Interesting Story
So, I found this story very interesting.
I’m less interested in the comments on the gaffes as with the last few paragraphs about reporting in the United States. Agree or disagree with Obama on FP, John Fund makes a point none-the-less.
Anand on 31 May 2008 at 3:52 am #
The author does make an interesting, though somewhat irritatingly didactic, in the last paragraph of the piece. If he wonders why the media seems to gloss over the gaffs of liberal politicians while mocking those of their conservative rivals like Bush, I may have a small part of the answer. If we were to simply compare Bush and Obama (the subject of the piece), we find that the media ignores Obama’s mistakes because, as a statesman, he is streets ahead of anything Bush could ever aspire to be. Purely in terms of delivery, tone, poise, and the aura of intelligent speech and bearing, Obama succeeds in deflecting the kind of ridicule that Bush’s buffoonery often elicits.
Austan Mogharabi on 31 May 2008 at 4:35 am #
Actually, if you read the piece, Fund is arguing that the media uses the gaffes (or doesn’t use them) to maintain an image that they have created for the person. It’s not about Bush v Obama. It’s about how the media chooses how they see someone and how they portray them, then it selectively chooses how to cover their mistakes and successes. His point, like he says in the last sentence, is maybe the media should stop being subjective about the issue and instead simply report on the mistakes of all candidates. Let people decide how they view a person instead of pushing a predetermined image.
And just as an example, Hillary Clinton is a good example of a liberal who is having a tough time with the media. Mostly because her mistakes play into the fact that she’s “a liar” or a “dirty politician”. If she had made the Auschwitz comment, or any the Selma comment, she would have been torn to bits. The media would have instantly assumed she was lying to make herself look better. Instead, Obama is forgiven without a moments thought by the media.
So your argument really is the type of thing Fund is arguing against. He’s saying “fine, you think Bush is an idiot, but how much of that is because every portrayal of him in the media is to reaffirm the image newcasters have created of him?” Or, “great, you think Obama is such a statesman, etc…well how much of that is because the media looks at him and says pretty much everything he does is ’statesman like’”?
In an odd way, you proved Fund’s point.