Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Want to see press bias?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_blacks;_ylt=Agt.TGRgBt2MvxGwf3_eiA6s0NUE
The headline and first line of the story is:
Obama's black support shows its limits
CHICAGO - Barack Obama would not be leading the Democratic presidential race without the enthusiasm and high turnout of black voters.
Now, first, the story already biases you that the only reason that Obama is leading (did you note that word, supporters of HRC?) is because of black voters. This is ridiculous. If you tweeze out any particular demographic of a candidate's base, you can make that statement.
Don't believe me? How about a line that reads:
NEW YORK - Hillary Clinton would still not be in the Presidential race without the enthusiasm and high turnout of voters without a college education.
See? Statistically factual, isn't it? But it doesn't it also have a hidden emotional message?
Next, we have a dumb statement that there are "limits" to this support. This is backed up, in part, by the statement that HRC continues to get a (whopping) 10-20% of the black vote. I guess you can say that HRC's women support also has "limits"... after all, there are women (even white women) that support Obama.
Of course, there are other overtones to the notion of limits:
Moreover, some analysts think it's possible Obama's heavy black support
is nudging some working-class white Democrats into Clinton's camp.
And there you have it. In black and white. Pun intended.
Not that the Clinton campaign hasn't tried to stoke these flames. In a nice little irony, the story does discuss the racially charged statements by the Clinton campaign, but only how it affected the black voters!
The story closes with a nice lil' twist:
Of course, the broad based fear-mongering and negative strokes used by Hillary Clinton have nothing whatsoever to do with emotions.
"She has the most experience," said Elexis Griffin, a black worker at a law office who attended a Clinton fundraiser in Canton, Ohio. "Obama has only been in the Senate three years. I'm not anti-Barack. I'm just pro-Hillary."
Griffin, who is 25 and considering law school, said, "I sit here almost
every single day and hear debating: Hillary or Obama? My closest
friends, I have very much influenced their vote for Hillary. They
accuse me of being against the social movement. And I accuse them of
voting with their emotions and not looking at the facts."
It's a slick trick to minimize Obama's effectiveness and broad support by saying "it's really only because of the black vote".
Despite this, we have yet to see the Obama campaign play a victim card, unlike Hillary Clinton, the self-proclaimed "fighter".
Comments (30)
These kinds of stories have exactly one purpose:
To make it look like Obama can't win so hey, give up and vote for Hillary.
Oh sure, there's some statistics thrown in, what appears to be some "analysis," but the overarching theme is - Obama is screwed.
This, incidentally, is exactly the crap Hillary was complaining about. It's without any discernible constructive purpose. It fans flames to no end. It is opinion trying to pass as fact.
I'm getting very, very tired of seeing this kind of garbage in the press, not because it happens to target my favorite candidate (I wouldn't want to see this crap about Hillary, either), but because it's not news. It's not reporting. It's lazy yellow journalism at its finest.
I've come to the conclusion here that the real perpetrator in this whole mess isn't Hillary or Obama or either of their comments about the press - it's the press itself. I hesitate to say there's bias, because I think that's a given - it's the ends to which the press is using that bias, to keep this destructive battle going for no other purpose than to get ratings and ad views.
They've sold us out.
March 9, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right.
March 9, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what we are seeing here is a press practice that extends all the way back hundreds of years to the Spanish-American War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War
Conflict sells news; a contentious, extended primary season is good for the ratings of MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and others. In no previous primary race have we seen such people take such a strong and sustained interest. Stoking the embers by publishing a heavily biased non-story or repeating the claims of a candidate unchallenged allows them to continue the race while claiming innocence.
March 10, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's really surprising?
A story about how the President and Vice President led a coordinated propaganda campaign to drum up support for a war that diverted resources away from combatting terrorists, only to be proven equally willing to violate the sovereignty of their own electors when that sidetrack turned into a quagmire, would make a great story; but somehow the press hasn't figured that one out yet.
Unless their version of the story also includes how they got away with it because of a complicit press that didn't want the embarrassment, and so continued to keep the story under wraps by continually finding new distractions like Britney Spears' post-partum woes or tragic school shootings to keep the public focused somewhere else.
March 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I have read stories about Clinton that said exactly that. I've also read stories that have said that Obama's demographic are above average earners with college degrees. What do you infer from that?
March 9, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link please? I bet you $5 you can't find a headline like that BevD.
March 9, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah this is silly. The press is getting horribly sloppy these days. I'm starting to wonder if we as citizens are getting so used to the press that we may succumb to them telling us who to vote?
March 9, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... you think it's negative for the press to point out the fact that Barack Obama is popular with black voters? What's wrong with being popular with black voters? Hillary wouldn't even be competitive if not for women. But there's nothing wrong with that either. Heck, a lot of people would have amounted to nothing without the influence of white men.
March 9, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, of course there is nothing wrong with being supported by black voters-- the problem comes when the press (or the Clinton campaign) uses the fact as a tool to marginalize a candidate and divide the electorate (for instance, I would guess that the black vote could very well have provided Bill Clinton's margin of victory in the 1992 presidential campaign as well, but that wasn't a news story... wonder why.).
As sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva explains, "The placement of people in racial categories involves some form of hierarchy that produces definite social relations between the races." If this article's author (or CNN, or the rest of the MSM) were serious about moving us past our history as a racist society, they would not use racialized social systems as analytical tools.
March 9, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... it WASN'T a news story that Bill Clinton had major support from the black community? Yes it was. Clinton was even jokingly referred to as "the first black president" at the time. Hell, the black community's support of the Clintons was so great early in the primary campaign that people were wondering if Obama could even make headway in that community. Times have obviously changed but, yes, Bill Clinton's success was largely, widely and accurately attributed to black voters while he was campaigning.
March 9, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, here's the problem. If the headline of this story were "The Only Reason Obama Is Winning Is Because of Black People", you wouldn't have to change the first two paragraphs of the story.
Look, you could write almost the exact same news story by replacing "black voters" with "young voters". Yet you are never going to see that story because the statement is so obvious it's not newsworthy.
When you see a story in the news with no news-worthiness, you have to question the reason it was written in the first place. In this case, the motivation seems to be the same as Bill Clinton's when he compared Obama to Jesse Jackson after Obama's SC win: to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate" rather than a candidate who is black.
I don't think this a deliberate attempt by Charles Babington to paint Obama as "the black candidate", but rather just a lazy way of looking at the world based on how he has viewed minority candidates in the past. The effect is the same though.
March 10, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Destor would like to take a crack at defining what a black is.
Q: Was Bill Clinton our first black president?
A: No. They all were.
David Duke and his mirror image, the "social construct" set, are sure they can define black and white races but they cannot anymore than Chris Matthews or Cokie Roberts can. The apartheidists in South Africa had a commission to judge such weighty matters so they could determine whether one had the right to be a citizen.
How many drops of white blood does a black need to be white, Destor? Loki? Anyone?
Best, Terry
March 10, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we clearly know that by national consensus it's more than 1/2 as indicated by Obama's classification.
March 10, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Terry, racial classifications are largely nonsense. But there really are cultural differences between communities that we tend to call black and white so there's a bit of a conundrum for you -- the differences ain't real enough to meet any sort of scientific rigor but they do describe actual differences between groups of people so what are we to do?
It's not racist to say that Obama is more popular with certain parts of society. He's more popular with younger voters. He's more popular with black voters. He's less popular with Hispanic voters. He's more popular with younger women but less popular with older women. None of these labels are perfect but they do describe what's actually going on.
March 10, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23
No they're not except in the hands of bigots such as those who think there is a white race and a black race.
If there were no races there could hardly be a "Caucasian Disease" (cystic fibrosis) for instance. That is the fact that the "sccial construct" people conveniently ignore. Doctors looking only at the color of skin miss the disease in the children of South Asian Caucasians.
Where's the conundrum?
Only a bigger fool than I would deny that there are cultural differences between people just as there are language or even gender differences.
What does that have to do with the color of one's skin or the genes that determine racial characteristics?
Why would anyone think differently?
It is the black and white that is racism at its worst.
I ask you again: what's a black? If I learn Spanish, can I be be transracial? What's a Hispanic?
Best, Terry
March 10, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... we see the "youth vote" story all the time.
March 10, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
the reality: HRC cannot win against McCain... this is the reason she's positing the false idea of Obama as running mate. HRC would never permit a superior, progressive to be her running mate.
March 10, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bias is clear because you never hear this story: the fact that Billary LOST the black vote. The assumption, well of course the black people are voting for the black guy. And that, my friends, is racist.
I'm a white 57 year old female -- I don't see them doing a story on the 33% of us who support Obama. We are a bigger group than Hillary's 15% of the black vote.
In her "big state" theory, has anyone factored in what happens to states where her black support is soft? Does anyone believe blacks will vote for Hillary, 80, 90%, ever again, or in decent enough numbers? Does that take Missouri out of play? If she loses the black vote in Ohio or Pennsylvania, what does that do? Take Virginia off the swing state list, for sure.
As I watch in feminist horror at the "protection" vote Hillary has won on from older women, I watch Obama get trashed like no other Democrat has been trashed by another Democrat, at the national level. And in case anyone has forgotten, she's done this to a black man. Who has NEVER whined because she's picking on a black man. That alone shows a unique character of the man that is impressive. The press has bought her "don't pick on me because I'm a girl" but never -- NEVER -- anymore mentions the picking on the black man, even when using blatant stereotypes that feed that fear. How is God's name did that happen?
It's still a house of cards for Hillary. She cannot maintain control and power under this kind of deception. It only worked for Bush because of his deep, delusional support from his staff and Congress that do his bidding blindly.
Do you see a Democratic Congress doing things blindly for HIllary Clinton? They wouldn't even do it in 1994 for the health care plan before she was reviled. And she ain't got Bill's charm.
Disaster ahead, unless Obama becomes more effective, and does it fast.
March 10, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
57andFemale,
What's a white? Is that a black that's passed?
My father used to talk about "white men" trying to be Irish. Fat chance of fooling the Irish even if the imposter could drink and fight and lie moderately well.
"Do you think you might have convicted OJ because of the color of his skin?" a Greek juror in the civil trial was asked. "My skin is darker than his," she said. Sure looked like it on the old TV.
There are no black and white races except in the minds of the David Dukes, Chris Matthews and the "social construct" set.
The Irish BTW are those most likely to have the "Celtic Curse." Hemochromatosis ("iron overload") originated in Ireland. The Irish should be warned not to drink Guinness but it might be life threatening to warn imbibers in a Dublin pub of the threat.
That is what defines races.
The rest is bigotry.
BTW, 57andFemale, my wife of nearly half a century thinks she is white too but then we being Swedes and all what would we know? We're the ones that invented the solar-powered airplane ("Watch out for those *&^%$% clouds, Sven").
Hope you're not a Swede either. :-)
Best, Terry
March 10, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, you've hit the nail on the head.
March 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I read an article that said, "Obama's support among blacks may hurt him with racially biased whites."
Really, now? Reeaaaaallly? So Mr. Reporterman, You think that if Obama weren't getting all that pesky support from blacks, he'd be sweeping the stormfront demographic. What a crock of poopie! I think they've run out of things to write about and should start recycling, I say start with 1960 Kennedy/Nixon election at least that would be a nice analogy for today's race.
March 10, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
A good deal of these Black voters who support Obama are obviously racist. They are voting for him because he is black, period. Not enough has been said about this.
March 10, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
dembillc,
Isn't Obama just as white as he is black?
If people with a history of legal and cultural inferiority join together as a group, is that racism in your mind?
When Catholics and Protestants murder each other in Ireland, is it racism you think?
Tribal politics has a raison d'etre. It may not be a good one, as in your case, but there is a reason behind it.
Best, Terry
March 10, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW I found a fantastic article...A MUST read for EVERYONE
“The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com.
Brilliant writing that goes beyond what the MSM is feeding us!!!!
March 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry,
With all respect, you have continually pounded on the definition of "race". Here are a few points to consider:
a) Scientists *do* find that lumped key genetic issues for medical purposes valuable. Often, there is a strong correlation of these genetic issues with what we would traditionally call "race"
b) I assume if you are very strict in your definition of "race" that you therefore agree that all affirmative action programs based on race must be immediately terminated.
c) Despite the NIH thinking beyond issues of characterization of "race" for grants, the federal government still uses "race" boxes for minority protection.
d) I assume you also refuse to use the term "generation" for being equally as vague and on a sliding scale.
In other words, we get it. (And certainly if you have read my posts, I've often pointed out why is Obama characterized as "black" when he is just as "white".)
However, your posts have taken on the tone of refusing to use a common vocabulary that people agree upon. I applaud your efforts in getting people to think beyond "race", but until you have expunged the notion in all of your own thinking (think affirmative action, say), can we agree that the concept of "race", as used in society today, as a framing argument is okay for the points trying to be made? We don't want to get so sidetracked as not get to the issue, after all.
March 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker,
Name any affirmative action program you know that is based on race. Which one do you think discusses alleles and racial admixtures? I know of none at all.
The problem is the mythology of race. Mixing up cultural ethnicity with race is like confusing astrology and astronomy.
You couldn't be more wrong. The discovery that generations had certain experiences in common that influenced their thinking is profound in my view.
But again what does that have to do with biology exactly?
Race is about biology. Those making claims about superiority or inferiority based on biology is quite different than those talking about handicaps imposed by society.
Geez, guy, I can't help the nonsensical beliefs that people adhere to in violation of all reason.
When you talk about blacks, what do you mean exactly? Are you not referring to biology rather than cultural affinity?
When others deny that there are races isn't that like Galileo's inquisitioners refusing to look into his telescope? Can anyone not see there are different races? There are even genetic tests today that can define your racial admixture [please note "admixture"]. They say nothing whatever about your mental capacity or other such things attributed to race.
Why is Barack Obama not called a white as often as a black? What is the definition of black and white? See the problem?
Best, Terry
March 10, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Terry:
You are playing a game here, and you are more interesting than that. Your statement is so blanket there here is a blanket website to show how far you are off base:
http://minoritygrants.com/?src=gogl&akw=minority
Okay?
Apparently, you have never done work with the government or been associated with the government in any way. Because the government is always asking for ethnic check boxes for compliance of regulations, etc. You may argue that "how does one know what ethnic check box to choose?" but my guess is that unless you have plenty of time and money (for a lawyer), few are going to buy an argument that you can check off "Asian" if you have white skin, etc. and are going to dismiss you quickly.
I do like your bringing up "mental capacities", etc. into the conversation -- particularly when no one else is. I think this is beneath your typical level of post. You have an ax to grind apparently, but that's for another blog, which I'd be happy to read if you start.
On the other hand, things like Sickle-cell disease *are* more correlated with "blacks" -- or people who descended primarily from sub-Saharan Africa if you prefer a much longer set of words to say the same thing.
That's a scientific *fact*.
Please don't try to bait with meaningless out-lying issues like "mental capacity."
You can choose not to play the game, of course, and decide how to define words for your own personal usage, but that would only mean that you couldn't participate in a general discussion.
You have some good insights, I'd hate to see you drop out for semantic reasons.
Moreover, it is *you* that is wrong about the generational thing. For example, the boomers cover (apparently) 1946-64. Therefore, some of the boomers were teenagers for the Beatles, and some were teenagers for the Sex Pistols.
Exactly what are the common characteristics there? The economic outlook was hardly the same for both sets of teenagers.
It's just as much a sliding scale for generations as for race. But apparently "ageism" isn't as much of an issue for you. ;-)
I brought up the "generation" issue clearly (or so I thought) because it is another type of classification on a sliding scale and yet we can agree on definitions that give us broad concepts with which to work. If you prefer to only study trees, that's fine, but frankly, much less interesting and it will be difficult to see how things work (the forest) as a result.
As I said, most of us already *get it* and regular readers of TPM know that I've even had a blog on Obama's racial characterization by the media.
Best,
clearthinker
March 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
More of the "kitchen sink":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_el_pr/obama_rezko_q_a;_ylt=Ag8Ah4aWaeYCKAk95ner_mus0NUE
Now why is this on the front page of Yahoo! News today?
It's not a reaction to Spitzer because it was posted a bit early... or at least I can buy it not being a reaction.
If anything, Spitzer will bump this off.
But you have to wonder: who at the Yahoo! News site is doing favors for the Clintons?
Then again, Matt Damon's announcement that his wife is pregnant also made the "above the fold" space, so maybe it's just indicative of the Yahoo! News editorial board.
March 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. As time goes on, I become more and more convinced that someone at Yahoo! News is "in the tank" for Hillary - they almost never report positive Obama news but they've reported every single one of Wolfson's verbal jabs at Obama.
It should be noted that the author of the article you cite, Christopher Wills, I've noticed has written several of the suspiciously anti-Obama articles that appear on Yahoo! News.. even though he's a reporter for AP.
It's enough that I've been wondering for awhile what Yahoo!'s relationship with AP is. They're not just aggregating the news, they seem to be buying it.
March 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the only reason Hillary won the big states of Nevada, California, and Texas was because of the Hispanic vote. Especially in Texas because it was so close. In the heavy populas areas, Obama always wins. Hillary picks up her wins in the rural areas. Thats why she can't catch up in the delegate race. She almost lost Texas. The only thing that put her over the top was the Hispanic vote which, Obama hasen't been able to crack yet.
If the Hispanic community knows like I know and wakes up, she would lose by a land slide. Infect, the Hispanic community better hurry up and wake up before it's to late. The only reason why they vote for her is because they remember Bill. The young Hispanic voters have already flocked to Obama, they know the deal. The rest of the Hispanic community need to get on board and understand that Senator Obama is about bringing all people together. Hillary is about the old politics of Washington that will not help them progress. Hispanic community get on board!!!
March 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment