Hype Busters at Mother Jones Bring the Noise
Is the concept really so hard for the editors of Mother Jones to grasp? Hype-busting and the exercise of hype are very closely related things; one may easily turn into the other if you're not careful, in the same way that playing the race card and accusations of playing the race card bring on the same dynamic.
Mother Jones is currently running a feature called The Audacity of Hype? It offer us the views of 24 writers, thinkers and historians on a question the editors find important:
Is Barack Obama exaggerating when he compares his campaign to the great progressive moments in US history?
There's no quote from Obama comparing his campaign to the great progressive moments in American history. There's no link to a text where he says that. This seemed odd for 2008; by now, the ethic of the link is reasonably well known among those who publish online. I asked the people in my Twitter feed, "If you're editing this for Mother Jones, do you run the feature without a quote or link where Obama offers the comparison?" Russ Walker, formerly an editor at washingtonpost.com, said, "Absolutely not."
In the email I got from David Corn as he pushed out to his list a promo for the Mother Jones feature, it says, "Prominent thinkers and writers ponder Obama and his claim that his campaign is comparable to the great progressive movements in U.S. history." Obama really said something like that? He said his campaign is a "movement" comparable to, say, the civil rights movement, or to second wave feminism, or to the labor movement after the industrial revolution? If so, I had missed it. So had Dan Kennedy. ("Let's have the precise language.")
Now I've heard Obama say, "this is our moment, this is our time." So have you. But that's different from a truth claim like, "my campaign is a movement comparable to the great progressive movements in history." My doubts were increased by the phrase: The Audacity of Hype. This doubles the editors' bet. They're not only suggesting he made the claim, they're saying it's been repeated often enough to be an audacious form of self-promotion. They're provoking Pat Buchanan and giving him a forum to say things like...
It is absurd to argue that the nomination or an election of Barack Obama would be as important a historical event as the liberation of 3 million slaves after the bloodiest war in American history, that took 600,000 lives and set the South back a century.
Well, yeah, it would be absurd, if anyone had argued that. Buchanan is clowning, and Mother Jones is helping him. Why? From what I know of the contemporary attack machine, any statement from the candidate himself that compared Obama '08 to the great movements for freedom and justice in our history would have been quite the controversy, what with the McCain camp already mocking his messiah complex and calling him "The One." Why would Mother Jones, a progressive magazine, accuse Obama of the same thing McCain is attacking him for?
It didn't make a lot of sense, especially without a quote, link, or reference point. So I wrote to David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, asking him: where did Obama make this claim? What were you guys talking about? He kindly sent me an excerpt from a speech given by Obama. He said it should have been part of the introduction to the published forum, but somehow wasn't. (Okaaay... so you're going to fix that, right?)
This is what Mother Jones editors sent to the participants along with the question, "Is Barack Obama exaggerating when he compares his campaign to the great progressive moments in US history?" I present it as a public service. See if you can find the point where that particular comparison is made. I couldn't, but I am just one reader.
Nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened unless somebody, somewhere is willing to hope. Somebody is willing to stand up. Somebody who is willing to stand up when they are told "No you can't" and instead they say, "Yes we can."
That's how this country was founded. A group of patriots declaring independence against a mighty British empire--nobody gave them a chance--but they said, "Yes we can." That's how slaves and abolitionists resisted that wicked system, and how a new president charted a course to ensure we would not remain half slave and half free.That's how the greatest generation--my grandfather fighting in Patton's Army, my grandmother staying at home with a baby and still working on a Bomber assembly line--how that greatest generation overcame Hitler and fascism, and also lifted themselves up out of a Great Depression.
That's how pioneers went West when people told them it was dangerous, they said, "Yes we can." That's how immigrants traveled from distant shores when people said their fates would be uncertain, "Yes we can." That's how women won the right to vote, how workers won the right to organize, how young people like you traveled down South to march and sit in and go to jail, and some were beaten and some died for freedom's cause. That's what hope is. That's what hope is.
That's what hope is. That moment when we shed our fears and our doubts. When we don't settle for what the cynics tell us we have to accept. Because cynicism is a sorry sort of wisdom. When we instead join arm in arm and decide we are going to remake this country, block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state. That's what hope is.
There's a moment in the life of every generation, when that spirit has to come through if we are to make our mark on history. And this is our moment. This is our time.
Okay, Huff Posters: Which comes closest to your view?
1.) Sure enough, Obama in this excerpt "compares his campaign to the great progressive moments in US history" and Mother Jones caught him at it, puncturing the Obama hype. Good for them!
2.) No, Obama does not "claim that his campaign is comparable to the great progressive movements in U.S. history." Not even close. Mother Jones is engaging in the kind of audacious hype it claims to be opposing. Bad move.
3.) It doesn't matter whether Obama himself actually said anything like that because his supporters believe his campaign is a movement of transcendent historical importance, and that's what Mother Jones really meant, it's just that the editors phrased it badly, attributing to the candidate claims that have been made by others about him.
My vote is for 2.) Yours? And if you have a better text where the claim is made that "Barack Obama for president" is like the great social movements of the past, send it along. (This speech to the NAACP might have had that language in it, but doesn't.)
I've been around the block before on an issue like this. (""Mother Jones invites you to question if the Politics 2.0 revolution really lives up to its hype.") I think the editors should correct their mistake, which was to publish this feature without any reference point or link. That would be "smart, fearless journalism," circa World Wide Web. They should add that Obama didn't explicitly make the claims they are accusing him of making, unless they have a passage where he does.
I'll update you if anything happens.
UPDATE (Aug. 20, 10:00 pm)
The editor of Mother Jones replies and the magazine adjusts its feature online, adding the text of the speech that participants were reacting to. That corrects for part of what's wrong with it.
Dan Kennedy, The audacity of Mother Jones. "I think the truth is #2 plus a strong dose of #3, along with at least a slight whiff of #1.... It's not so much that MoJo is completely wrong; it's that the magazine is being reductionist and stupid. Why?"
At the MoJo blog, Jonathan Stein posts Obama's Historical Comparisons, with more explanation. "Obama does indeed put himself in a historical context alongside the great progressive movements of the last century," he says. "Do I personally think that Obama sees his candidacy as on par with the civil rights movement or Revolutionary War soldiers? No." Hmmm. But it's okay for the magazine to suggest it?
CJR's Campaign Desk read it. Mother Jones's Obama feature falls flat.
Kennedy points to this earlier observation by Jonathan Stein at the MoJo blog, back in February. Barack Obama's Messiah Complex. Definitely worth reading.
Does this post play unhelpfully into the pernicious and growing Obamaism-as-cult meme that we'll likely see repeated over and over by the right wing if Obama gets the nomination? It does. Sorry. But Obama's rhetoric makes an undeniable suggestion: that his election, not an eight-year administration that successfully implements his vision for America, would represent a moment in America of the grandest, most transformative kind. And that's a bit much.
Follow Jay Rosen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I used to subscribe to MJ in college and still would occasionally pick up a copy on the newstand. Thanks. As far as I am concerned, I will never touch another issue.
This nominee endorsed Lieberman, voted for Condi Rice, is a born-again Christian with a record of avoiding most controversial abortion votes; supports oil drilling; voted for Cheney's energy bill; voted to suppress class action litigation against corporations;voted to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates above 30% (!); regular secret meetings with most extreme religious right leaders; no meetings with socialists and communist; consults with Condi Rice on matters of policy; Brzezinski, the most right wing of Dem politicians is his foreign policy adviser.
A progressive?.... right..... I mean on the right....
"Is Barack Obama exaggerating when he compares his campaign to the great progressive moments in US history?"
YES. Emphatically. It amounts to nothing less than hijack of progressive themes and narrative in service of centrist conservative religious values this nominee represents.
Mr. Rosen misses the point and loses himself in introspective semantics. It is grossly inadequate analysis to say that because Obama never explicitly said that his campaign was a great progressive movement then he never meant to say it.
Obama clearly implies that his campaign is a great progressive moment in American history. And he clearly means to imply what he implied. So let MJ do a piece about it. Sheesh.
Yes, Obama's campaign is progressive, historical compared to the Republican PLAN to
continue WAR PROFITEER ECONOMY that enriches greedy corrupt corporations with middle income Americans' tax money while robbing the same middle class Americans.
Who needs THAT ALL OVER AGAIN? That's MCCAIN.
NO MORE REPUBLICAN LIES AND CORRUPTION, NO THANKS!
Use COMMON SENSE and not hysterical emotions.
VOTE for Obama.
Grossly inadequate because Obama never said it, and because he never said it, he must have meant to say it. And, even though Obama never said it, he clearly means to imply what he implied about what he never said.
Now, clearly, the only thing grossly inadequate is your logic.
Erik, you INFER that Obama implies his campaign is a great progressive movement.
He not only did NOT say or imply such a thing; he definitely said something else, which betrays a certain bias in your characterization. Try reading it without reaching a conclusion beforehand! Can you do it? Doubtful.
Jay, I think that white racism and "white racism-lite" have tentacles that reach into every nook and cranny of this society and that the people at Mother Jones, (white-ish) yuppie elites that they are, have an unconscious fear that somehow their slick and trendy turf will somehow be diminished or exposed if African-Americans are truly freed from their glass ceiling in this country, and that the generous amount of authenticity and intelligence that Obama conveys, and that of the educated class of African-Americans in general, could somehow begin to expose the superficiality and superiority complex of the magazine and its innate patronizing white paternalism. It's almost like jealousy as well.
So, to summarize, Mother Jones magazine is (white-ish) people not aware that they are at least two to three generations away from being fairly racism-free, so don't know they need to examine their own ulterior sub/unconscious motives for doing what they do. They don't realize they're a lot closer to O'Reilly and Limbaugh on the spectrum of colorblindness than they are to, say, white people who actually have black family members and close friends.
#2, and some of #3 ... same reasons as mentioned below. I do think it is a very important time in our nations history ... in our nations "story" ... it is a time when we have little "time" to save ourselves. If McCain is elected we are lost. Period.
I don't suppose we might actually wait and see whether this turns out to be an important progressive moment? (That also applies to whether or not the John Edwards scandal turns out to be a "tsunami.")
I call this a clear #2. Here's why:
The excerpt cited COULD refer to a great revolutionary moment, but more importantly it COULD just as easily refer to a defining moment in anyone's ordinary life.
The same concepts could apply, for example, to a divorced person in their fifties whose kids have left home and who hasn't been in the work force for fifty years, saying YES I CAN, and taking on a job and making things happen.
That's the point, it could encompass a grand moment in history, and it can equally apply to a hundred million little moments we all have and the rest of the world will never hear about.
It could even apply to a black man being told he could never be president, so don't even bother trying.
I think it’s a large dose of number three. Obama may not have used those words but they seem appropriate to the zeitgeist of the campaign. You probably could say that about any campaign, supporters always feel they are on a mission to save the country from the evil other side.
All this seems rather silly given the grave world situation and the importance of the Presidential Election. Are there not important issues to be explored?
In the scheme of things, the election is still a long time away.
I support Obama and have for many months now. But if you want a response to the way you have framed this issue, then I have to say it's number one. Obama may not have stated the importance of this time in American history as explicitly as you would like, but the subtext is clearly there. And frankly, I do think we are at so critical a juncture in our history that Obama's election would be a watershed--if he loses, I think the U.S. is lost forever.
WHAT great progressive moments are you referring to? The right has kicked our asses up the front and down the back for the last 20 years. Even Bill Clinton had to turn his back on the left in order to govern. I'm a devoted moderate democrat and I can see how the ultra lefties will make us blow this thing. Funny how the right is falling in line with McCain, even though they hate his guts. Not us though. We won't be happy until we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama, who's not even a progressive, by the way, is the only horse we've got in the race. If he loses, this country is doomed to more war, potential oil spills off our coasts, land grabs by the oil companies, overturning of Roe v. Wade, more tax cuts for rich people, and 4 more years of Bush politics. All paid for by the Chinese.
Pat Buchanan? Really?
We are the ones we've been waiting for ...LOL stole it from a book title
In two oh oh two I had an e-mail correspondence with David Corn, about the possibility of the previous fall's events having been an inside job.
Corn wrote this was impossible, because "if it ever came out, Bush would be the most hated president in American history,"
That's the level of intellect you're dealing with at MJ.
The effect of having a Black man win the White House would itself be a major revolution. But considering the last 8 years under the Bush regime, an Obama Presidency would undoubtedly be a huge, game-changing, seismic socio-political event.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
