Why Are So Many Bigshot Political Reporters Apologizing Now?

Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin joined a small, yet growing club this week, when he issued an apology for saying former Presidential candidate John Edwards considered Barack Obama "kind of a pussy" on a satellite radio talk show.

Halperin's words: "In a live radio interview this week, I used a word I shouldn't have. The fact that I was conveying other people's words is no excuse for my lapse in judgment."

When I first heard about this exchange yesterday, I wondered about the journalism end of it. If Halperin heard Edwards call Obama the p-word, shouldn't he have reported it in Time? If Edwards said the word to him off the record, why did Halperin recount the exchange in public?

And if Edwards didn't use the p-word, why did Halperin tell the story to make it look as if he had -- putting the worst sort of profanity in the mouth of a guy he presumably is still covering?

But it struck me this morning, after reading the apology, that there is more going on here. The rules have changed a bit for political reporters, especially those with high profiles, and some players haven't realized it yet.

Already, MSNBC anchors Chris Matthews and David Shuster have had to apologize publicly for using language that was particularly insulting to women on their shows. Matthews basically said Clinton's career as an elected official came courtesy of sympathy generated by her husband's philandering and Shuster wondered if daughter Chelsea was being "pimped out" by her parents in making calls to celebrities and superdelegates.

In all three instances, you have people making boneheaded statements using inappropriate language. On one level, all these guys seemed to forget that they weren't bellied up to the bar with their fellow reporters after a deadline, but speaking to national audiences on professional broadcasts.

But beyond that, the presence of a black man and woman as important presidential candidates is forcing these guys to rethink how they talk about politics. And some of them are failing miserably.

Another big sign: How most media outlets talk about race. Beyond making predictions and observations about how black and white people are voting, I haven't seen much talk about race -- which is surprising for a contest which could produce America's first black president.

Instead, the media and political insiders seem to be playing a game of hot potato -- each side is waiting for the other to talk about race issues in a way which gives them license to speak, too. The most recent example of this odd dynamic was Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's comments to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's editorial board talking down the possibility of the state's voters supporting Obama.

My pal and PG edit board member Tony Norman quotes Rendell saying: "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

Leave aside that he's comparing the candidacy of a black Republican football star who had never held public office to a sitting Democratic Senator who has already won a number of tough primary battles. Rendell later complained on Matthews' show Hardball that it was the media which was obsessed with race and that nothing he said would have helped Clinton, anyway.

Riiight. So far, Obama has avoided race talk by confounding assumptions. Think he can't get white votes? Then he'll win primaries in Idaho, North Dakota and Connecticut. Think he's not black enough? Then he'll win 80 percent of the black vote in South Carolina (frankly, I think a lot of black people just wanted to see whether he had a serious chance. Once he won Iowa, they were ready to line up).

But I do think that one question I asked in a story last year has barely been addressed: how will black people feel if Obama doesn't champion black issues in ways they expect? And that's partially because the mostly-white press corps covering the campaigns can't figure out how to ask the question without getting criticized.

I took some criticism of my own after writing a blog post about the lack of diversity among those covering the election. Because I cited MSNBC, I heard from folks at NBC News including Keith Olbermann, who felt I was being unfair by not noting all the female and black correspondents and guest pundits they had on air.

Fair enough. But the anchors are the focus of most political coverage, especially on cable TV. They direct the conversation, they highlight subjects or ignore them, they choose the guests and set context and they ultimately serve as the voice of the channel.

On MSNBC, that list of election night anchors includes Olbermann, Matthews, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Joe Scarborough and Tim Russert. That seems to echo MSNBC's general lineup, in which every show hosted by a name anchor is a white male: Tucker Carlson, Dan Abrams, Matthews, Olbermann and Scarborough.

On CNN, the evening lineup is Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Larry King and Anderson Cooper, though NBC expatriot Campbell Brown has an 8 p.m. show coming at some point. On Fox the afternoon and evening anchor crew is Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, Brit Hume, Hannity and Colmes and Bill O'Reilly, with Greta Van Susteren adding a little gender diversity at least.

But if we do wind up welcoming a President Obama or Clinton, all these folks will have to learn a new way of talking about a great many things. I'm starting to think that the candidates aren't the only people facing some serious tests this election season.

Follow Eric Deggans on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Deggans

Comments

[AZDemocrat500]

This article made some interesting points. I do not see the need to pick apart minor details, the substance is what counts. We need more objective articles like this on this biased site.

[jpshotwheels]

Your article is so in tune but frankly I get tired of people getting on Chris Matthews, David Schuster, and some of the others being critisized for their comments. There is attack mode going on here in this Country against MSNBC, because they contantly are critisizing Fox and CNN.

Then we have Keith Obermann that has come straight out and rightfully critisized the Bush Administration. He is the only one that does it, and we love it, because it is truth. David Schuster is one the best reporters on MSNBC and Keith Obermann is one of most dignified Commentators I have seen in a long time.

We have the Right Wing Hosts that are continuously using improper and disgusting language, such as Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Coulter, and nothing is ever said or done about any of them. The things that come out of their mouths I couldn't even list because there is not enough room here. These people should be taken off the air period, they don't report, they just fight and argue on the airwaves, spreading messages of hate and disrespect. Yet people attack MSNBC.

What have we become?????

[robotfog]

"Why Are So Many Bigshot Political Reporters Apologizing Now?"

because they lack talent, courage, skills, good taste, guts, command of the english language, spines, talent, courage, skills, good taste, guts, command of the english language, spines, talent, courage, skills, good taste, guts, command of the english language, spines,...

[larmarch5]

Hey, turn off MSNBC if you don't like their low standards and lack of substance. Tune in to NPR and PBS; they even have diversity! As long as "pricks" get a pass, they'll continue to be "pricks." I must say my opinions of Russert and Olbermann have lowered due to their association and apparant approval of Matthews' crudeness toward women. News alert: you can be supportive of Barack Obama, or any other male candidate, without using sexually disparaging language about women/Hillary. It didn't work for Budweiser and it doesn't work in journalism. Even godaddy.com cleaned up their ads.

[PresidentLindsay]

NBC expatriot Campbell Brown...

Eric, the word is expatriate. Patria meaning native land (derived from Pater [father] so more literally "fatherland") , ex obviously meaning "from."

Your spellchecker is your friend.

[rboylern]

Just a note - I was unaware that a black woman is a candidate for the Presidency. Are we now also electing spouses? How come their names aren't on the ticket.

[westview]

The green party has Cynthia McKinney, a black woman, running in the primaries against Nadar for the top spot on their ticket.

[LewisWalsh]

You know exact what Eric Deggans meant, PresidentLinsay and rboylern. No one lost out because of the grammatical errors. This is a blog, not a college paper.

It is thoughtful substance that is most important. I caught the errors too, but it is logic that I am concerned with. I'm sure his friends and colleagues have advised him of the errors long before you read his piece, for which, I'm sure he was grateful. Humiliating someone so publicly indicates a lack of class.

Let he who has never committed a language error cast the first stone.

[Bettysdad]

Has anyone heard of a right-wing nutjob apologizing for their on-the-air remarks?

[JaseAllen]

Rush Limbaugh comes to mind. He issued an apology when he was finally exposed as a drug addict after many years of railing against poor drug addicts. His tune sure changed when it was /his/ pill popping head on the chopping block!

[YankeeCanuck]

They have a monumental reason to apologize. They failed completely to cover the issues in this election season, beginning last year. They ignored the issues effectively eliminating the most qualified candidates on the Democratic side. It was all horse race from the beginning-- to discuss the issues would have involved research, and some knowledge. THey are not journalists, but entertainers.
So , since they irresponsibly made it simply about a horse race,this one's teeth, that one's mane, the other's whinny, they have exposed themselves for what they are. Not journalists, not even good entertainers, just horses' asses.
Perhaps this is why supporters of candidates are feeling so much (misdirected)anger.

[robotfog]

they've failed to cover issues for at least the past 15 years. In my opinion.

[richw23]

I guess I'm getting cranky as I get old, but your lineup of anchors is very depressing. I'll be watching whatever the Daily Show comes up with - they could anchor with Larry Wiltmire and Samantha Bee.

I'll get all the additional commentary I want from Colbert, Craig Ferguson, and Conan O'Brien - and hopefully from South Park, maybe Token can anchor.

It's sad when you the best way to get the real sense of the news through comedy.

[mheister]

Eric -

Okay, it's not just you, but it's the entire mainstream media from what I've seen, but -

Barack Obama has one white parent and one black parent. Why does anyone persist in insisting on classifying based on race???

When I taught middle school I had to administer a standardized test. For data collection purposes, the test asked the students who indicate ethnicity. When they questioned me about how to fill out this box, I said to indicate the group they most closely identify with. A number of students - and rightfully so - complained they couldn't identify with only one group. And if you knew their family backgrounds, you'd know they were being honest and sincere. Two girls approached me to show me they each marked the box opposite to what you'd think by looking at them, and they were quite proud they were flouting the system. Part of me was proud of them too.

What so many journalists and talking heads and commentators and so-called experts seem to miss about Obama is that a generation of young people identifies with him because his upbringing looks like theirs - multicultural, non-traditional (he was raised by a single parent for at least part of his youth), and not feeling particularly mired in the politics of racial classification because they feel like their background transcends race. And correctly so.

We all should re-evaluate where we're coming from on the issue of race. The idea of classifying a person as "black" based on having a single drop of black blood has its roots in the most racist of institutions, American slavery. Isn't continuing to do this only perpetuating the racism of that institution???

You want to turn this whole thing on its ear? Start claiming Obama is white every other time you refer to him because he has a white parent. Fifty percent white is white. Fifty percent black is black. Why is anyone classifying him as one or the other and denying half his heritage?

[Deggans]

the reason I and many other journalists refer to Obama as a black or african american man is because that is how he self-identifies. Put simply, that's what he wants to be called.

So we're just calling him what he wants to be called. i think it would be presumptuous for journalists to insist on calling him something different.

[robotfog]

I just call him the "man" as opposed to the "woman". When there were several men, I just referred to him as "the tall guy".

[mheister]

I read the Post piece about Matthews' comments. He uses colorful speech, and his listeners are intelligent and sophisticated enough to listen and understand in context.

Can you imagine Shakespeare dealing with this type of critique? "What do you mean, 'My naked weapon is out.'? Why don't any of your female characters ever have their naked weapons out? We can brandish naked weapons too. You owe us an apology."

I understand the desire on the part of feminists to decry the use of sexist speech, but Steinem's complaints only reinforce jokes like this one:

How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
THAT'S NOT FUNNY.

[realistic2008]

This season you say, I beg to disagree, TV's teleprompt readers have been doing nothing else than gymnastics with their minds and mouths for for quite some time and for the sole purpose of bringing the ratins up. They are false prophets and pompous, arrogant narcissists with minor exceptions.

[mheister]

Grammar alert:

"But beyond that, the presence of a black man and woman" grammatically tells me that Senator Hillary Clinton is a black woman.

Now Bill Clinton may have been the first black president, but does she get melanin preference by association???

[TellitLikeItIs]

I ran across this quote recently: "I am a candidate for the presidency of the United States. I make that statement proudly, in the full knowledge that, as a black person and as a female person, I do not have a chance of actually gaining that office in this election year. I make that statement seriously, knowing that my candidacy itself can change the face and future of American politics--- that it will be important to the needs and hopes of every one of you---even though, in the conventional sense, I will not win." -Rep. Shirley Chisholm, June 4, 1972.

Although there are some people who will never change, I think that we are seeing that some things have changed in the past 35 years. Thanks to all the courageous women and men who've paved the way.

[inkadinka]

he was just trying to be HIP by saying the pimp stuff. It is comonly used by most kids today as evidenced by "pimp my ride" the tv show.
It back fired on him.
plus it is not accepted yet by most adults and he shoudl ahve known that.

[Hawise]

If he had been using it in a 'hip' way then he would have said that Chelsea was being pimped out- in reference to her particularly nice frock that day.

Instead he used the still and always pejorative- Hillary is pimping out Chelsea.

So either he is such a primordial troglodyte that he is incapable of simple grammar and therefore should be fired for basic incompetence or he was foulminded and should be suspended until he can finish washing his mouth out with soap. Which one, I wonder, which one?