The Media is Misframing Obama

Here we go again. Much of the progressive media is playing by what it considers fair rules, while the conservative media is pulling out all the stops in attacking Obama. Responding to the whining from the McCain campaign, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other such print media went to great length to give equal space and attention to McCain during Obama's Middle East and Europe tour -- although McCain produced no real news. Moreover, a good part of the text on Obama's very successful journey was dedicated to raising questions about his appearances and attributing motives.

McCain dared Obama to make the tour overseas, hoping it would highlight his lack of experience. The media was just salivating to find some gaffe. When he made none, the media first let its disappointment show, making the headlines for its report on the historical visit to Iraq "For Obama, First Step Is Not a Misstep," (the New York Times, July 22, 2008). It then cast new doubt on his series of alliance building visits, pronouncing -- without any evidence -- that the public may view Obama as presumptuous for looking presidential! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Meanwhile the conservative press is not preoccupied with providing balanced reporting on Obama. Richard Allen in theWall Street Journal writes "Obama's Experience Doesn't Match Up." In theWeekly Standard Peter Wehner writes "Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong." And "Democrats, then, have compounded their initial bad judgment about the surge with reckless obstinacy."

Worst of all, the progressive media wove into the reporting text, which supposedly gave just the facts fit to print, an attribution of motives. The most common line was that Obama was on the trip to "burnish his credentials," to "reassure skeptical voters about his ability to function as commander in chief," and "to counter charges that he lacks foreign policy experience." No staffer was quoted, no memo cited, no email uncovered that showed that this was indeed the overriding goal of the trip. One may say that this was "obviously" the case, that this is what motivates all politicians. If this were true, it is hardly news. No need for reporters to travel ten thousands of miles to report that politicians act, well, politically,

Desperate to find some fault, to provide for "balanced reporting" on a series of events that was clearly a major "one-sided" success, the media complained that Obama's speech in Berlin lacked specifics! "He was vague on crucial issues of trade, defense and foreign policy that currently divide Washington from Europe," and "there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific." Note that neither Reagan nor Kennedy provided wonkish policy lectures in Berlin during their historical speeches. And sure, it would have been truly inappropriate for Obama to lay out the details of how many troops Afghanistan needs, or what is to be done about Russia's control of the energy Europe needs, before he moves into the White House, has access to the needed intelligence and the staff work provided by the federal agencies. Obama showed that he could appeal to Europeans, restore American goodwill in the world, rebuild American alliances, and work with our allies in the Middle East. It is time for three cheers; leave the catcalls for when he does make a serious mistake.

Also note that presidential candidates, like all human beings, have multiple motives for what they do. Obama surely cares about the issues at hand, such as the fact that the Bush war in Iraq turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists, while their old haven in Afghanistan is falling back into the hands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He surely is interested in learning, first hand, what people like General Petraeus and President Karzai have to say. And he may well also wish to respond to McCain's dare. If the media is going to enter into three penny psychoanalysis, why reveal only selfish motives and not point to the very wholesome ones?

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com email: [e-mail]

Comments

[murphysgirl]

This is spot on!!

[renatam]

Barack knows as an African-American his performance must be nearly perfect in order to have equal treatment by our historically biased, Constitutionally-protected Press. Even then, to be "fair" to John McCain (or Hillary Clinton), the media will inflate anything he does into a "gaffe" -- in a through-the-looking-glass experience most African-Americans (and women of the 'Mad Men' era) know only too well.

So far, he has been up to the task. Just think about what it takes to maintain this standard for TWO YEARS -- while his competitors can "gaffe" away and be favorably edited (CBS) as John McCain has been. How many doctors, scientists, nurses, teachers, tech experts have fallen through the cracks of our collective benefit -- because they could not maintain this kind of standard of excellence 24/7, for years -- just for equal treatment? Who really has affirmative action, here? Methinks, John McCain and the men of his era is the answer and these hypocrites well know it.

Just think, MSNBC will have to reframe their entertainment programming roster to reflect "new' imagery of African-Americans that goes beyond LOCKUP!

[eden4barack08]

Thank you for putting it so well Professor. Now, any suggestions on how we can stop this? Any way to let the media know that what they're doing is not professional?

[MiddleRoadLiberal]

Achtung Media: For the last time, if Obama doesn't screw up or make any gaffe and you only report good news because there is only good news involving his campaign, that isn't bias. You don't have to make crap up--especially the patented idle speculation you're known for. When McCain makes gaffe after gaffe and reversal after reversal, don't feel afraid to cover each one. It's not bias, it's covering the news. Just because, so far, Obama is running a flawless campaign and McCain is a three-legged dog doesn't mean you have to cut off Obama's leg yourself.

[lennix]

man the msm sucks all of them but olberman and maddow

[bryansmith]

Thank You!

meanwhile, the "progressive media" was reporting about their own bias. So, even though the stories went out of their way to "balance" the story back in McCain's direction, the collective impression of viewers is that even those stories were biased towards Obama - imagine what they think the truth is is those fluffy stories were Obama-biased.

The whole thing stinks if you ask me. McCain gets the most insane crap. Obama could never slip up on his geography or screw up when talking about ethnic factions. The media would have a field-day!

[likeicare]

The media is just being played by the Neocon bullies at Fox.

Instead of doing their job -- reflecting reality -- they're being suckered into the oldest schoolyard bullying tactic in the world: letting someone make up the test, then calling them out to be graded on it.

But, of course, challenging the schoolyard bully (Fox) would require brains and balls -- neither one of which the media slugs seem to have.

[luvangelHussein330]

Now lets all scream this article from the roof tops!! The best revenge is suceeding there by making the nay-sayers look ridiculous. The MSM and the GOP should be ashamed of themselves for looking like jilted teenagers at a highschool dance.

[blueshield]

Prof Etziani, thanks for chiseling out the facts of the matter clearly. Quite well put, and I'd given up on anyone doing what you've done.

Now, what do you imagine might be done to correct this sorry state of affairs? The 'fourth estate' has always been considered a pillar of democracy, and it's very conspicuous absence doesn't bode well.

[Jezreel]

Ditto Blueshield.

[Mitchell4A]

One of the places that that many in the MSM have let the public down is by creating a false narrative about how far ahead Obama is supposed to be in the polls by now. This is nonsense. Obama is doing just fine at this stage of the game.

"Media Hype and Election Polls (or the sky is falling)"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

[julescator]

Our MSM is an embarrassment. These are people of average IQs who knew someone to get the job. They don't have a clue about journalism. They have become gossip shows. I watch them for comedy then get the real news from the BBC or the web. Actually Al-Jezeera does a better job that they do.

[YunekFlava]

It's all about entertainment. And that's all. Who has the most engaging and believable personality.

[ThePeacemakers]

And if it had been Hillary with the nomination...
Same thing...
A Hillary presidency would have brought more scrutiny than the Bush Admin. crimes.
But we can't say "sexism", can we?

[missette]

Mr. Etzioni:
The media may be misframing Obama, but you're framing the media very well. The rise of Obama is one of the great stories of our time (and I'm old enough to know), and the media's more intent on hearing itself talk and creating false drama. Reporters continually ask the candidates questions that begin: "Some people say..." as if, unlike a defendent in court, they should be required to respond to uncited charges. When Obama won the nomination I gave up on the MSM and thankfully came across BBC America News which covered the story in the full context of the Civil Rights movement, in addition to providing a world perspective of the nomination. That was journalism. What we are being fed is flimsy speculation and a fear of telling the truth about Obama's campaign if it by contrast sheds an unflattering light on McCain's.

[YunekFlava]

This is called fast food for your brain, by the way, really great comments. Here, here.

[CaptainObvious]

Well, at least we'll have an adversarial press again after Obama is inaugurated. Hopefully, the lop-sided coverage he'll be receiving will make him more sympathetic to stricter media ownership regulations.

[sfbayani]

You are very right!
MSM, including some progressive media, just went into the bulls
when they were criticized for being biased for Senator Obama.
So, in the context of being "critical" or "fair" to the other candidate,
they all fell in line of the McBush's line of thinking.
Yea, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But the electorate is seeing it differently!