smh.com
It's only been a few days since both parties have officially joined the race, and already the media blitzkriegs have begun. Howard Kurtz discusses an article (available to subscribers only) in Washington Times-owned conservative mag Insight titled "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background." The piece leads with, "Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage? This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama," and cites unnamed sources reportedly "connected" to Clinton in saying that at the age of six, Obama attended a Muslim religious school in Indonesia, thus raising questions as to whether he'd been schooled in Islamic radicalism. The statement's obvious spin notwithstanding (as Kurtz noted on Reliable Sources, Obama's educational history was no secret; he specifically mentions attending the madrassa school in his book) it spawned a considerable media ruckus. As Kurtz points out, two separate programs on Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News picked up the story, both emphasizing Clinton 's involvement. John Gibson, host of Fox's "The Big Story," began a segment with the following: "Hillary Clinton reported to be already digging up the dirt on Barack Obama. The New York senator has reportedly outed Obama's madrassah past." Meanwhile, the New York Post, another of Murdoch's holdings, ran a piece with the headline: " 'OSAMA' MUD FLIES AT OBAMA," stating that the 2008 White House race had officially "turned dirty" as the two camps reportedly traded shots over the claims.
All this brouhaha, and not a single named source to affirm either that the claims are true or that the Clinton camp is in fact linked to them. Both sides are rightfully brushing off the Insight piece as "an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time," as Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told Kurtz. The irresponsibility and obvious slam tactics of running unsubstantiated allegations aside, the Islam-focused nature of the information, as well as offshoots like the Post's telling headline, follow right along with the semantic manipulation-through-association pattern already established by the media. With the alarming frequency of incidents like CNN's running 'Where's Obama?" over a picture of Osama Bin Laden, not to mention tireless viral repetitions and hash-outs of the Senator's inflammatory middle name, it's been clear for weeks that a set formula exists for bashing the popular Democrat, and neither public apologies by the media nor Obama's official candidacy declaration are chasing it away. The only question remains, how much longer will conservative pundits and agenda-pushing publications keep this whole subtle smear tactic going before we end up with headlines like: "Clinton Camp Announces Concern That Phrase 'Illinois Senator' Can Be Rearranged To Read 'I Señor Stalin' (Give Or Take A Few Letters)?"
