The New York Times on Obama and Deval -- Assume Nothing, Question Everything
Every solid reporter and editor knows the key to journalistic success: assume nothing and question everything. For successful business executives, it's a survival mantra. Educators call it critical thinking, the ability to see an advertisement, hear a presentation, read a news story with a questioning eye on what's behind the claims being made, who are the sources, who benefits, who does not, what's the context, what are the implications of the story -- in other words -- the Colbert truthiness of it all.
The venerable NYT runs a front page, above the fold, story about Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's problems in his first two years in office. It's a legitimate evaluative survey for every governor of any state. And every governor has to go through it -- in their state's newspapers.
But this story is in a national paper from New York, not Massachusetts. If critical thinking is applied, there are some reasonable questions to ask. Why this governor? Why now? Why on the front page of this most powerful national newspaper?
The 'why this Governor' is answered in reporter Abby Goodnough's opening. It's because he is "....a surrogate for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, his friend and fellow gifted orator.....He dazzled voters with a message of hope and change." Oh, by the way, he's black.
Hmmmm.
The story goes on to detail the battles this governor is having with the state's Speaker of the House, who has more power with the legislature than the newbie governor. The article gives the overall negative impression that Deval is losing the battle due to insufficient governing skills.
So, again, why this Governor? Why now? The implied logic and conclusion seems clear - guilt by similarity. Deval is Obama. Obama is all new, change and eloquence with questionable governing skills. Oh, and he's black Really?
Critical question: Why did the editors chose this governor to compare with Obama? Why not compare Obama with Vermont Governor Timothy Kaine? He's a newbie Governor in a state that hasn't elected a Democrat since 1964. He was all about change. He's also an Obama supporter. Why not him?
Has the NYT done a similar story comparing Hillary Clinton to a female governor like Arizona's Janet Napolitano or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, both of whom are articulate, are change agents, and neither having an easy time with unfriendly legislatures? Oooops, they're both supporting Obama.
If you subtract the elements of fractious legislative relations, change agent, new voice, articulate, what's the only thing left to compare between Obama and Deval? Is it because they're both black? Perhaps the venerable New York Times is not above playing the race card. This is a critical question that needs to be asked.
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
Sulzberger must have trashed every fragile thing in his apartment by now. I understand he wanted positive Clinton coverage, then pushed the endorsement. And she's tanking, so there are a lot of people she's bringing down with her in the New York Aluminum Tube Times shiny new skyscraper.
Seriously though, there seems to be an effort on the part of the press - not the public - to make Obama do what the press wants him to do and be. It is driving them crazy just how strong he is.
As a black man, I've always been told we have to be smarter, jump higher, etc just to be considered an EQUAL to whites.
The New York Times believes this to be true. It is realized every day in their coverage of Barack Obama.
February 13th 2008, for example. Election? "Obama capures 3 more contests by big margins." Nice. Now, follow the column to nearly the fold. A half width, 1 inch photo of Obama looking up. It's small and not so clear. But he's looking upward, and you can see his eyes pointing in a direction.
Problem? Oh yeah.
First 4columns under "TNYT" and nearly five inches high: a color photo of four aborigine men. A18 Story, jumped inside, does not accompany the photo. And if you examine the layout, Obama's eyes are angled directly toward this much larger photo.
This layout can be taken as a slight. And they got away with it because they knew they could.
Vermont elected Howard Dean several times.
Psst. I think they have saucers out in Nevada too.
Did you see the front of the New York Times from March 3, 2008?
The had an article on "green technology" and it was written in Roswell, NM.
I see now they meant "little green men" and "the first alien crash".
I am also going to start looking more closely at the Crossword and start counting the
number of "black" squares vs. the "white" squares" and see if there is a pattern there too.
Silly. Silly.
Naw. Very easy to slant coverage with a layout or headline. You need to understand the newspaper business better than you do.
When you're done counting squares. I've already hidden the sharps.
Interesting innuendo.
Another take might just be, however, that since Deval and Obama have acknowledged they "share" speech materials and work together, they are a likely choice for comparison.
I'm not sure it is appropriate, or good critical thinking, to believe that everything everyone does is race-based. Because, if you assume that, then non-black support for Obama is foolish - precisely because you must, logically, assume that everything he does, and will do, is race-based. Be careful here.
Don't confuse them with the facts.
For a change a rational and balanced answer. I hope that we haven't reached the point where we cannot criticize Sen. Obama or run the risk of being called racist. I resnt it, and I believe the American public is beginning to resent it too.
You mean the roar of outrage coming from Senator Clinton's campaign and her supporters anytime there is legitimate criticism of Senator Clinton? You mean like being compared to Ken Starr because of legitimate criticism? You mean being called sexist (even when you are a woman, like I am) because you DARE to support Senator Obama? Yeah, I guess I know what you mean -- and I resent that too. And guess what? So, are many, many others living in this Country.
HONEST CRITICISM NO PROBLEM BS YES IT IS A PROBLEM AND THE STENCH RISING FROM THIS CAN BE SMELLED FOR MILES.SORR
Someone wrote "get off the RACE thing". I presume that person is white. Because he honestly thinks there's no "RACE thing".
Just a little while back, a story leaked about the GOP doing its ever-popular "opposition research", to see exactly how racist they could go in this campaign, and get away with it. This story has been largely buried and forgotten.
But soon after it leaked... what a coincidence. Overnight, into every home in America, 10 times a day, a thunderin', testifyin', gospel preacher, tied to Barack Obama! A little something to remind unreconstructed America that a major candidate, who chose not to use race as a focal point of his campaign, IS, YOU KNOW, "BLACK"!
Obama: "Okay, you wanna talk about RACE? We talk about RACE!" Amazingly, America didn't pass out from the vapors.
If you think the author of this article is "playing the RACE card", gimme a break: how clueless do you have to be not to know "Reverend Wright" was supposed to have been a mortal blow, to remind unreconstructed America that Negroes Are Scary People? Didn't happen. Yet the MSM still won't stop pushing Wright in our faces.
Word: Karl Rove NEVER gives up. He WILL racially divide this country. It's what he does. If Obama won't play ball graciously and collapse in a pile of watermelon and fried chicken, hell, he'll just bash another Black surrogate until he does!
I don't know or care about your ethnicity, but you are scary. Your choice of vocabulary and attitude reveal a frightening amount of hatred. Calm down. I can't hear you for all the rage.
You have a point about the Reverend issue, I didn't see, even once, what the MSM put out, but I did see a youtube video of what was said about Hillary not being called a "n". Maybe I'm getting immune, or tone deft, but it wasn't that big of a deal. I'm white, but I'm poor, and I wasn't insulted by what Wright said about the "W" people in power. Nevertheless, we can all just get along with a little respect and consideration. Most white people nowadays are innocent of hate crimes or hate behavior. Don't assume otherwise. Don't hate Obama cause he's half white. Sharpton might even come around to thinking a half loaf is better than none at all.
Karl Rove only succeeded because people lost faith after the supreme court did what they did in 2000. For a lot of people Obama is giving them back their faith in "we the people".
NO. But they are both the marketing device of one Davis Axelrod. Both are being sold the same way, same slogans, same tactics, and of course, the same speeches. It is not the NYT, though I am not particularly their defender as they have some very serious crackpots on staff masquerading as Democrats (Rich and Dodd to name but 2). But both politicians are packaged and sold the same so there is every reason (race being incidental to the argument, though part of the package) to compare.
Maybe NYT should do a story off Hillary comparing her to Gov. Spitzer's wife. They probably have a lot in common these days.
Duval has been a disappointment. Barack's close friendship with him is troubling. My husband, a devote Obama supporter, said that "it worries him that Barack's so closely acquainted with Duval." That is the closest my husband would come to saying anything negative about Barack, but nonetheless, it is troubling. Race doesn't have anything to do with what the Times posted. Barack has used direct quotes from Duval's speeches and calls him a close friend. Duval has let Massachusetts down. In fact, he has embarressed Massachusetts. He uses the capital as his personal playground, wasting thirty-six thousand on new curtains, using the state helicopter as his means of transportation, demanding a brand new official automobile, hiring a personal assistant for his wife on a triple-figure salary (who happened to be a close friend with him) . . . the list continues. These problems are unrelated to his failed policies. The relationship should be highlighted by the media. Congrats for the Times for exposing it on a national platform, as Massachusetts residents have beeing pondering it for some time.
The logic in your arguments just show how unstable you or your husbands decision is in supporting a candidate.
How one can make a connection between two different individual
"Troubling," eh? You used it twice. This was a Rove-tested adjective they started using against Kerry in '04. Not saying you're doing the same thing. It's just... troubling.
I can understand the disappointment with Deval, but I don't see how you can claim that Barack Obama and Deval Patrick are similar candidate. sure, they're good friends, however they have vastly different backgrounds and ways of doing things. I mean, if we associate every candidate with a failed or not so-great politician aligned with their campaign, there would be no one left clean enough. While Obama borrowed a phrase or two from Deval, I would argue that it is more a case of Deval is trying to emulate Obama than the other way around, even though Deval was elected to the governorship of Massachussetts prior to Obama's run for the presidency. Barack Obama has been in the political game a bit longer than Deval.
I think a bit of perspective is needed. I mean, Hillary Clinton is the wife of a former president who was impeached (but not removed from office) and disbarred. Does that mean she also end up like her husband? I don't think so.
As others have said, when you make a major factual error like the Gov. Kaine business it obscures the rest of your argument. It's ironic that you cite Gov. Kaine and Virginia because one of those governors in Virginia since 1964 was the first black Democratic governor in the nation, Gov. L. Douglas Wilder.
Let's make one thing clear at the outset: a liberal media outlet can engage in racial stereotyping just as easily as a conservative outlet. Actually it is more insidious because when pointed out the so called liberal will say something like , "I can't be racist; some of my best friends are black." Or in this case, "The New York Times has an exemplary record in the hiring and promotion of journalists of color." Like that has anything to do with matter at hand.
Earlier in the week I saw the Public Editor of the NYT on C-Span. A caller questioned the location of the HRC-Bosnia lie story on page 19 and not on the front page. (I do not know how true this was) Mr. Hoyt thought the placement was proper. So when I see the front page story about Gov. Patrick above the fold on the front of the NYT I wondered why it was there. It was a back handed way of attacking Sen. Obama under the guise of profiling the governor of Massachusetts. In other words, don't make the same mistake the people of Massachusetts did.
First of all, did the Massachusetts people make a mistake in picking Deval? Based on what I have heard and read so far, it would seem to be the case.
Next, how did they make this mistake? Did his campaign promise a brighter future for the Massachusetts people? Did his campaign use promise of change to bring voters to his side? Were these voters blinded by their own desire for a better future?
Finally, is Deval an isolated case or does he remind you of someone? His campaign manager/adviser would have a lot to do with what was his campaign message and how his campaign turned voter to their side. His message would have a lot to do with how inspiring he is to the Massachusetts people. Now his campaign manager/adviser is working for Obama and his message is literally being utter by Obama. While is might not be scientifically sound to conclude that Obama will turn out to be another Deval, but it is certainly cause for concern.
Well said, mengwise36. I believe Obama, if elected, will be a disaster. I can't understand the naivete of the voters. There were good, experienced primary candidates, and the people let the press manipulate them into making it a race between Clinton and Obama. It's depressing. Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Edwards - any of them would have made a very fine president.
How many of BIll Clinton's advisers and former staffers are working for Hillary Clinton? She has HUNDREDS more than this one campaign manager that Obama and Deval share in common. Are we to assume then that at her presidency would end up as "controversial" as Bill's? Will we have a Republican revolution in Congress like Bill had if Hillary's president? That's why these sorts of comparisons don't make sense.
Interesting note about the Bosnia WHOPPER appearing on page 19. Gimme a break. It should have been front page, above the fold. That woman seems to lie with impunity.
"Someone once noted that the thing about the Clintons is that they will choose a big lie when a small lie will do, and choose a small lie when the truth will do. Most of the time they get away with it. But occasionally, an inconvenient truth, like a blue dress with DNA on it, or some forgotten news footage, shows up and damns them."
--Gerard Baker
Full article here:
http://www
I'm sure the point has already been made, but it bears repeating. There is nothing subliminal about connecting Patrick and Obama because David Axelrod, Obama's political consultant, worked heavily on Patrick's campaign. You could even consider (as many in Massachusetts did at the time) Patrick's campaign as a dry run for Obama's. Omitting him is either ignorant or disingenuous.
The New York Times may have problems, but guilt-by-a
It most certainly is!
There was no reason to put this article in such a prominent postion, on the front page and above the fold, when the article was about another state's governor. It jumped out and said, "Don't gamble on Obama the way people gambled on Patrick, he's new and will not love up to the hype.
So, LisainNYC, we're all supposed to bow down and worship Obama and no medium will be allowed to criticize him or question his behavior or positions?
What have you Obama worshippers been smoking?
If Obama is so great, then he can withstand any criticism. Why do Obama supporters attempt to shout down any dissent? It would seem to me that if you were truly confident in your candidate, you would want coverage whenever and wherever you could get it, positive or negative. If your candidate is, indeed, as strong as you claim, any negative coverage would be quickly shown to be untrue which could only serve to strengthne, not weaken, him.
Since his supporters become so incredibly livid whenever criticisms are aimed at him, I can only conclude that they know, deep down, that he truly is an empty shirt, unable to withstand scrutiny.
How wrong you are to lump people together because they are the same race ..... is playing the race card.
When the words that come out of both of their mouths are identical, right down to the cadence, a comparison is legitimate, regardless of their color.
Don't be surprised to be labeled a stupid racist by the end of the day. If you are not with Obama, you are against America.
Exactly. Imagine 4 years of an Obama presidency with anything and everything being labeled racist as his campaign has done so far. If he's the nominee, the republicans will be labeled racists for everything they say and it certainly won't win them over to the 'uniter'. Obama is a classic example of 'staying above the fray' while his campaign, surrogates and supporters do the dirty work. That's no endorsement of him.
So you probably assume that Hillary Clinton will be the exact same president as Bill? These comparisons are dumb. Period. They're totally two different people with a similar campaign styles. That's it. Duval can't hold a candle to Obama. When I hear and see Duval I never think "President
What if all those Obama supporters were to realize that they have a lot more in common than their shared belief that it's time for a change in the politics of destruction?
I wonder how the NY TIMES would feel, if millions of cancellations to subscriptions were to occur because of the opinion by some that racism is just to ugly a foundation to build a story on when the story hinges on the promotion of racism.
I am sure NY TIMES will write an article about it and then those millions of us Hillary supporters will subscribe to it. I am sure you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. When you scream bloody racism when an article compares two campaigns run by the same person with the same message from two candidates who graduated from the same law school and shared their speeches simply because the two candidates are both black, you are not fighting racism. You are crying wolf.
While they share the same campaign manager, their stump messages are _similar_ but NOT the same. Sure they both talked about change, but their backgrounds and approach to the issues such as fiscal policies, education, etc. are different. State politics/p
No of course the NewYork Times isn't above playing the "race card" when it suits them, ie the twisted spinned interview of Rev Wright as an example. These white journalist like the MSM are only interested in sensational reporting whether it reflects the truth or not. I live in Boston and even though Massachusetts elected a black governor..
The problem is that what they really meant when they said "All men are created equal..." is that "All (white, wealthy, protestant) men (and the few women like HRC who act like them) are created equal..." but that was too long to write out, so they went with the shorter version...
Black, white, green, yellow, blue, Deval Patrick is a loser! Race has nothing to do with it. We in MA voted for him because he promised "change". We bought into the hype. He has done nothing for the state so far and the voters are feeling cheated. This is a liberal state and we have had Republican governors through the years. Some good, some bad. The same with Dems. But Deval overall has a very low approval rating and much of that has been earned because of Deval. Race has nothing to do with it.
Enough with subliminal messages! It works with the non educated likely Clinton voters who are manipulated everyday by Hillary , her surrogates and the media, especially CNN. The NYT is only good for its opinion section, which sometimes has good pieces with Brooks , Dowd and Kristof.
Well, let this "non educated" Clinton voter teach you some MATH: Without FL and MI, NO ONE gets to 2024 delegates, especially if you ask the super delegates to vote according to their states. If Hillary suspends her campaign TODAY, Obama still WILL NOT win. The only way he can WIN before the convention is for Hillary to quit and pull her name off the remaining primaries. So get a life and let those "non educated" people vote already.
The so-called educated Obama supporters say:
"He's so inspiring" "You should vote for him cause he inspires me"
"Check his website" "Because I can't recall a thing myself and am not able to put anything he's said/done in my own 'educated' words".
"Hillary's a witch"
"He's a good dancer"
"His speech was fabulous. The best speech of the millennium" "Don't ask me what he said, however".
Yeah, his followers are so educated, so inspirational, such uniters and so full of themselves.
Here's the deal. Patrick happens to one of the Obama campaign's national chairs. Patrick and Obama are both indebted to spinmeister David Axelrod , and their campaigns have shared identical themes, etc., to the extent that Obama was casually plagiarising Patrick's speeches. The fact that Patrick ran on a promise to bring change you can believe in and has not been able to deliver is of interest to those who have not been swept away by Obama's charisma and are actually questioning his qualifications for the presidency. See? The fact that they are both black is only one of many, many factors that make a comparison between the two relevant for voters.
But leave it to an Obama supporter to accuse the NY Times of racism. With Obama's skimpy resume, his team has had to repeatedly play the race card throughout the campaign - what else could they do to win?
If his resume is skimpy, he should just pad it like Hillary does. A few stories about dodging sniper bullets is always helpful and has everything to do with predicting how successful she might be as an executive.
He has padded his resume. The same Wasp Post article that discussed Clinton's padding of the Bosnia trip also discussed two times when Obama took credit for bill sin the Senate that he had nothing to do with. But, I suppose you just happened to overlook that.
Too bad both Patrick and Obama lack the skills needed to actually run something, the only skills they seem to have is running for Office.
That's right, because being black is always an advantage in America! And if you don't know that, you must be engaged in reverse-racism (see how ignorant this argument sounds when its rephrased?)
Get off the RACE thing. It is going to far, and it is a relentless chorus that is really dividing then uniting.
How much should this play out for Obama? It is a question that has been asked over and over again and quite frankly produces more harm then good.
Here is something Michelle Obama just recently stated:
I"t’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions, it makes you feel justified in your own ignorance…That’s AMERICA”
Do we feel the love yet? OR do will feel guilted enough yet?
No one is trying to make whites feel guilty....
cybersense,
Apparently, YOU get that she was ONLY talking to Whites, huh?!?!?!? That was taken from a speech in SC, where the audience was mainly Black.
Don't try to reason with this person because they see only what they want to see. Michelle Obama was talking about all people... regardless of race. Barack is asking all Americans to rise above the petty sterotypes and misconcept
I think HRC supporters and the "oh boo hoo, its reverse racism" crowd forget that Obama is just as white as he is black. It is our racist cultural norm of "one drop" of black blood makes someone 100% black that has colored this entire discussion (excuse the pun). Think about that - Obama is no more black than he is white - and then consider all the mud being thrown around about race. It makes it clear that the Right and the right-wing of the Democratic party (HRC, DLC & their ilk) are intent on using race to bludgeon Obama out of the campaign. And the one thing HRC can never take away, no matter how deep down in the mud she gets - OBAMA IS THE ONLY MAJOR FIGURE IN AMERICAN POLITICS NOT TAINTED BY BUSH'S ILL-ADVISED, ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION. McCain & Hillary gave him the green light - all that has ensued since is their fault (at least according to the Constitution).
That one drop rule is still in existance today ....after 200 years have passed. Why ? That same rules forced Thomas Jefferson's son and daughter to pass for white and live as white to escape slavery. Down through history blacks that could pass did and still are to escape racial discrimination.
Its still here because its just another way among many to control a large segment of the population. Countries in the Caribbean and S. America have no such controls because everybody is more or less an ancestor of every racial group - something that will never happen in the US...
So you are saying if someone voted FOR the war in 2002, he/she can no longer be considered for presidential candidacy? Then WHY the hell did we vote for that murderous John Kerry AND John Edward ticket in 2004?
Uh, I don't know. Whose point do you think you are proving, exactly?
they don't they are just hoping you would ignore that fact like they choose to do.
Why is it that Obama supporters and their ilk in the media are always playing the "race card' and blaming everyone for doing it? I thought Obama was supposed to "transend" race and "politics as usual". That has proven to be a smoke screen that his campaign hides behind while trying to inject race and divisiveness into every aspect of this primary season. It is getting very tiresome.
Surprise, surprise - another white person "tired" of talking about race and accusing anyone they disagree with of reverse racism. Yawn...
Why do you assume apresdeluge is white? Or a man or a woman? I can't tell from your screen name what race, nationality or gender you are.
"Assume nothing" means assume nothing. We're so busy trying to argue that we shouldn't argue about race that all we end up arguing about is race, and we're getting nowhere.
Neoconstant,
Your ridiculous, trite response to every challenge is what's tiresome in this campaign.
Surprise, surprise, I am NOT white. The difference between "apresdeluge" and I is that I am NOT tired of telling everyone that the Obama camp is playing the "race card". His camp can play the race card because he is black in appearance. Hillary camp is accused of "race baiting" because she is white in appearance. Anyone who accuse Obama camp of playing the "race card" has been attacked as being racist because he is black in appearance. 90% of black voters are voting for him because he is black in appearance but when Geraldine Ferraro pointed that out she became a racist.
If Hillary does not have the presidency "owed" to her for her 35 years of public service, then Obama does not have the presidency "owed" to him because his half black.
We're supposed to have a conversation about race, but only Obama is allowed to mention it.
no anyone could and should but talking about it and overtly practicing or covertly practicing it accomplishes what. the purpose of the conversation should be to raise awareness and to promote a change for the betterment of society. but when the purpose is to continue to promote racism under the guise of journalism then all you do is contribute to the problem .
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
