|
||
The Media, Obama, Iraq
Why have the media been so reluctant to acknowledge Iraqi PM Maliki's all-but endorsement of Obama's Iraq plans? Only now, after three days of faux-controversy, are they getting it right.
There's the standard left-blogosphere explanation, which I think is pretty accurate: the media grant more credibility to Republicans in general and John McCain in particular on matters of foreign policy and terrorism. Obama's margin for error on these things with the press is razor-thin. McCain, meanwhile, can get basic world geography wrong and still get a pass. (For the record, I don't think McCain's verbal miscues merit a feeding frenzy -- nor should Obama's.)
This double standard is a deeply ingrained habit. It dates in its current form back to the 1980s, but really all the way back to Nixon. In the minds of the media, the principal political legacy of Nixon and Reagan, and to a lesser extent Bush 41 (who lost due to a sour economy), is the iron linkage between Republicans, an attitude of American "strength," a policy of interventionism abroad, and victory at the ballot box.
But during the past eight years, the practice of projecting "strength" in foreign policy changed. Instead of a single, rather amorphous feature of the president's foreign policy, "attitude" became nearly the whole damn thing.
Meanwhile, the quality of our foreign policy as policy -- that is, government decisions taken with some intelligible long-term strategy in mind, some understanding of the world, and some interagency coordination -- declined precipitously. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 (and while we're at it, Ford, Carter, and Clinton) had their failings, but all ended up conducting foreign policies that look pretty good compared with what we've got now.
This is pretty obvious, and more an objective truth than any presumed correlation between bluster and winning elections. The public has recognized it: we're in a ditch. But in covering Obama and McCain, the media still behave as if the various strategic blunders of past eight years never happened. This requires making a value judgment, which the media can't, and won't, do. So it's very hard for them to credit Obama for foreign policy insight, even when -- especially when -- events align rather well with his policies.
The other driver here is fear. Political journalism is basically 25 percent facts and 75 percent interpretation and speculation. (Which is why it's stupid.) There is a great premium placed on seeming "out in front" of the pack in interpreting events -- but not too far out, in case the pack starts moving in a different direction. And in terms of crowd dynamics, traditional media outlets revere nothing more than their sometime foes in the conservative media. Drudge, Fox, Rush Limbaugh and the rest have the ability to spontaneously (or not-so spontaneously) align on a particular topic, creating the illusion of a populist wave. The MSM bought the Karl Rove view, mistaking this narrow intensity for broad, popular sentiment. They envy it. Consciously or not, they hew to its conventions. To give Obama too much credit on foreign policy risks a mocking, pseudo-popular backlash from the conservative media -- based on some minor Obama gaffe, say (as Jon Stewart so artfully lampooned last night) - that spills over into the mainstream.
It's all the stranger because what's coming out of Iraq is great news not just for Obama, but for the United States. Look at the Bush administration's ridiculous fumbling over Maliki's statements. Take Obama out of the picture: from the standpoint of U.S. Iraq policy, this is a very positive development. Things are stabilizing to the point where we can talk about withdrawal. Bush did something right! Holy crap! But the White House is so heavily invested in ... making Obama look bad? Military bases forever? ... that it cannot acknowledge even its own apparent success. In other words, the stated aims of U.S. policy and the actual aims are not the same, and the contradiction is tying us in knots. Alas, the media haven't noticed this obvious tension either.
Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid
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
What's coming out of Iraq is not great news for the United States. We never should have invaded that country. Who's idea was it to have an American Army occupy an Arab country? Our country lives by the sword.
I saw Anderson Cooper last night and he was all over how this helps Obama and hurts McCain.
Also McCain is on the air today with ads bitching about the news media's "love affair" with Obama, which is probably about 10% reaction and 90% prevention, but still shows nervous they are about the images and analysis coming out of this trip.
So I think the MSM may be coming around some.
On the other hand, David Gergen, who usually is a voice of reason (albeit center-right reason) and who I think actually likes Obama, was on AC360 going off on some tangent about how Obama was trying to negotiate with Maliki and this was over-reaching and presumptious. And a couple other commentators went on about how Maliki was "just" doing it for "domestic political reasons," but they don't tell you the domestic political reason is that 80% of the country wants the US out yesterday.
So they still have a ways to go. It'll be interesting to see where they're at in a month.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of David Gergen. He is always looking for a reason to take a dig at Obama. I don't believe that he's presented himself as neutral or as pro-Obama. Even the questions he poses to his panel seem to be structured to elicit negative responses about the Senator. To me, David Gergen and Andrea Mitchell are the flip side of the same coin: Republicans and/or racists in diguise.
There is nothing that McCain's bitch about media that hasn't been well documented...the same thing happened with Hillary...the media love Obama because he reaches the demo that TV loves...18-34...he's a marketers wet dream, and his campaign has been all about appealing in the basest form to that group.
Wow!!! That's a novel way of looking at things...'Hope' as the lowest common denominator...
You know? I think you forget the whole 'bittergate' and Rev. Wright episodes - B.O. was crucified. And the MSM has been keeping this whole meme of his 'foreigness' and questions of his patriotism, inexperience and Muslim-ness going since way early in the primaries. Remember the pile-on at the last primary debate?
McCain has been given an absolutely free ride. No one in the MSM has even questioned his ability to lead in foreign policy even though he can't keep his basic geography straight!
No one else has their patriotism questioned either, though maybe they should...McCain and his buds (Keating 5 scandal) and (former, but still actibe campaign co-chair) Phil Gramm with his ENRON Loophole have collectively bilked Americans out of billions in taxes, retirement income, energy, etc and no one ever questioned his patriotism. How can you call yourself a patriot and turn around and screw your own country? Has anyone in the MSM even brought that up? No!
On top of all of that, McCain's campaign is a train wreck.
McCain is easily the worst POTUS candidate I have ever seen - bar none. The McCain campaign ought to be happy the press is looking the other way...
One last thought: Remember what happened to HRC when she started complaining about the coverage? Dead man walking...
Yes, It looks like we are getting somewhere in Iraq. However wether the "surge" was agood thing or not..It certainly did not hurt. We apparently will be in Iraq with some military presence regardless who is the next President.
Obamas visit to Iraq gave Malaki the opportunity to make a statement without reacting directly to the US government. Having lived and worked outside the USA for many years I find it ridiclous that few days in any county gives Obama any more foreign relations credibility that before...Just another media
event.
Let us remember Bush (if we like him or not) is still the president and head of state and his representatives are the ones other countries should deal with.
Mr Obama continues to underwhelm me-His Public Relations machine is tops.!!!
Make no mistake, Obama is running his campaign and a competent campaign it is. Take note.
And... no. We will not have bases in Iraq. No we will not.
It must be feeding time again. This is so predictable - and so amusing.
Obama triumphs again. . . and as dusk arrives, so do the vampires of democracy!!
Maybe Bush did something right, but it was by accident. As with Reagan and 'tear down that wall', the MSM has overlooked all the effort of the local populace in bringing about moves toward settlement of ages-old differences. We think we rule the world, but we do NOT. Eastern Europeans brought down that wall, not the US president.
Bush cannot acknowledge peace because that is NOT his goal. His goal is the kind of 'democracy' that the Chinese have - one that is based on property rights not human rights and the openness to the West in terms of taking resources and making money from them. As a Dominionist Christian, he also cannot leave Iraq (Iran? Anywhere?) since obliterating Muslims as obstacles to the second coming is essential to his post-Apocalyptic view and his belief that he was chosen to make that happen. He has NO interest in peace since that would kill the chances, he thinks, of creating Armageddon. Together, the neo-cons for material gain and the Dominionists for religious dominance, walk hand in hand into perpetual war. That's their goal. That's their threat to us all.
The only thing NEVER mentioned in the mainstream media is their own conflict of interest. They always set the sail to make it a race for the lame guy. If they told the obvious truth, it's over. The race is over. If the media told it like it is, their overlords would not get the campaign money slated for the media coffers. Where do you think all that campaign money is headed for?
Remember too, "conflict of interest" is just another way of saying FRAUD.
"(For the record, I don't think McCain's verbal miscues merit a feeding frenzy -- nor should Obama's.) "
I don't either but.........
McCain's miscues have been so frequent; so often connected to his supposed area(s) of expertise; and , in some cases, so egregious, that we ignore the possible connection between them and his age at our own peril.
IMO, the war the USA started in Iraq may end, but the fighting in Iraq will never stop. They have been fighting each other for centuries, so what makes anyone think they will live in peace when we leave?
It was all G.W's idea to make Iraq a democracy. Those people don't know what a democracy is and care less. They know fighting and I doubt if it will ever stop over there. We have lost 4128 of our military just to please what G.W. wanted, probably knowing all the time, it would not make them a democracy and in the meantime we have lost lots of our democracy, thanks to him.
This is why you are wrong: this fight is not about Iraq. This fight is about an adequatre Middle East base to quickly defend Israel and the Strait of Hoemuz! Either of theses reasons is enough for the U.S. to have a base in Iraq!
Maliki gives McCain cover--now I can vote for him (will never vote for Obama) and still get the war ended. If Maliki asks us to leave, even McCain will have to--leaving, of course, the 50,000 residual force, so-called, both candidates say will have to stay.
McCain has already said that Maliki's statement does not change his position on the need to remain in Iraq until we WIN THE WAR. If this is what you needed to justify voting for McCain, then prepare to vote for a man who intends to keep our troops in Iraq, not as a residual force, but in the same capacity in which they are there now, 140,000 strong. Also, this issue is obviously not as important to you as not voting for Senator Obama.
It's very unfortunate that we allow our personal prejudices get in the way of our values as Americans, our concern for the men and women who are dying on foreign land in an illegal and immoral war, and our civic responsibility to the future of our country. But it's your vote and your conscience, and I assume you will find a way to live with both. At least you can feel comforted by the fact that you didn't vote for the black man.
WORD!
MALIKI UNSERIOUS ABOUT 16 MONTH TIMETABLE
Maliki is the PM of Iraq and doesn't need a US President to do his planning. If he is serious about a US troop withdrawal in 16 months there is nothing to stop him from imposing his own timetable. Nevertheless, the remark he made to Der Spiegel was clearly intentional as he prefers Obama over McCain being the weaker, less experienced and more manipulatable of the two candidates-and favored by his allies in Iran. McCain would be a nightmare for Maliki as he would be for Iran.
Actually, McCain is ridiculously manipulable.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-becomes-latest-to_n_114268.html
and start seeing what has happened all these years.
Maliki, Iran and the rest of the world. You like war, you'll love President Mccain.
The Bush administration OWNS Maliki, and they have let him know in more ways than one, that a timetable will be THEIR decision, not his. Maliki recognizes Obama as a leader, not someone who is simply using their land and the lives and livelihoods of their people to forward an agenda of imperialism, power and profit. The UK also recognizes Obama's strength as a leader, and they too agree with Obama's policy, and have already stated their intention to begin withdrawing their troops next year. And apparently, not even Bush and the Pentagon think Obama is weak since they've adopted his foreign policy positions on negotiating with Iran and recognizing Afghanistan as the central war on terror.
McCain would indeed be a nightmare for Maliki, but not because he'll be any different from Bush or a strong president. He'll be a nightmare because he would be no better than Bush, if not worse, and therefore a nightmare for America as well.
LOL - that's hilarious! Oh, wait, you're serious? You really believe that if Bush/McCain want to have troops in Iraq, that the little fact that the troops aren't wanted will somehow make a difference? Perhaps it has escaped your notice that those troops showed up in Baghdad with something less than the open-armed blessing of Saddam's then existing government.... It's also probably escaped your notice that Iraq and Iran are something less than allies, so no one is going to be embraced by Iraq simply because Iran likes 'em.
Who ever said anyone in the mainstream media is smart? Has anyone ever listened to some of these reporters? They are an absolute joke.
This Black man is a once-in-a-lifetime leader. All of America should be grateful that his time has come.
Once is a lifetime leader? What are you smoking?
The book is still not out yet on what Obama can and cannot do. One term is the Senate is not enough experience to give him this accolade.
Even though I won't be voting for him, I willing to admit that he will probably be elected. We have enough blind people in this country to vote for him just because he speaks well.
When are the debates coming? I want to hear Obama speak without a pre-written speach.
A direct debate is going to be very interesting. I will be very surprised if O-bama is bested.
Who knows why Obama wants the job, but give it to him quick before he changes his mind.
Could it be because Obama is NOT a presidential candidate YET, not a president, and having a political leader of another country....SOVEREIGN country....support Obama's policy is quite ridiculous. Someone should have clued Maliki in but.....the media would be quite right in merely ignoring it.
keep deluding yourself if it gets you through the day but our country can no longer do so .
He is the one we have been waiting for. This Black man is a once-in-a-lifetime leader. Be thankful.
Kcandersen1
Just a reminder. Barack Hussein Obama is not a BLACK person. He is a combination Arabian, African, Black/White man who hates the whites. That should make you happy, IF you are black.
His own Father said he is Arabian and I believe his Father much more that ANYTHING OBAMA says.
No one really cares about what his ethnicity is...when people make an issue of it, they are being racist.
Uh, Dude. He has a name......
Great piece, John! When the Iraqi government and a large majority of the Iraqi people are calling for a withdrawal of all US armed forces from Iraq, the US taxpayers should be cheering. Many in the American media, though, have this foolish if not imbecilic story line imprinted in their brains that Republicans are best able to ensure that the US is protected from foreign "enemies" (who, if necessary, are invented as circumstances dictate).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
