NY Times' Falcone omitted denunciations of Roberts' assertion that Hawaii is "some sort of foreign, exotic place"
SUMMARY: The New York Times reported the assertion by Cokie Roberts that Sen. Barack Obama's trip to his birthplace of Hawaii "has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place" without also reporting that the comment provoked a backlash, including denunciations from Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).
In an August 15 New York Times article, Michael Falcone reported the assertion by ABC News political analyst and NPR news analyst Cokie Roberts that Sen. Barack Obama's trip to his birthplace of Hawaii "has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place," but Falcone gave no suggestion that the comment was in any way controversial; in fact, the comment provoked a sharp backlash, including denunciations from Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).
Akaka issued a statement on August 12:
"Saying our 50th state is somehow 'foreign,' does a great disservice to the hardworking, patriotic Americans who call Hawai'i home," Akaka said. "For months, people have been asking me, 'When is Sen. Obama going to come home?' I'm so glad he found time to visit his sister and his grandmother, and for him and his family to bond and recharge in his home state. Hawai'i is a great U.S. destination; just ask the 5.5 million Americans who visited last year for business and pleasure."
Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) was reportedly "shocked and saddened by the remarks" and was quoted saying: "I would resent anyone suggesting that my roots are not American."
According to the August 13 Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Abercrombie said: "If he [Obama] had gone someplace else, people would be asking, 'Why didn't he go home to Hawaii, why didn't he go see his grandma?' " The Star-Bulletin further quoted Abercrombie saying, "Her home is a couple of blocks from the hospital he was born in, from the school he went to. Honolulu is a little town. It's not some sort of exotic locality." The Star-Bulletin also reported:
"We're confused by her sense of geography," said John Monahan, president of the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau. "Aside from the fact that Sen. Obama was born and raised here, he really is just one of the millions of Americans who choose to vacation in the islands and know that it's part of the United States. That's one of the advantages. No passport is required and a dollar is dollar here. ... Sen. Obama or anyone else can do business worldwide, 24/7, while in Honolulu."
Abercrombie also reportedly said: "She's a bit of a fool. That's the only thing you can say."
NPR listeners also reportedly objected after Roberts made similar comments during the August 11 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, when she said Obama's vacation to Hawaii "makes him seem a little bit more exotic" and characterized Hawaii as "a somewhat odd place to be doing it." During the August 14 edition of Morning Edition, co-host Renee Montagne said NPR had received "lots" of responses "after NPR's Cokie Roberts suggested Hawaii was an odd choice for Barack Obama's vacation," adding: "Donald Barella writes to say, 'Last I looked, Hawaii is one of the 50 states, not a foreign place.' " Montagne also said to co-host Steve Inskeep: "And how exotic could it be, Steve? I was raised there."
From the August 15 New York Times article:
Mr. Obama's week has been low-key, a sharp contrast to his high-voltage campaign events. On Thursday, he toured a nature preserve and went body surfing. Beyond that, Mr. Obama has played golf, taken walks on the beach with his daughters, eaten dinner at a few Honolulu restaurants with his wife and friends, and visited almost daily with his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, whom Mr. Obama calls "tutu," a Hawaiian term.
He has held only two campaign events, a fund-raiser and a welcoming rally that was quickly added to his schedule. "It would have been devastating to everyone here if he had not done that," said Kallie Keith-Agaran, an Obama supporter who lives in Maui.
Minimizing public appearances may have provided less fodder for those detractors who have portrayed his vacation spot as elitist or exotic. Last weekend, Cokie Roberts, an ABC News analyst, said, "I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii, and I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place." Ms. Roberts added, "He should be in Myrtle Beach if he's going to take a vacation at this time."
A few months ago, some campaign aides had reportedly discussed a splashier homecoming, including a major speech at the Punchbowl National Cemetery, where Mr. Obama's maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, a World War II veteran, is buried. Instead, Mr. Obama stopped at the grave briefly on Wednesday, carrying a lei.
Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, defended the trip, saying, "I don't think anyone can credibly criticize Senator Obama for going back to the place where he was born to visit his grandmother where she happens to live."
without also reporting that the comment provoked a backlash, including denunciations from Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).
Thats because if the D were an R for their political stance and Hawaii was a Republican given in elections..... it would have been commented on and Cokie would have been apologizing every which way while Rush, Savage and the FoxNoise machine would have been attacking Cokie for weeks with their brand of fake patriotism and blustering outrage.....
If Obama had gone to Sedona instead of Hawaii, the press would have launched into typical, idiotic, moonbeam new age stereotypes about the place.
But if McCain had gone to Hawaii instead of Obama, they would be doing live specials about this return of the Navy's prodigal son.
When people are harassing you, everything you do is wrong. When stupid people do it, it's always blatant. And Obama's being harassed by stupid people.
To be fair, do the denunciations even need to be noted? It's such a jaw-dropping display of stupidity that it doesn't even need to be explained as such, and some backlash would seem to be a given. Can any open-minded person read what she said and read Burton's response and come away thinking that her comment was somehow reasonable?
Can any open-minded person read what she said and read Burton's response and come away thinking that her comment was somehow reasonable?
Unfortunately, Brab, I think they can, which is probably the whole point of omitting the reactions. Remember, by the very existence of Faux News, we can assume that the American people are ossified morons...
I think most FOX viewers like to hear right-wing spin, so I'm not sure I'd classify them as "open-minded". It seems to me that the stupidity of her comment is the point of highlighting it, and Burton's comment addresses that quite well. Backlash is simply a byproduct of such stupidity, and so isn't necessary for understanding the nature of the comment itself.
They probably should have included something about the controversy as a matter of form. I just have a hard time imagining someone reading through it and thinking that what Roberts said is reasonable, while if they had quotes from Hawaiian politicians then that would give them cause to think she shouldn't have said it. If someone really thinks Burton's quote doesn't cover it, I don't see how a quote from Akaka is going to change anything.
Abercrombie about said it all...
"She's a bit of a fool. That's about all you can say."
Indeed. She's an elite, corporate, Beltway, pundit-scum-journalist. High on the chattering class pecking order.
"Minimizing public appearances may have provided less fodder for those detractors who have portrayed his vacation spot as elitist or exotic"
I didn't read it that way. The phrase "detractors who have portrayed" doesn't give that portrayal any merit as far as I'm seeing. It just states that people have been portraying Hawaii in that manner. I'm not sure what else an objective reporter is supposed to say about that.
it's an implication that suggests that is what he should have done to avoid being portrayed by those "detractors" as visiting an elitist destination. hide yourself so no one can portray you as elitist. o think it would have been very objective to note that her comments brought widespread condemnation in hawaii.
It would be objective to note the controversy, I just don't see what difference those quotes are going to make to anyone, as I said above.
What I'm asking is: how can someone objectively state the premise that Obama is taking away fodder from critics without giving those critics credibility? I'm just not grasping the implication of the sentence, or seeing another way of phrasing it that improves it. And putting in quotes from people like Akaka don't address it any better than what Burton said, as far as I can tell.
"what burton said is that obama was going to visit his grandmother no matter where she is. that really doesn't address what roberts said, portraying a vacation there as elitist."
Of course it does. Going back to your native state and visiting your grandmother can't legitimately be considered "elitist".
"whether obama did one appearance or fifty really should not provide any "fodder" to anyone."
It should not, but apparently it does. I still don't see how that quote suggests that there should be fodder or anything along those lines, it says that Obama is minimizing the criticism whether it's legitimate or not.
The quote works, but it cuts out any mention of his lack of public appearances. That was a key part of the premise that Obama is taking away opportunities for criticism.
"it's not a matter of any one line or paragraph. what roberts said is not really addressed."
Again, how does pointing out that it's his native state and he's visiting family not address the "elitist" charge?
"and an appearance in an american state should not be "fodder" for a charge of elitism, for no other reason than the appearance is in that state. it's presented as good political strategy, lay low and they can't charge you with elitism."
I agree it shouldn't be fodder, as I said. But I don't see how there's a suggestion that it's "strategy" either, just because it happens to have a positive effect.
"as i said, it is not one line, but the totality of what was written. it would have been more objective to include the controversy incited by roberts. what was written makes it sound like there are actually two sides to this."
That's an odd comment. The only subjective elements are things that you're attributing to what's written. His lack of appearances takes away fodder from critics, so that implies "good political strategy", and that he "should" do that, and that the criticism is given credibility. I see where you're drawing it from, I just don't see how it's warranted, considering there's a valid alternate interpretation. You're getting some feel or sense about it that's apparently inexplicable.
And objectivity is presenting two sides of a story. If one side is ridiculous, as Roberts' comment most certainly is, then the other side of the story should easily demonstrate that, as Burton's comment most certainly does.
roberts already said she knows his grandmother lives there and it is a state. providing a statement by a spokesman for obama doesn't really address the fact that she said it's an elitist vacation and he should have gone to myrtle beach. and to say that he didn't provide "fodder" for his critics by making appearances is suggesting that there might be a little legitimacy to the charge. it would have provided more objectivity to at least add the fact that there were lots of people in hawaii who dismissed the charge as nonsense. you can disagree, but that's your opinion, and i have mine.
and you said it apparently "does" provide fodder. so why not quote others pointing out that going to hawaii is anything but elitist, or noting that roberts comments brought widespread condemnation in that state.
"roberts already said she knows his grandmother lives there and it is a state. providing a statement by a spokesman for obama doesn't really address the fact that she said it's an elitist vacation and he should have gone to myrtle beach."
It's not like there's some unknown aspect of Roberts' comment that shines light on the idiotic nature of it. It's stupid on the face of it. It's a state, but it seems foreign...he's visiting his grandmother, but it's elitist... Pointing out the nature of his trip makes the criticism plainly invalid. For the life of me I have no concept of what anyone can say in response to Burton's comment. "No, it's still elitist and exotic because ___" Can anyone fill in that blank?
"and to say that he didn't provide "fodder" for his critics by making appearances is suggesting that there might be a little legitimacy to the charge. it would have provided more objectivity to at least add the fact that there were lots of people in hawaii who dismissed the charge as nonsense."
Then it's really impossible to objectively note the behavior of critics without giving that criticism legitimacy, isn't it? You would always suggest that there's some legitimacy, just by the fact that the charge was made. That's why you provide a rebuttal, which was done. If anything really needs to be added, it should be the number of visitors Hawaii gets, which addresses any "elitism" nonsense. Since Hawaiians are surely going to react whether the comment had merit or not, the controversy itself doesn't really add anything that's not already there.
Falcone also writes:"Still, some Hawaii residents and political observers acknowledged that exotic impressions of the islands have become mythology among Americans, making it one of the most unlikely places for a presidential candidate to call home." Mythology? Doesn't that pretty much say that Roberts shouldn't be perpetrating that impression? He also wrote:"'When you’re being accused of being an elitist,' Ms. Jamieson said, 'and when people are using code words such as ‘exotic’ in order to describe you and your background, you would not want to locate your biography in Hawaii, if you had a choice.'" Pointing out that this is a "code word" clearly suggests racism for those using the word, and Ms. Jamieson's comment gets no rebuttal.
There might be other issues to take up with this article, but it's hard to see how it leaves anyone with a positive view of Roberts or her comments.