Did You Hear The One About Barack Obama And.....

I love conspiracy theories because sometimes they turn out to be true. I mean, who could have imagined that John Edwards would be stupid enough to a) make it with his videographer while his wife was battling cancer and b) try to visit her and their child on the eve of the Democratic National Convention when he was being considered as a possible vice presidential nominee? What Hollywood screenwriter could have scripted the scenario that placed Ted Haggard, the President of the National Association of Evangelicals in a hotel room calling a guy for massages and sex?

OK, those aren't exactly conspiracies, but they're implausible rumors that turned out to be true.

So just to be on the safe side, I believe all conspiracy theories until they are proved wrong by legit media. But when it comes to Barack Obama and conspiracy theories, I'm running into a problem because there are so many out there that they conflict with one another and now I don't know which ones to believe.

My personal favorite is the one about Malcolm X Being Barack Obama's true father. There's even a morphing photo series to prove it. No, wait, a guy named Frank Marshall Davis is Barack's true father.

Or how about the one about Obama not having been born in Hawaii, but rather in Kenya?

Or the one about Obama's education having been funded by a mysterious Muslim leader?

Then there's the guy who swears that it was William Ayers who secretly authored Obama's books.

And do you want to know the real reason Obama visited his ailing Grandmother?

Some of 'em are just plain nuts, some are just very, very unlikely and some are, well, plausible. I don't blame the conspiracy theorists for this stuff-that's what they do. But I do blame the "responsible" media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek et al. because their lack of critical reporting on Obama and his background and unwillingness to thoroughly investigate him has now produced a cottage industry of self-styled investigative internet journalists who often neither have the tools, resources or training to properly investigate.

We have elected as president a man we don't really know, because responsible outlets left investigative journalism, the kind of rigorous examination of a man in whose hands we place the nuclear codes that could blow up the world, to internet crackpots or people without the background or the temperament to investigate impartially.

Now, after the election, some reporters are stepping forward to admit that voters's interests were not served well by the reporting of this race. I find this exchange between Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, wherein they admit that they know little about the president-elect's views on a whole host of issues (as if they had not both had the opportunity to look into them on our behalf during the campaign) simply stunning. Then there's this from the Washington Post, conceding that Post readers were ill-served by the paper's campaign coverage.

That collective failure means that for the next four years we will have a cottage industry of Obama rumormongering that will make Bill Clinton and Vince Foster look like child's play and it could have been avoided if the "responsible" mainstream press had devoted some of the time it spent tracking down John McCain's one night stands from his Navy days or Cindy McCain's prescription drug habit, debunking or confirming rumors about Obama that will plague us for the next four years.

Follow Mark Joseph on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markmjm

Comments

[jbs902]

Boy PT Barnum is rolling in his grave at having been born a generation to early to have access to all of the MORONS that are out there now. We have a total generation of people who believe everything that the see on the WWWeb. There was a time when one had to go to the library and actually look up and read these crack pot (or should I say pipe) theories but now well just point click and browse. Malcolm X??? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

[blueskybigstar]

We don't know Barrack Obama? The media was interested in making money. They had the chance to ask him all kinds of questions. He has been properly vetted for s c a n d a l, but there has been no concern about asking him about the important issues. The opponent did not want to talk about the issues, so they kept the media concerned with negativity. The questions given by Rachel Maddow were the toughest he had ever been given. He recognized that. The media needs to be more responsible. They stick to the stories that sell rather than the ones that require more work, the ones that are so called "boring", the media sticks to the negative, to s c a n d a l s, because like a sugar high, it immediately gets more viewers. The media needs independence from being forced to make money. The truth is more important than profit; the lack of truth, however, always inhibits productivity and in the long run inhibits profit for all. The media must be subsidized to give them enough independence to better support the truth.

[InofTouch]

this one of the many flaws of the internet and it also happen to be it strength

[CalBearinIllinois]

Funny thing. I didn't know anything about the author of this piece, so I clicked on the bio link. The author's associations with the NRO, Christian Times, The Passion of the Christ, and a book on Palin's abortive "rise to power" (pun intended) tell me all I need to know. Basically, he's part of the group that has become convinced every Democrat has a massive skeleton waiting to pop out of his or her closet.

If anyone wants to know Obama's position on the major issues of the day, go to barackobama.com for detailed position papers. Or buy the book version. Not every issue is covered - but a heck of a lot more is there than McCain ever set out. For his background, read the multiple books authored by critical (but not insane like Corsi) observers and the mountain of reporting done since 2004. You know, the stuff by the Chicago Tribune - a demonstrably conservative paper that nonetheless endorsed him (first Dem ever). Or the reporters at the LA Times, another center right news bastion, who also endorsed him. The Clintons, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and McCain all dedicated themselves to digging up dirt on the man, and rolled snake eyes - hence the need to go after flimsy stuff like Ayers, ACORN and Khalidi. Maybe, just maybe, Obama's that rare person who actually is as he appears - and assuming he isn't says much more about the author of this post than Pres. Elect Obama.

[blueskybigstar]

Thank you.

[blueskybigstar]

Yeah, funny how he did not mention one of the many of the what at first seemed to be unbelievable, but on further investigation turns out to be true about the Bush family and the C a r l y l e group and McCain and his associations?

[BlueAsh]

Thank you for checking on the author.

To the author of this article:

I just want to point out that, while Bill Clinton may be as smart a man as Obama, he is no where near as disciplined. The scandals related to his personal life, as well as his political life, are evidence of that lack of discipline and self-control.

Discipline and self-control are things that I believe we do not have to worry about with Obama. Look elsewhere for a better analogy.

[one4obama]

The MSM is just pouting because this election year proved that the MSM does not decide who the President will be.

People, remember this year forever. Remember it every Presidential election year. Remember that we, the people, do have the power to decide who the president will be, in spite of the fact that the MSM thinks they have that kind of power.

[one4obama]

For Tom Brokaw and Charlie to Rose to sit there straight faced and say they don't know a lot about where Obama stands on a whole slew of issues just says . . . . . well, they might as well have hung a sign around their neck say they are die-hard Republicans.

They are reporters. They are newsmen. It is their job to find these things out. A simple search through barackobama.com would have garnered all the information they would have questions about.

I have lost complete faith in the new media anymore. Will be interesting to see if they will have gotten their acts together for the 2012 election and will go back to fair reporting.

[InofTouch]

how is not knowing where he stands to be die-hard republicans...I don't know much of where stands on advance issue but I voted for him.

It seem people are still scared as of last tuesday,..funny though

[ebanks84]

You can keep banging your head against a wall with these theories all you want. The rest of us are going on with our lives and believe what we know about Obama's life. And what we don't know surely ain't going to hurt us. Get a life!

[Phaedrus21]

I really don't understand the "we don't really know who Barack Obama is" thing.

You gotta know the Clintons had detectives rummaging through everything about him, desperately looking for something to use.

All the McCain campaign came up with was rehashed stories that didn't work when the Clinton's tried them.

But these weren't journalist, you say? So what? Do you think for a moment that if there was something damaging out there that Clinton and McCain wouldn't have thrown it to the media to pick up and run with?

The media may well have been lazy about doing the legwork to investigate Obama. But his political rivals more than made up for it.

[mlm1306]

Let me guess, you voted for McCain. Get over it and help get our country back in order by focusing on the positive.

[Vurz]

I investigated for myself and found that he has a pretty open life.

Hillary's campaign did more investigation then I would have thought possible; they even investigated his schoolwork from elementary school. If there was ANY problem with his birth or citizenship they would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

[theaviator]

Sad. The Clintons really gave the Republicans ammo. I thought I cared about them after they campaigned for Obama, but now I find out this stuff in the last few days, this really ugly stuff they did just to win an election, against a fellow Democrat.

Amazing. I'm glad Obama won. The voice of reason won.

[Vurz]

I am glad Obama won too; but we may owe a debt of gratitude to the Clintons for the mudslinging.

Hillary and crew went through everything hoping to find something they could smear him with; when they were unable to find anything they went with a paper from elementary school.

By the time the Republicans got into the act, the Clintons had already run it past the American people and come up snake eyes; there was nothing left for the Republicans to grab onto.

[peterg76]

Another tragedy of the Bush Dark Age: the quality of conspiracy theories has gone done.

[blueskybigstar]

They are better and turn out to be true about the other guys.

[AverageJosef]

I don't know about this analysis. Did people really know John McCain? If they did then his negative campaign should have been no surprise or any aspect of it. But, come on, do we really know anyone. In fact, most people don't even know themselves!

Another thing, just because you know the minutia of a life, you will still not know their heart. For one thing people change and situations bring out the best or worse in people.

The rest should have been on a simple spreadsheet: birth certificate? check, age? check, etc.

What is it you want to know? I hate saying this but it always come down to this, what is it about BO that people have this feeling or distrust about? Could it be that he is black?

I voted for him. That was the most perfect vote I cast. There was no hesitation and no doubt. Perhaps the kook aid is strong, but I 'felt' he was the better candidate.

[M Razz]

"Some of 'em are just plain nuts, some are just very, very unlikely and some are, well, plausible."

Which one do you find plausible and why? You need to explain that before I can take you serious...

If there was anything dubious about Obama's background or 'real' positions believe me we would know. Do you honestly think the Democratice party, Intelligence Services, Pentagon and 'the Establishment' haven't thoroughly vet him before they hand him the nuclear codes? Anything truely controversial would have leaked to the media a long time ago.

The sites that you link as sources for the allegations are typical extreme rightwing crackpottery...
If these are the sites that give you reason to doubt Obama's background, then you live in the twilight zone where Rush Limbaugh 'has a point'.

[BeeOplentee]

In an uncertain world we are never going to be able to get the "real scoop" on anyone; for example, a book came out not too long ago alleging that Abe Lincoln was gay.

Only a fool believes that something about someone that is "revealed" in print is gospel truth without proof.

Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt before searching for skeletons in his closet before he's even moved into the White House!

[drsmc41]

"...That collective failure means that for the next four years we will have a cottage industry of Obama rumormongo­ring...and it could have been avoided if the "responsible" mainstream press had devoted some of the time...debunking or confirming rumors about Obama that will plague us for the next four years."

Just because some reporters may not have done THEIR jobs, it doesn't mean the American people did the same. Speak for yourself. We all have the responsibility to "investigate" candidates, ideally. I never take anything I read at face-value, especially from reporters. Based on what I have read about President Elect Obama, beyond the newspapers, I felt that I knew enough to make a sound decision to vote for him, learning more about him than I learned about George Bush, who I voted for once.

..."We have elected as president a man we don't really know, because responsible outlets left investigative journalism, the kind of rigorous examination of a man in whose hands we place the nuclear codes that could blow up the world, to internet crackpots or people without the background or the temperament to investigate impartially."

Seriously? You think we have elected someone we 'don't know' because of lackluster investigative journalism? They have that much control? I just feel like you have made a lot of assumptions, but, at least, you are direct about them. I am sure there would have been rumors about Obama, regardless.

Thanks for your thoughtful piece.