he real Obama promises higher taxes." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families, and McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
An analysis of the candidates' tax plans by the Tax Policy Center found that "Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes," while "Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers."
Further, another McCain campaign ad released during the summer -- a period Nagourney asserted McCain has used "to seek a thematic spine of the campaign he intends to run against" Obama -- falsely suggests that Obama did not visit wounded troops in his trip overseas.
From Nagourney's Times "Political Memo":
But the truth is that both campaigns have used the summer to prepare for the fall ahead: patching up weaknesses, testing new lines of attack and laying the foundation for how they want to portray the opponent. Aides to Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama are both well aware of the risks of easing up during this period. (Case in point: Michael S. Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, who made the mistake of spending his summer touring his home state, Massachusetts.)
More than anything else, Mr. McCain has used this period to seek a thematic spine of the campaign he intends to run against Mr. Obama. The recent advertisement portraying Mr. Obama as a frothy celebrity may have originated as a Hail Mary pass intended to draw attention to a campaign that had been overshadowed by Mr. Obama's, um, celebrity. But it is one that McCain aides believe has proved successful. They are planning to use it aggressively through the Republican convention and into the fall.
"The American people are likely not going to want to elect someone to the presidency based on their ability to transform themselves into a celebrity," said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. "The advertising is effective because it speaks to a truth that people instantly get. It opens the doors to an examination of what exactly are his qualifications to be president of the United States in a time of economic crisis and in a time of a national security crisis."
This was inspired by what McCain advisers, and some Democrats, suspect was one mistake Mr. Obama made on his otherwise well-received overseas trip. His appearance at a rally before 200,000 Germans in Berlin led the McCain camp to describe Mr. Obama as presumptuous and provided the scenes for the first so-called celebrity ads. (Expect more of that in future advertisements, highlighted by Mr. Obama's presenting himself as a "fellow citizen of the world.")
If this kind of attack strikes a chord, then Mr. Obama may find that he gave Republicans a gift, underscoring their message, with his decision to deliver his convention acceptance speech before 76,000 people at a Denver stadium.
Implicit in this emerging portrait of Mr. Obama is an effort to portray him as alien to many Americans, reinforcing what polls suggest is a reluctance that many have about voting for this newcomer. Hence the references to his years at Harvard and at Hyde Park in Chicago, and a running commentary on what he is doing on his Hawaiian vacation this week, all intended to make him seem elitist or effete.















DAWUSS.....
Since this guy misrepresented Obama's full quote by ignoring the beginning of it..... it needs to be reported here, because the context was left out!
If you DAWUSS were to say.... "I like working with children and do all I can for them so that they know that they are loved" and I reported it to the parents of those kids that you said "Dawuss says that he loves doing things for children" and left it at that..... the context is missing and those parent's thought would begin to get wacky.... I know what you meant, the children would, and so would anyone that heard you saying it.... but if the context is missing.... that is misrepresenting what you said..... like what this clown did to Obama's words.....
Or.... remember the movie "School of Rock" toward the end of the movie when Jack Black says that those parents children had 'touched' him and that he was sure that he had 'touched' them... the parents freaked and assumed the worst when we all knew, by watching the movie, that he meant that he touched their hearts and minds to become better musicians! Its all in the context.
Nice try..... but you will learn someday, keep coming back for more lessons. There are a few of us in here that will be happy to teach ya.
-- Nagourney left out the first part of Obama's quote, in which Obama referred to himself as "a proud citizen of the United States -- mmfa
No shit sherlock...he was reporting on the type of ads that he thinks McCain will run...which obviously would not include the first part.
This is just an exercise in keeping a staffer busy while sharpening his anti-McCain rhetoric...and feeding a little raw meat to the legions.
he was reporting on the type of ads that he thinks McCain will run...which obviously would not include the first part.
Thank you Wes, I read this exactly the same way as you did but kept re-reading it trying to figure out why MMFA had a problem with it.
If Nagourney wrote this as Obama's quote, then perhaps this item would not have been posted:
A journalist shouldn't speculate on theoretical attack ads, taking words out-of-context in the process without telling readers the full quote.
Analogy: If a reporter speculated that Democrats might run an ad quoting McCain as saying his wife "could be the only woman to serve as First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip,” without saying that it was a joke.
Well, Wesley, you've consistently put up some pretty weak comments here, but I think this time you may have inadvertently stumbled onto a truth, a scary realization for me. And while your conclusion about MMfA's motives returns my confidence that my own sanity will not be threatened by the observance of a spark of perception from you, your relentless pursuit of an anti-MMfA agenda actually helped you trip over the "WITH?" aspect of this article in my opinion.
Buttressing the old blind squirrel/nut theory... :-)
Hey Gov., if we're not limiting the pedantricacy (I WILL want credit for coining that), then we can continue the argument by going to the next step..
Nagourney did NOT quote Obama. He was merely using quotes to indicate that Obama had used the exact same phrase "citizen of the world". A quote is used to illustrate a position, idea, intention, etc. of the person being quoted. It's pretty plain to see that in the context of his column, that was never - not even close to - Nagourneys intent.
There. Now, I dare you to get more pedantic than that.
Gov and Col,
I prefer "pedantrician", though I only resort to the practice when I begin to lose an argument to one my fine fellow commentationists such as yourselves.
The reason this is here, and deserves to be here, is the part of the Media Matters mission statement that I always quote. You'd think you would have it memorized too, and evaluate their postings based upon that mission statement instead of making a fool of yourself.
His commentary, while suggesting what he thought the McCain campaign might use to create an ad, furthers the conservative agenda. Quoting one part of the comment without telling his readers that that sentence fragment is not an accurate representation of the meaning when the comment is taken in context furthers the conservative agenda.
This one isn't as clear as most pointed out by MMFA.
Prehaps Mr Nagourney is expecting one of those adverts like you see on posters for crap films or plays. The entire review is " It is truely hilarious how awful this movie is" New York Times. What is printed on the poster is "Truely hilarious" New York Times.
Mr Nagourney may be right to point it out but he should have shown context on how it will be used. Just my humble opinion.
As a daily subscriber to the New York Times, you took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you.
P.S. But you gotta love the story on "Obama Nation." MMFA, take a bow!