Is The New York Times Trying To Morph Obama Into Candidate Gore?

How? By suggesting Obama is becoming something of a chameleon who reinvents himself depending on the political setting. The press spent most of 2000 depicting candidate Gore as somebody who was so unsure of his own political skin that he was constantly 'reinventing' himself.

Basically, that Gore was a phony.

Now check out the headline to the Times' article on the press conference: "In a Volatile Time, Obama Strikes a New Tone." See, it's a new tone; a new approach. It's a new, different Obama. The Times leans heavily on that approach in the lead:

For just under an hour on Tuesday night, Americans saw not the fiery and inspirational speaker who riveted the nation in his address to Congress last month, or the conversational president who warmly engaged Americans in talks across the country, or even the jaunty and jokey president who turned up on Jay Leno.

Instead, according to the daily, what we got "was the professor in chief."

Note how the Times stressed that Obama last night was completely different than the Obama who addressed Congress just one month ago. Back then Obama was a "fiery and inspirational speaker." The Times considers this to be newsworthy.

First of all, it seems self-evident that presidents communicate differently when addressing the nation with a prepared speech before Congress (or on a TV talk show), than they do when answering questions extemporaneously at a press conference. Second, it seems self-evident that there's nothing wrong with presidents communicating differently in different situations. But the Times seems to think it's a big deal Obama acted one way at the press conference and another way in his Congressional debate. That Obama wasn't fiery.

But was Obama really "fiery" when he addressed Congress in February? That's not how we remember his rather somber address to the nation. So we went back and read the newspaper's next-day article about Obama's speech (Headline: "Amid Gloom, Obama Pledges Recovery"). And guess what, according to the Times, Obama wasn't "fiery," or anything even approaching that.

It's only now, when trying to hype the idea that Obama is changing his tone (reinventing himself?), that the Times retroactively claims Obama was "fiery" in February and professorial in March.

Crossposted at County Fair, a Media Matters for America blog.

Comments

[katmeyster]

Obama is Obama. People of intelligence can change their tone depending on the circumstances -- they are multi-faceted, complex people who have a repertoire of relevant approaches. People without subtlety of thought can only think, act, and speak in one tone, and they can't understand anything else; they ignorantly believe that a change in tone is not authentic. I guess we are used to the one-trick cowboy.

[WritusMaximus]

I agree. One can change his/her mind, and therefore not follow up on campaign promises. Yup, everybody does it, so Obama is no different. Heck, silence is also change. You no longer hear Obama rant against companies that shift jobs overseas while getting gov moolah. It's still a problem, so let's hope our prez hasn't changed his mind/"tone" about companies outsourcing jobs overseas.

[MAUIMONKEY]

Well, that's just stupid. You say Obama's not folowing up on campaign promises, I say bullcrap. He's fixing the economy already, 60 something days into his first term. He's developing plans for foreign policy, healthcare, and repairing our crumbling infrastructure. Everybody who voted for him seems to be satisfied, and several people that voted for McGrampa seem to agee. His numbers are higher than the percentage that elected him.
So unless you are talking about the silly religion of bipartisanship, which the media and GOP only discovered on Jan 20, 2009. I'd say you are either wrong or a conservative, or both.
BTW, the news networks are saying today that public opinion is rising as more people see that Obama is fixing things for people who work for a living.