| 06.07.2008 |
|
||||||||
| There's some snarkiness out there today toward Barack Obama from reporters after he chided them for their coverage of his recent statements on Iraq. We reporters, like all humans, do sometimes bristle at criticism, but everyone who erroneously reported that Obama had somehow changed his position ought to just go ahead and swallow this medicine. Obama simply did not change his position, as some reported he did. A little basic research is all it takes to learn that. Obama, as far back as September of 2007, refused to commit to fully pulling out troops before 2013. That's more than 16 months, the timespan he frequently cites for ending the Iraq War. No, he has not often emphasized his "facts on the ground" argument, but it's always been there. When Obama said today, "I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," he was wrong in his characterization of the media's calibration. It was quite poorly calibrated, in fact. The New York Times piece linked above suggested that somehow Obama was doing a flip-flop within a flip-flop by changing his story from "I wasn't clear enough" in Thursday's second press conference to "you didn't hear me right." To me, this reads more like the kind of thing anyone says in an argument; being charitable to the other party, one might start by saying, "Perhaps I should have said it better," but when the message still doesn't get through, charity goes out the window and things shift to "You should listen better." Obama might have felt compelled to bring the subject up again because of pieces like this, which delve into whether he's on the verge of getting saddled with a flip-flopper label. Writes the AP in another bit of strange reporting: "His problem is that his change in emphasis to flexibility from a hard-nosed end-the-war stance — including his recent position that withdrawing combat troops could take as long as 16 months — will now be heard loud and clear by an anti-war camp that may have ignored it before. So he could face a double-whammy in their feelings of betrayal and other voters' belief in the Republican charge that he is craven." It's hard to understand why any reporter would postulate that. A very casual scan of some of the most liberal blogs -- home of the most strident anti-war positions on the left -- shows that, in fact, it is only the media that has drawn their scorn, not Obama. And as TPM pointed out, the 16-month timeline is not "recent," either. In my day job at Congressional Quarterly, I report on policy first, politics second. But here, at Across the Pond, I'm a political reporter first and foremost. And incidents like the recent spate of reporting and "analysis" on Obama's Iraq stance give dishonor to that profession. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15 Comments |
| What was that you said? I couldn't quite understand you with your lips so firmly planted on Obamas anus. Ah yes, that's right Obama is "refining" his Iraq policy without changing it. Tell us, how exactly does someone refine (synonym for change) a policy without changing it? Only a hack of monumental proportions could regurgitate that fetid Kool-Aid. The truth is Obama spent the entire primary one-upping the other Democrat nominees over who would withdraw troops fastest. He spent the past two years arguing against the surge which has been enormously successful, and arguing for pulling out immediately, leaving Iraq to collapse into civil/regional war and genocide as al Qaeda, insurgents, Saddams former Ba'athists and Iran fight for control of the world's second largest oil reserves. AH, but he promised he would send troops back IN if that happened, which it was assured to. It's no wonder he is reverting back to his 2004 position, which was that he wouldnt do anything differently than Bush and Republicans are doing. Because Bush, McCain and Republicans were right and Obama, as usual, was wrong. |
||
| Put Down the Kool-Aid | Homepage | E-Mail | 07.07.2008, 21:47 | ||
| Flip flopper. Learn it, live it, love it. That is what Obama is. Your such an Obama troll. | ||
| inchdeep | Homepage | E-Mail | 07.07.2008, 16:17 | ||
| thank you very much for clearing up this matter as i said all along he did not flip flop looks like ny times are for mccain even though you dont like obama that is very unprofessional to report lies or twist the journalist jobs are to report the truth not side with a canidate | ||
| angie | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 22:56 | ||
| The reporting presented to us by the news media and the AP is getting to the point of dangerous. Their distortions, mis-reporting and exaggerations are making victims of the listeners, watchers, readers. There is absolutely no integrity left. They are interested in only sensationalizing, not truth, policies or being unbiased. We need to stop them, but how?? |
||
| katiec | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 22:22 | ||
| Thanks for clearing that up. I was there with you all along As for the cooment about "judgment day and our every word being callabrated" I just thank God that He sent me to Buddhism |
||
| npeebles | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 17:53 | ||
| Shellman... perhaps you should proofread your own comment for accuracy and precision. | ||
| em | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 16:42 | ||
| Obama said during the primaries "he would end the war on day one and bring ALL THE TROOPS HOME" Now he almost has McCain's position on the war. I cannot believe I votedforthis guy over Hilliary. What a big mistake | ||
| jOHN | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 16:03 | ||
| Barack's primary message has been to be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." no flip no flop yes. we can. |
||
| Bud | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 16:03 | ||
| Unfortunately the Traditional media is so busy ginning up stories to create conflict or is enamored of the shallow that to report the facts, to do any legwork or to not take sides is something they are incapable of doing anymore. They blame the public, saying it is what we want, when in truth we have been complaining for years about the cotton candy coverage of the election. For some reason they decided to get bug up them over Obama the past few weeks and have been merciless in their faux stories trying to portray him as McSprinkles wants. maybe because the bulk of the media is still in love with McSprinkles, with the AP leading the pack in their love letters. |
||
| vwcat | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 13:05 | ||
| Its sad I have to thank a reporter for reporting the facts but here we are.The AP now now has Rupert Murdock as a board member.This addition to a group that a few months ago gave John McCain a standing ovation and later that day sat on their hands when Obama was introduced, is very troubling for our country.You would think after the job the press didnt do during the run up to Iraq,they would put their bias away and report the facts.It looks like the years of cultivating the press with free BBQs and booze is paying off for McCain. | ||
| Greg | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 12:11 | ||
| Obama can not be right in everything he ought to say. He is a human, and humanbeings are not infallible of mistakes. | ||
| jama ismail | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 10:46 | ||
| I commend you for writing this article. I felt it was a travesty that Obama's words were reported as a flip-flop, but it seems that anything that negatively impacts Obama is blown way out of proportion as opposed to McCain who is hardly even mentioned. For example, the media's constant articles on Obama's not taking public financing was ridiculous because he said he would try to pursue an agreement with John McCain -- nothing legally binding and both parties would have to agree -- this was not accepted by the press though and they proceeded to label Obama as a flip-flopper. McCain on the other hand, was legally obligated to using public financing in the primaries by taking a loan, then he really did flip-flop and used private money -- this is a much bigger story that what Obama did because it has legal implications. Yet it was not even pursued vigorously by the press. But then again, the press wants controversy over someone who at least knows about "the internets" and the media will continue along this pathetic path because of ratings, at the cost of honest reporting, because We the People will click or view Barack Obama and not John McCain. | ||
| Tony | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 10:18 | ||
| Good honest reporting from across the pond. Who will set the standard in American mainstream media now the Tim Russert ic gone. |
||
| Mr. Unite Us | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 08:53 | ||
| We are taught that on Judgment Day every single word will be measured with absolute calibration. Since no one knows when he day will come our duty is to achieve absolute accuracy and precision lest we do irreparable harm to ourselves. | ||
| shellman | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 02:54 | ||
| Thanks very much for the sober article. I am rather baffled at some of the reporting. I regard myself as a progressive (more centrist than liberal). However, I am surprised by the venom emanating from the New York Times. It appears Paul Krugman is writing all the editorials. Let's we forget, Paul hounded Barack Obama over the primaries regarding healthcare mandates. He sounded like a broken record. The New York Times and other progressive publications sound broken too. | ||
| Frederick | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.07.2008, 02:08 | ||