Wilson says Michelle Obama "was portrayed in some quarters as an angry woman" -- but omits Fox
SUMMARY: Fox News' Brian Wilson stated that Michelle Obama "was portrayed in some quarters as an angry woman" and "as some type of radical" during the presidential campaign. But Wilson did not acknowledge that Fox News was among those who portrayed her as "angry" and "radical."
On the April 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report, reporter Brian Wilson stated that while "three-quarters of Americans now find favor with how Michelle Obama is handling the job of first lady ... there were moments in the early going where it looked like it might be a rough journey for Michelle Obama." Wilson added, "[S]he was portrayed in some quarters as an angry woman. A satirical New Yorker cover depicted her as some type of radical." But at no point during his report did Wilson acknowledge that prominent members of Fox News were among those who portrayed Obama as "an angry woman" or as a "radical" during the 2008 presidential campaign.
For instance, during the August 25, 2008, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor and NPR news analyst Juan Williams, referring to Michelle Obama's then-upcoming speech at the Democratic National Convention, asserted: "Well, she's got to be herself, but I do not think she can go for it all out in terms of this kind of militant anger that she sometimes uses." Williams gave no examples of what he claimed to be "this kind of militant anger" that Michelle Obama "sometimes uses." Similarly, on the September 16, 2008, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said of Michelle Obama: "Now I have a lot of people who call me on the radio and say she looks angry. And I have to say there's some validity to that. She looks like an angry woman."
In addition, several Fox News hosts and contributors questioned Michelle Obama's patriotism or attitude toward race, pointing to things she has written and said -- including her February 18, 2008, comment, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country," which Wilson aired during his report. Media Matters for America has documented the following examples:
- During Fox News' August 25, 2008, coverage of the Democratic National Convention, co-anchor Megyn Kelly speculated that changing some of the words in Michelle Obama's speech could provide "fodder" for the critics of then-candidate Barack Obama. Noting that, in her speech, Michelle Obama said, "The world as it is just won't do," Kelly stated: "If you replace 'world' with 'country', you are back to the same debate, arguably, that you have been having about Michelle Obama's feelings about the country. Did she give her critics any fodder with that comment?"
- During the February 19, 2008, edition of Fox News' America's Pulse, referring to Michelle Obama's "proud of my country" remarks, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume said: "Well, it means that she is a liberal, and maybe an arch-liberal. And it raises questions about whether [then-Sen. Barack Obama] agrees with her." Hume later stated, "But I think this was something that she kind of thinks," adding, "[T]here is this feeling, and it has affected Democratic politicians for a long time, that they are kind of embarrassed by patriotism."
- On the February 19, 2008, edition of Fox News' The Big Story, Republican strategist Ralph Reed said of Michelle Obama's "proud of my country" comments: "[I]t plays into a stereotype about the left wing of the Democratic Party, that it blames America first, that they don't see the greatness of America." Then-host John Gibson responded by asking, "Does that mean that President Barack will blame America first?"
- Fox News host Sean Hannity repeatedly distorted Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis from Princeton University, suggesting that she was asserting her own views when she wrote that "[i]t is possible that Black individuals either chose to or felt pressure to come together with other Blacks on campus because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a White oppressor." But as the context of the quote makes clear, she was purporting to document attitudes among black Princeton alumni who attended the school in the '70s and not expressing her own opinions. Hannity employed this distortion at one point to ask: "Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?"
From the April 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: We continue our look at the first 100 days of the Obama presidency by focusing tonight on the first lady. Michelle Obama got off to a somewhat dubious start during the campaign, but there has been something of an image makeover.
Correspondent Brian Wilson has the story.
[begin video clip]
WILSON: You may or may not agree with her husband's policies, but as we approach the end of the first 100 days, three-quarters of Americans now find favor with how Michelle Obama is handling the job of first lady.
HEIDI BROWN (Forbes staff writer): She has the star power of the first lady, but she's also someone who comes across as very ordinary.
WILSON: But there were moments in the early going where it looked like it might be a rough journey for Michelle Obama. February 2008 on the campaign trail in Milwaukee, she uttered words she probably wishes she could take back.
MICHELLE OBAMA: For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country.
WILSON: The furor over that comment reverberated for days and she was portrayed in some quarters as an angry woman. A satirical New Yorker cover depicted her as some type of radical.
But there were no other campaign blunders and when her husband took office in January, she began her own campaign to cultivate a positive image. Whether it was hobnobbing with British royalty, breaking ground on the White House vegetable garden, or in her role as first mom and first wife, she found a mix of style and substance that resonated with Americans.
A just-released Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll shows that since the campaign, her favorability rating is up 17 points, and only 16 percent of Americans now view her unfavorably. Her numbers are, in fact, better than her husband's.
[end video clip]
Fox News (and other's) vilifying of M. Obama seems pretty unprecedented to me.
You must have tuned out during Clinton's second term and every single Dick Morris appearance on Fox News ever since.
Clinton was not attacked during the campaign, nor was she vilified during Clinton's first 100 days, which is more what I was speaking to. This "angry woman" BS is unprecedented, unfounded and pretty clearly racist in my opinion.
Ah, apologies then.
FOX news wasn't around during Clinton's first 100 days, so that would have to be unprecedented.
I was talking about CONS and how they labeled Hillary in 1993 as a radical, especially when she took charge of the Health Care initiative.
I agree. Victor mentioned FOX, and I was just pointing out that it's not like we could refer back to how they behaved during Bill Clinton's first 100 days.
Hillary Clinton was attacked by the Conservative Media throughout the 8 years she was first lady. Difference was she was not portrayed as angry, but she was portrayed as a wacko 1960s Anti Nixon radical.
I still say this is different and unprecedented. Hillary Clinton's policy agenda motivated the right. Something else entirely is or was motivating the right (mainly Fox News) to attack Michelle Obama's character.
It's still partisan, though, don't you think? You don't think that if she was white that FOX wouldn't be stretching and spinning all over the place to criticize her, do you?
I seem to remember Hillary murdering Vince Foster right after she removed all the "w's" on the White House computer keyboards right after she flew back from the Arkansas airport where she made a drug deal and murdered her suppliers.
I was a journalist at the time and received a video tape in the mail called "The Clinton Chronicles".
It's still partisan, though, don't you think? You don't think that if she was white that FOX wouldn't be stretching and spinning all over the place to criticize her, do you?
No, I don't think Fox News would be on her like this if she were white.
Really? As unhinged as they were (and still are) over Hillary? And as notoriously shameless as they are in general? I don't think her policy changes that much, if she had never expressed an opinion on any policy then FOX would have been slamming her for being a dumb blonde or some other nonsense. I just don't see the basis for the idea that they would hold back on anyone they disagree with for almost any reason.
The attacks on Michelle Obama are partisan. Their delivery is racist.
The tone of the delivery? How is it different from the tone conservatives use for Hillary?
It depends on what specific narative you're comparing to the right's "Michelle Obama is an angry, un-American woman"...
"Un-American" was something I was considering as a point as well. If Hillary had made the "really proud of my country" remark, you don't think she would have been labeled "un-American"? There's no racial connection there as far as I can see.
Well, if you like to compare a actual narrative attacking First Lady Clinton to the one chronicled here about First Lady Obama, we can do that.
I'm not sure she was ever called angry or un-American, but those things weren't convenient spin for the circumstances. I remember accusations of infidelity and murder (Vince Foster, as mentioned), as well as suggestions of her being a lesbian. I also recall that she supposedly thought she was "co-president", as if she really believed that just because she took the initiative in the attempt to reform health care. There was certainly a lot of vitriol and hostility directed towards her.
Good points all. That she was attacked by the right on several fronts diminishes my ‘unprecedented’ claim. My charge of racism is largely based on the right's character attacks on Michelle Obama that are and were not based on anything she's done. If there’s no basis for calling Michelle Obama an “angry woman”, then I think it’s ok for me to surmise how and why their attacking her. Unfortunately racism and partisan politics can and do coexist in the country.
I know where you're coming from. There could be a racial component to the "angry" criticism. Like I said, I'm on the fence there. I agree there might be some crossover between partisanship and racism as well. If there's a case to be made for specific criticisms, then that's fair. To talk about the general phenomenon of her being harshly criticized as racist, though, is unnecessary and trivializes incidents that are more likely or undeniably racist.
I don't think any criticism of Obama is racist. But when the criticism is baseless, my mind can go there just as it goes to partisan politics. Again, if there's merit to a charge against someone, my mind would not wander to such places.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2008/06/obamaBabyMama.jpg
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-style:italic; mso-bidi-font-style:normal;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
The "baby mama" line was clearly racist, absolutely. That's an excellent example of a situation where it's connected to race, where you could say "would anyone say that about a white woman?"
sorry...disregard all that junk after the link.
racist? How ridiculous. It's partisan, it has nothing to do with her race.
If it's "ridiculous" to say attacks on M. Obama have something to do with race, then it's "ridiculous" to say it has nothing to do with her race. Race plays a part. It plays a part in this overstated "100 days" milestone crap. No other President in US history received so many freakin' report cards after 3 months.
I'm on the fence a bit on this specific charge of racism because I think there is some perception of black women as being overly aggressive or hostile. I don't think there's anything to that perception, that's just the impression I've gotten from others. On that note, there really should be something that's specific to race in order to make accusations regarding racism. If you can attribute behavior to partisanship, that's a safer bet and much more reasonable to say. After Bush's disastrous turn, they're naturally compelled to hammer any Democrat in office as much as possible in order to downplay the difference between the two. They have to play it like "Obama's just as bad, see?" If it was Hillary or Edwards they'd be doing the same thing.
james the angry part is racist.
I'm not so sure about "angry" but the level of some scrutiny and criticsim leveled at the Obama's is not so much a display of outward racism as it is an affirmation of the existence of white priviledge in America.
This election thought us that a man's word is not good enough for some if he is a man of color. The man of color has to go further than any white man ever would to prove himself.
-- racist? How ridiculous. It's partisan -- james
While you and I may agree that it's not racist...there are always those that claim racism whenever you disagree with positions or statements made by blacks.
That's a shame...and that's racism defined.
(argh) *privilege*
you would have a point if your statements regarding men of color and white privelege crossed party lines and were also applicable to conservatives. The rightwing's criticism of Obama, stuff like you reprinted is ridiculously unwarranted absolutely, was more because of his ideology than his skin color. Some loons on the right wanted to find anything to throw at him because they are who they are, petty idiots. If he was white they wouldn't have done anything different, I don't think.
That's why I completely avoided applying partisan labels in my post.
I avoid applying racial components as a motivation when it is not a clear case and when there are other identifable motivations in play that are just as reasonable. And I don't hang it on as an addendum either. it isn't fair, it only lessens real racial instances and it usually stifles conversation in its tracks when such a conversation could shed some light on the other identifiable motivations, and possibly get the person who leveled the charges to see it differently.
I avoid applying racial components as a motivation when it is not a clear case and when there are other identifable motivations in play that are just as reasonable.
Yet you *know* race is not playing any part whatsoever in the right's asault on the Obamas. How can you know this if you're not applying racial components?
alright, you're right. I shouldn't have been so sure. I will correct that and say I am not willing to ascribe a racial motivation but rather a partisan motivation.
I believe it is a clear case. If Obama was born to two white parents in Hawaii and produced the same birth certificate, the birth certificate zealots would have directed their zeal at some other trivial issue. Obama's Kenyan father was a driving factor, plain and simple.
it could also be a scare tactic by implying Obama is a Muslim, playing to people's fears on that angle as well. Whatever the motivation was, thankfully it went nowhere.
I'm surprized by your drive-by "no!". You usually have more to say.
I think Fox News stating that Michelle is the unmarried mother of Barack's illegitimate children draws on racial stereotypes.
racist? How ridiculous. It's partisan, it has nothing to do with her race.
James, you may not be aware, but "anger" has been attached to African Americans for years! If you recall, many times during the presidential campaign, reporters would say that one of the reasons that Obama remained to cool was he didn't want to get the label of "angry black man".
It goes as far back as slavery times, when a African Americans anger at their treatment caused them to explode in anger. It was used by slave owners as a reason to beat African Americans and keep them in chains. And that same stereotype carried on through Jim Crow days, as a excuse for White police officers to beat and kill African Americans due to some "uncontrollable anger".
It's the very reason that Republicans used "anger" against Michelle Obama. What is more frighting to White America than an "angry black man/woman"?
You'll find that "anger" and it's association with African Americans has been around a long time.
i am aware of the historical connotation of the word. I also corrected what I said here about my certainty of it not being about race. I am still not willing to ascribe that as a motivation when there is a clear partisan motivation in play as well. Some on the right threw just about anthing out there in hopes it would derail Obama's victory, and I still believe most of that went to hid ideology or just because they detest liberal politicians, I don't know. I don't lay out racial components unless there is no other viable alternative to criticize. For me, this does not rise to that level.
Then tell us, what is Michelle Obama supposedly "angry" about?
That's right, you don't know. It was a racist attack, plain and simple.
Sheez - first we have apologists for torture and now racism.
i am not surprised that you were too stupid to understand what I was saying so you sink to your typical sleaze level, by saying I am apologizing for racism. if you can't intelligently comment on something, at least leave your baseless accusations out of it. you're a fool.
You're the one that said it "does not rise to that level". Not me. You own it. You're the fool.
I said it doesn't rise to that level for me when there is a perfectly reasonable and viable alternate motivation, which is pure partisanship. I'm sorry if that is too complicated for you to figure out.
James, it seems that conservatives always go after Democratic candidates wives. And when going after the wives they use whatever they think will work.
In the case of Michelle Obama, they didn't tag her with "bull dyke lesbian", as they did Hillary Clinton. Instead, they choose to use an old stereotype associated with African Americans women....... Anger.
Here's a comment from Cal Thomas of Fox:
THOMAS: I want to pick up on something that Jane said about the angry black woman. Look at the image of angry black women on television. Politically you have Maxine Waters of California, liberal Democrat. She’s always angry every time she gets on television. Cynthia McKinney, another angry black woman. And who are the black women you see on the local news at night in cities all over the country. They’re usually angry about something. They’ve had a son who has been shot in a drive-by shooting. They are angry at Bush. So you don’t really have a profile of non-angry black women.
Conservatives and the nutty right wing talk radio wanted to paint Michelle Obama as culturally unpalatable. She was not the image of a First Lady. And what made her soooo unacceptable? Well, she's an "angry Black woman" or she's an "angry militant Black women".
Well documented...Pearlene, thanks.
Not only is "anger" attributed to historically oppressed minority groups (as if we don't have anything to be angry about anyway), Republicans also use it as a sexist term, aimed at trying to turn the general public against women "who don't know their place" (i.e. opinionated liberal women).
In Republicans' minds, anger is a few steps away from being insane. In this MM article, some chucklehead on The O'Reilly Factor refers to Mrs. Obama, who "looks like an angry woman" as a "stealth Hillary." And we can't forget that Hillary is one angry, conniving, murdering, emasculating witch. So yeah, the word "anger" is laden with socio-political meaning when uttered by Repugs.
"statements made by blacks"
You rarely hear such statements live and in person, do you?
Understood. I was disagreeing with the notion that Cons always seem to villify Democratic First Ladies. I think it's somewhat unique here.
Cripes, not the New Yorker thing again. They weren't suggesting she was radical at all, Brian, they were mocking the depiction made by the type of people that work for your network. Dishonest partisan hacks, in other words.
I know! They were making fun of HIM [people like Wilson]! The fact that they STILL don't get this would hilarious if it weren't so frightening!
The key word in your post was "mock". The cons can't grasp the concept. This is the same group that thinks that The Colbert Report is a conservative "opinion" show.
I love this study, showing that self-named conservatives believe that Colbert is really spouting his own beliefs, instead of satirizing right-wing commentators (specifically Bill O'Reilly)
Some reporting, they can't even report on their own reporting. Freakin' hypocrite blathering. Also note on above, I have no idea that there was a motivation in the accident Laura Bush was involved in a long time ago, but I doubt that it was done in anger.
I’m not so quick to credit Fock Snooze for Obama’s victory. I feel that far more credit is due to the trainwreck known as Sarah Palin. McCain foolishly banked on her sex appeal and it cost him.
well, FOX did sent a bunch of people to Alaska to interview her and post het all over the news as the messiah of the republican party. Imagine the expenses at the White House if she had gotten in and brought the whole family ( and the drama that follows ) with her . Just move on in, at taxpayers expense.
Well, it actually would have been the Naval Observatory, but I'm with ya.
IMO, McCain lost because he was a lousy candidate. The base didn't want a Maverick, they wanted a Conservative.
Why in the primaries did conservative Duncan Hunter consistently finish at the very bottom of a large field of flawed Republican presidential candidates?
I believe alot of R's thought the best chance of winning was to go for name recognition. McCain had a lot of time on, the POW angle, and not much baggage. And then, when he actually became the candidate, I believe many were reminded of McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, realized they screwed up and then didn't show. I liked Hunter, but never heard much of him except that he was the chair of the Armed Services committee until then. Either way, it wasn't Sarah that sank McCain. The R party is a complete trainwreck, IMO, and until they decide to stick to their message of small govt, less spending, etc instead of opting for what will sell, they're done.
I think you're right about the buyer's remorse. But one reason that Republicans supported McCain, in addition to the ones you mentioned, was his appeal to independents and moderates, and that was undercut by the Palin pick.
Of course, given the political climate, it would have been difficult for any Republican ticket to win last year, regardless of the candidates.
I couldn't agree with you more. The R's were done from the get go, with the war, economy, etc. They could have put Lincoln up last year and he would've been smoked. Bad coupleof years to an R. And the party itself is in a horrible spot (which they did to themselves) by not having a consistent message. Spector was right, the party has left him.
I love Michelle. She's such a classy person, and digging an organic garden at the White House just put the icing on the cake.
I should send her some sunflower seeds.
Hope the gardening trend continues. Even a tomato in a pot on a deck, with some chives, parsley, basil, etc. gets people into tasting real food. (But haven't had much luck with sunflowers in our climate)
Free tomato plants at McLendon's this weekend. I like to garden myself so i am heading out there this weekend.
Too bad big-agri business doesn't support the initiative...
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/1309/
Reading the letter from agribusiness about letting 'them' take care of our agricultural needs (in other words, forget organic gardening, all you little people) made me an angry white woman. Hopefull Michele tossed it into the round file where it belongs.