The Media Is Already Demonizing Obama as Being Different

Yesterday, a cable news anchor promised to "break down" whether Barack Obama's remarks at a South Chicago church were heartfelt or part of a "Machiavellian" attempt to change his public image. Was this report from Fox News? Nope. The anchor was Rick Sanchez of CNN. (Remind your conservative friends of Sanchez's actions the next time they call CNN liberal.)

Such irresponsible, tabloid journalism is especially outrageous, coming during a weekend of mourning over the untimely death of the great Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert. Russert's responsible, balanced and researched approach, with a laser-like concentration on the issues, stands as a 180-degree counterpoint to Sanchez's pandering garbage.

Obama's lecture was about the responsibility of fathers to take responsibility for their children. What is there to break down? Is Sanchez suggesting that Obama is not in favor of loving parenting? Or that it was not normal to discuss this topic on, yes, Father's Day? It certainly couldn't be the fact that Obama was worshipping on Sunday, seeing as his 20-year association with a church is well-known, thanks to the media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

So what was Sanchez suggesting? I would argue that Sanchez's remark was part of a larger trend.

Fox News, in a more obvious and crass way, has already established one of its approaches to attacking Obama: It will try to scare people by implying that Obama is "different." How else do you explain Fox News using an on-screen super that referred to Michelle Obama as Barack Obama's "baby mama," or a Fox News anchor calling a fist bump between the Obamas a "terrorist fist jab"? Besides being culturally ignorant (a "baby mama" is an unmarried mother of a man's child, while the Obamas were married for six years before having their first of two daughters, and a fist bump is such a common sports celebration, you can watch George H.W. Bush engage in one here), the references are offensive.

There are still conservatives that will tell you with a straight face that Fox News is a legitimate news outlet, but these kinds of ridiculous games that portray Obama as out of the mainstream are more reminiscent of Soviet-era Tass than anything resembling journalism.

Sanchez's promise to "break down" Obama's remarks on fatherhood, which were anything but controversial, are no better than the antics of the folks at Fox News. Sanchez said there was something questionable about Obama's motives, even though there was not a single shred of evidence to support such an assertion. Whether Sanchez's motivations were sensationalist (to boost ratings) or partisan (to help McCain) doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that he is engaging in innuendo as to Obama's motives in a way that is irresponsible and offensive.

As Americans, we are used to presidential contests that feature exaggerations in debates about the issues. On This Week yesterday morning, host George Stephanopoulos had to remind Fred Thompson, speaking for the McCain campaign, that an independent source found that Obama's tax plan gave more relief to the middle class than McCain's proposal did. Stephanopoulos also challenged John Edwards, representing Obama, as to the independent finding that McCain's proposed corporate tax reductions could help boost the economy. Thompson even accused Obama of being dishonest, saying that he will raise taxes for more Americans than the select group (those who earn more than $250,000) identified in his plan, with only the vaguest of arguments to back it up (claiming that Obama will need to raise more money than he is saying he will need). This is a normal American political debate on issues. The two sides might exaggerate, but the arguments stick to policy, and the facts can certainly be verified by an engaged moderator or through a little research on the part of the voter.

But this kind of give and take is light years away from the sensationalism showed by Sanchez and Fox News. Rather, based on these early examples, it would seem that Obama will be forced to contend with a "he's different" campaign meant to scare voters away. And because of Obama's unique place in history, these tactics even surpass the "swift boating" of John Kerry for dirty politics.

Obama is the first African-American to earn the nomination of a major party for the U.S. presidency. As such, this presidential campaign will be different than any other that has come before it. And that means that Obama and his campaign have to be ready to fight back when fear mongers in the media engage in these kinds of divisive tactics. They cannot let the impression take hold that these kinds of attacks are legitimate.

But it's also up to reputable news organizations to address the acts of fear mongering as reportable news, just as Keith Olbermann did when he shined light on the Fox News "baby mama" super and the anchor's accusation that a simple fist bump was somehow terrorist in nature. Such coverage wouldn't be partisan. It would simply shine a light on a nefarious practice worthy of being shamed.

It's understandable why the Republicans would want to avoid a debate on the issues. With George W. Bush's approval rating at a historic low (28 percent in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll) and a recent CBS/New York Times poll revealing that 81 percent of respondents said that the country is on the "wrong track," it is clear that McCain will have a hard time running and winning on a GOP platform. But that doesn't make this kind of ugly fear campaign any more palatable.

Tim Russert may no longer be around to keep the playing field fair, but every journalist should aspire to meet the standards he set out. There should no place in our political culture for these kinds of attacks on Obama. They are ugly, and they should not be tolerated by any proud American, regardless of party affiliation.

Comments

[serena1313]

Mitchell Thank You.

I hope more journalists start reporting likewise.

Journalistic integrity is not something businesses are interested in when it comes to their bottom line: profit. I attribute the decline in quality, or more appropriately the lack thereof, to a consolidation of for-profit corporate owned-media that control the flow of information that is not in the public's best interests.

Since corporatism is often equated to fascism it would not be in either the government's or the corporations' best interests to keep the public informed. Thus when a government that favours enterprise is in control of regulating media-ownership it puts the onus on the citizens to demand change thru public pressure and/or boycotts.

While public pressure managed to delay the FCC from de-regulating media-ownership it has not stopped it, not yet. So anything remotely close to even the slightest hint of media-ownership regulation will automatically generate bad press. However we must keep trying.

One point of contention where consumers have the advantage: our pocketbooks. Threats to boycott the station or better yet their advertisers would definitely get their attention. This type of citizenship-action has effectively worked before.

The public's best interest is dependent on journalistic integrity. If we do not demand it, who will?

[afed27]

Not having heard O'Reilly speak this way of Obama, I can still believe it because of O'Reilly's nasty reputation. But, Obama is getting some of the treatment that was given to Clinton for the entire campaign. He should count himself lucky. It wasn't Fox that did a number on Hillary, it was CNN, MSNBC, &, to a point, NBC, & CBS. They gave distorted views of the 2 candidates. Even Tim Russert, the man deemed to be fair in his interviews, catered to Obama. Obama, having made a tape in which he accused Hillary of being the cause of Bhutto's death was asked by Russert if Obama believed what he had said. Obama replied, "Of course not!". Russert did no lollow up. Yet, when Hillary was interviewed about 1 week later, Russert pounded her with a question over & over, like a detective giving the 3rd degree. It is a shame that Obama has gotten away with so much. it is a little bit late, now.

[mivogo]

This is about making Obama "The Other." People always fear the unknown, the "different"--and demagogues always exploit that fact, trying to dehumanize those they hate or scapegoat. In the 60's, everything was blamed on "outside agitators." One of "them." It's the bottom-feeders way of instilling fear and distrust. Obama must meet this head on, and make those on the fence realize that the true dangerous "others" are those still using 20th century hate techniques in a more accepting, savvy 21st century nation. Expose them for who they are, and Obama will prevail.

[shelly4]

Maybe there is a bright side-the more we talk about race, the more we defuse the baiting and the less emotional we become about it, giving it no power to divide. And if we are not divided, we are together--one--united--- people.

I believe in change.

[AdobePhsyko]

Ask anyone who lived in South Florida (Where "Dick" Sanchez got his start) if he is a newsman. He was the guy on Channel 7 who always had the "Blood on the street" video and the most sensational "news" stories. "Dick" ,as most Floridians call him, had a way of twisting a story with his own deranged way of looking at the most benign stories. I couldn't believe that he made "The Big Time" on CNN the first time I saw him on there.

[boston2008]

DOESN'T SURPRISE ME.... CNN is in the tank for John McCain. ..Rick Sanchez is desperate. His ratings suck big time so he'll do just about anything to get noticed. So that being said, he'll even use FOX NEWS talking points.

[julescator]

Our media is a disgrace! Period! Mr. Bard is right on point. Pointing out the obvious racism and sexism in the media has become a daily chore for those of us who just want the facts - not the opinions. We can form our own opinions, once given the facts. Tim Russert was the last great journalist of our time. I can't even think of anyone at NBC or any other station that could hold a candle to him. He was a rare human being. I will miss him immensely. I have spent more time arguing with the TV over this election season. Where did they get these people. I think we need to continue to write to the stations to express our displeasure. Like Obama has taught us "We have the Power". We can keep programs on the air or get them taken off. We can choose a week where no one watches FOX. If that doesn't get their attention, it will certainly get the attention of their advertisers!

[benne]

"Obama is the first African-American to earn the nomination of a major party for the U.S. presidency."

If by "earn," you mean through a backroom deal, then you're right. If you mean democratically, then you're wrong. Why is it so important to insist that Barack is the exclusive winner? Could it have something to do with the version of masculinity he is promoting?

[Cyclone]

Hillary lost fair and square. Move on.

[zull2]

One thing that's hard to refute is that Obama has been often criticized for saying things that other politicians have, by and large, been ignored or even praised for saying. There are really only two reasons possible for this: Given Obama's laid back demeanor and personality, when he does say something somewhat controversial, gives reporters enough of a surprise to make a big deal of it...or he's held to a different standard for another reason entirely. And if that reason isn't a matter of experience or age, it's a matter of race. THAT is why a lot of people feel that passive racism is still in full force throughout the media.

[CitizenFace]

Worse than that... Sanchez is apparently criticizing Obama for saying things that OBAMA was ignored for saying!

On Monday Eugene Robinson pointed out on "Race to the White House" that Obama had actually given very similar speeches on prevous Father's Days, but that it went unreported because he wasn't a party nominee for president at the time!

I guess Sanchez doesn't watch MSNBC...

[mcole]

exactlt, i watched that clip with eugene and he was right, obama talks about parental responsibility alot...i'm so tired of the media, where is the investigative journalism? all we get now are talking heads yakking up suppositions and what-ifs and maybe's......wheres the objectivity????

[fact finder]

This is the opening salvo in the attempt to steal the next election. If this does not work GWB will stage an "incident" and declare martial law" or he may just do it any way.

[TroubleNYC]

Rick Sanchez is a joke, and an embarrassment to us Latinos.

[gladys46]

Somebody said, "different" does not mean "deficient" anyway ... oh well!!

[MiraMcB]

Disgraceful, isn't it? It's exactly the same dirty tactics the media, the Repugs, and certain campaign supporters have used elsewhere in this campaign. Like on the Clintons. Guess it feels different when the shoe's on the other foot, huh?

[Cyclone]

This post is about inuendo. One thing is for sure, you can never accuse the Clintons of that. Hillary came right out and said she was fighting for "hard working white Americans" and she and McCain had exprience and Barack had a speech form 2002. I guess the "assasination" remark was inuendo so I take it all aback.

[MiraMcB]

Thanks, you should. And you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating all the same lies and out-of-context references we've been hearing for months. Like I said, you aren't above it going out, but you sure don't like the incoming.

[gladys46]

Thank you Mr. Bard! Not for agreeing with me, but for being obviously well-traveled, well-read and enjoying your "higher" education!

It's clear ... it's all clear!!

[bowserbois]

I'm sorry but where was Russerts responsible, balanced and researched approach to the lead up to the war in Iraq?

[zull2]

It was nixed by his producer, and his producer's bosses. That should be painfully obvious to anyone. If Russert went against his bosses, it'd be the same as if you decided to flip off your boss one day in the middle of a meeting. Someone else would have been toting his boss's line the next day.

[gladys46]

The same place Ms. Clinton's was ... trusting america's president!!

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

See Mitchell Bard's Profile

Fair point, bowserbois.

I'd have to go back and look at the transcripts, buy my memory is that he at least asked questions. Maybe not enough, granted.

Thanks for commenting.