Bullshit Racist Obama Major Media Slam Jambaroo

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Barney Dannelke
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Allentown, PA.
Contact:

Bullshit Racist Obama Major Media Slam Jambaroo

Postby Barney Dannelke » Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:40 pm

*** The Obligatory Bullshit Racist Obama Media Slam part II.***

Tonight on the CNN 7-7:30PM time slot it went down like this;

The Northern Illinois University School shooting - a little less than 1 minute. It's hard news to watch and there's no horrific footage - but they had to cover it so they front it for the minimum and move on. What's more important?

Showing internet parodies of the Obama "Yes We Can" video - including one about turtles and another from children jumping up and down in their room on a bed. I don't actually mind that the video is being riffed on. It's a style that lends itself to some form of mad lib mockery. What I **DO** mind is the concept that this is top of the hour newsworthy in the eyes of the CNN programmers.

How much top of the hour? About 3 minutes 30 seconds worth.

Things from the CNN website that this was much more important than;

Romney endorsing McCain.

Terrorists looking for patients to use as bombers

A 10 year old shooting his sister in the face with a shotgun over a dispute concerning chips.

If you think I'm making the last one up, it's currently featured video on their web feed. But let's save 12 year olds making fun of the Obama video for the top of the hour.

Next segment was a 5 minute block on Hillary Clinton and how she was leading in the polls in Texas and Pennsylvania and Ohio. In a parenthetical remark that was rushed past faster than child scoots past a pile of vomit in a school hallway it was acknowledged that these polls were all BEFORE the Potomac primaries. The thrust of this was about a minute and a half of Hillary's "new" stump speech and where Bill and Chelsea were heading. Fifteen seconds on how prohibitive the math was becoming.

A few seconds of Obama was spliced into this story. NO Obama audio. NO chance for refutation. Hillary's "new" points were her experiance.

Stop right there. How many more MONTHS as an elected official does Hillary have over Obama? This was followed by charges of a lack of specificity in his stump speech. As though she is pulling up graphs, flowcharts and power point presentations in hers.

And why should he? Why should she? When Al Gore did it, it was pure political death.

But thank you CNN for weighing the top of your "news" hour with this unpaid all pro-Hillary segment. At least when FOX says "fair and balanced" we are all now in on the joke.

- Barney Dannelke
History is a vast early warning system. -Norman Cousins (1915-1990)

User avatar
Barney Dannelke
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Allentown, PA.
Contact:

The Obligatory Bullshit Racist Obama Media Slam III

Postby Barney Dannelke » Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:47 pm

My friend James (you don't know him) sent me this sans comment. He was very clear on the No Comment front, but he knew it would get me going. Beyond "screw Bill O'Reilly" my comments are at the bottom.

*****************************************************
http://thephoenix.com/printerfriendlyB.aspx?id=56302

Is there one political story the press shouldn't report?

By: ADAM REILLY

2/13/2008 4:12:13 PM

The ‘A’ word

CYNICAL DISPLAY: On his Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly rather recklessly showed a clip of rapper 50 Cent predicting harm for Barack Obama should he continue his run for the presidency.

How can the media cover a subject that nearly everyone’s thinking about, but is almost too abhorrent to discuss?

If you’re Bill O’Reilly, you have someone else bring it up, then smugly laugh it off. On a recent episode of The O’Reilly Factor, the Fox News host aired a video clip in which rap star 50 Cent endorsed Hillary Clinton — and then predicted that Barack Obama, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination, could be violently harmed for his ambition. “I’m not sure America’s ready to have a black president,” said the rapper-cum-pundit. “I think they might kill him.” In response, O’Reilly pursed his lips, shook his head, clicked his tongue, and uttered two words — “Pinhead comment” — thereby dodging the nightmare scenario he’d just helped disseminate.

Contrast that with Harry Smith of CBS’s The Early Show, who broached the subject himself — awkwardly but insistently — during a January 29 interview with Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, who’d just endorsed Obama. “When you see that enthusiasm,” asked Smith, referring to Obama’s effect on his supporters, “and when you see the generational change that seems to be taking place before our eyes, does it make you at all fearful?” When Kennedy didn’t get the point — or chose to ignore it — Smith tried another approach: “I just — I think what I was trying to say is, sometimes agents of change end up being targets, as you well know, and that was why I was asking if you were at all fearful of that.” Kennedy deflected the question again, but Smith’s meaning was clear.

Hardly a model of journalistic grace, that. But Smith’s clumsiness — and even O’Reilly’s recklessness — might have stemmed from the painful delicacy of the topic. After all, even Obama’s wife, Michelle, who’s become her husband’s de facto spokesman on safety fears, frequently resorts to oblique language. “I think people want to protect us and themselves from disappointment and failure, from the possibility of being let down again — not by us, but by the world as it is,” she said this past month at the Trumpet Awards, which recognizes black achievement. “A world that we fear may not be ready for a decent man like Barack.”

And really, what’s the alternative? Suppose Harry Smith had cut to the chase: “Senator Kennedy, you’ve compared Obama to your brother John; other people say he reminds them of your brother Robert. Are you afraid what happened to them might happen to Obama, too?” It’s not clear whether that question would have been an improvement.

Whispers and whack jobs
Even discussing the possibility of someone harming Obama feels wrong for several reasons. First off, it’s a horrifying but purely hypothetical scenario that presupposes the absolute worst in human behavior. It’s also a very real risk that every presidential candidate knows comes with the territory. Four presidents (Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and Kennedy) have been assassinated. And several more have been unsuccessfully targeted while in office, including Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan (actually shot, but survived), Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Worst of all, though, is the fear that pondering it publicly — as I am now — could contribute in any way to making it more likely to happen. “I don’t write about it because it could possibly encourage some nutter,” Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic senior editor and Obama enthusiast, tells the Phoenix.

But giving the subject the silent treatment won’t go make it go away. The fact is that, for two distinct reasons — Obama’s race, and the perception that he’s an heir to the Kennedy legacy — a number of people are worried about his ability to stay out of harm’s way during and after the campaign. Sullivan says he hears these fears “all the time.” So does Shelby Steele, the Hoover Institution fellow and author of A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win (Free Press, 2007). “Many, many people have mentioned that to me,” he says, “usually in whispered terms, and quite nervously.”

So what’s the best way for the press to proceed? Gene Roberts, who covered the civil-rights movement for the New York Times and later guided the Philadelphia Inquirer to 17 Pulitzer Prizes, suggests a simple, common-sense test. “Reporting about it in a matter-of-fact manner, when there is something tangible to report, is valid journalism, I think,” says Roberts. “Saying more about it than the situation warrants, or stretching for a story where no real evidence other than hearsay and speculation exists, is not.”

The recent reportage by the Times’ Katharine Q. Seelye seems to pass the test. In October 2007, Seelye studied the competition between Obama and Hillary Clinton for the votes of black women in South Carolina. After more than three dozen interviews, Seelye was struck, among other things, by what she termed an “almost maternal concern” for Obama among this demographic. Some of her respondents noted that they were aware of the fact that Obama had been given Secret Service protection that past May, earlier than any other candidate in history save Hillary Clinton, who was already guarded as a former first lady. Seelye also found that some black women saw not voting for Obama as a way to protect him. “I fear that they just would kill him,” said one, “that he wouldn’t even have a chance.”

Revisiting the subject three months later in a second article, though, Seelye seemed to note a change. One woman said a comment Obama made during an appearance on Oprah — “I ain’t scared” — had reassured her. “I would love for him to be president, and I’m not scared,” she said. “I’m trying to focus on what’s good, what he’ll do good for us.”

Putting the subject in print “was horrible,” Seelye tells the Phoenix. “I thought about it quite a bit, and talked with my editors. It’s very incendiary — you don’t want to give people ideas or feed into anything. On the other hand, when people are volunteering that this is a concern of theirs, I think you have an obligation to report what they’re saying.”

But if Seelye’s stories are case studies in how to cover the subject in a manner that seems appropriate, they also show just how hard that is to do. For one thing, fear for Obama’s safety was just one element of her stories, not their primary focus. In addition, her stories ran in an outlet that’s generally considered liberal-leaning rather than conservative-leaning. And the subjects who discussed their anxiety were black women rather than white men.

Change any one of these attributes, and the overall feel of the stories would probably change as well. Imagine, for example, how the same coverage would have been received if it had been reported on Fox News. Then compare Seelye’s coverage with the zealously conservative Washington Times’ January 7 story on Obama’s newly augmented Secret Service protection. That piece also dealt with something concrete — but given the Times’ right-wing pedigree, it left this reader wondering if the paper had an ulterior motive. So tangibility alone may not be enough.

What’s more, the media’s ability to answer the million-dollar question — i.e., whether people’s fears for Obama’s safety are affecting the presidential race — is already sharply circumscribed. In theory, the best way to do this would be to ask the widest possible range of people if such fears were influencing their thinking. But if sober, analytical discussion of the subject feels ethically dubious, plopping it into people’s heads in a random survey would seem downright dangerous. And with good reason: between its possible effect on the presidential race and the prospect, however unlikely, of helping bring about the scenario in question, it would be the most malignant push-poll imaginable.

Going forward
Devoting an entire story to this subject may itself seem excessive. But the topic is already out there in the cultural ether, humming away faintly but continually. There’s at least one case of an editor balking at a defensible treatment of it: on January 19, the Washington Post didn’t run the comic strip Candorville , which suggested Obama should protect himself by tapping an illegal alien as his vice-presidential candidate. (About 70 other papers did print that day’s strip.) In contrast, some more dubious examples haven’t attracted the editorial scrutiny they should have, such as Huffington Post blogger Joseph Palermo’s January 4 item warning Obama might be targeted by surrogates of Halliburton, Blackwater, or some other company currently profiting from the Iraq War. Coverage of Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing’s prediction that Obama would be assassinated if elected is another example.

Perhaps, barring some significant new development, it’s time for the press to consider a self-imposed moratorium on the subject. (This may seem hypocritical, given this column, but when you’re urging the media to drop any problematic theme — McCain’s authenticity, Clinton’s weepiness, etc. — it’s necessary to describe the theme in question.) After all, we know why people worry about Obama. We also know that steps have been taken to protect him — and that, after considering the risks, the candidate and his family have decided to proceed. For now, that’s probably enough.

Copyright © 2007 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group

***************************************************

It's an interesting article except that it is entirely devoid of
historical context from the black perspective. What are all those
white people trying to say? Stay in your place and we'll do you the
supreme favor of not killing you? Thanks a lot Joyce Carol Oates.
You're a credit to your race.

What would Malcolm X's answer to this line of thinking have been? Or
Gandhi's for that matter?

We HAVE TO move past this. We have to proceed as though we already
HAVE moved past this.

And the article also ignores the idea that there are men out there
(and some women) who would just as happily see Hillary take a bullet.
It's myopic.

- Barney Dannelke
History is a vast early warning system. -Norman Cousins (1915-1990)

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:05 am

You should post the first one on the Pavilion.

User avatar
Barney Dannelke
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Allentown, PA.
Contact:

Postby Barney Dannelke » Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:02 am

I appreciate the thought Jan, but this isn't remotely related to Harlan, just something I'm mildly obsessed with right now. It had 20 hits "back here" so far and that's fine by me. I like to confine my remarks on the Pavillion to things that are more nominally Harlan related. The closest this comes would be Glass Teat-style media observations. I'm planning a whole series going forward.

To that end - here's something I wrote a friend last night;

------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been some real work and thought that has gone into these pieces. Some are more time intensive than others but the focus is on the media "raw deal."

I'm not a Hillary "hater" but I see a real uphill battle being waged here. The classic "black man has to be twice as good as..." to get the same play.

If you spot any lopsided media bullshit like this please send it my way. With links and whatever context you can layer in.

Things to REALLY look for;

WHEN in the hour it gets media play.

The ratios of Obama versus Hillary or Red versus Blue or racist fluff versus news in any given half hour media slot.

Subliminal imagery. I don't mean skulls in ice cube advertising nonsense or backward masking (more bullshit) but moments where the IMAGE has nothing to do with context or they say something positive while SHOWING you something negative.

We are visually oriented - not text driven. It's what kept our ancestors from being eaten by predators. MEDIA knows this and will trip us with pictures whenever they can.

Thanks again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone sees something like that they can point me to, I'd appreciate it.

I'm on a few private lists and these are posted there. Also, I hope to do "illustrated" versions of all of them for my Myspace blog here;

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... d=78385948

If anyone wants to pass them around (UNEDITED and with my name appearing on them) that's fine by me. I'd prefer they were read here or on Myspace, but I can see where some people would rather not be bothered going to certain sites.

- Barney
History is a vast early warning system. -Norman Cousins (1915-1990)

rich

Postby rich » Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:57 am

Does Barack Obama have a greater chance of an assassination attempt than any of the other candidates?

I guess that's a legitimate "news" question. And probably one I wouldn't immediately switch off since it doesn't pussyfoot around the race issue.

Are there white people out there who are angry enough that they'd shoot a black president? More than likely.

Are there white males out there who are angry enought that they'd shoot a female president? Maybe not as likely as above, but probably better than average.

Hmmm. I don't know if it's a legitimate line of "news" or not, UNLESS the "news" can bring it around to a larger context of race relations, or gender roles in our society. I mean, is it even worth talking about unless it can be delved into at some length? I don't think CNN or FOX or any of the networks have the intellectual capacity to do a story like that. Maybe Frontline?

I don't know. I apologize for being all over the map on this one, but I can tell you that I don't particularly care for the "whispers" that seem to be taking the place of actual news. I saw one blog where the guy brought up that Obama would be more likely to get shot, and blamed the news media for not bringing THAT "fact" up. As you said, Barney, are we supposed to tell Obama NOT to run so we don't have to kill him? Is this a non-issue if someone would just say, "Yeah, Obama may have a better than average chance of getting shot at if he's president 'cause he's black. Back to the weather." and just let it go at that? Move on, and let's talk about something we can actually try to change as opposed to worrying about something that may or may not happen based on some racist redneck trying to reenact the Civil War. (again, apologies for wandering all over the place)

User avatar
Barney Dannelke
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Allentown, PA.
Contact:

Postby Barney Dannelke » Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:22 am

http://tinyurl.com/2ff58e

should take you to The Obligatory Bullshit Racist Obama Media Slam IV.

I'd paste it here and I had a hard enough time forcing it on to my blog since it's half spread sheet.

- Barney

[/url]
History is a vast early warning system. -Norman Cousins (1915-1990)

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:01 pm

Whereby the conceptual space between Hillary Clinton and Jesse Helmes becomes ever more evanescent...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337141/
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Barney Dannelke
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Allentown, PA.
Contact:

Postby Barney Dannelke » Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:30 pm

The Obligatory Bullshit Racist Obama Media Slam V [version 2.0]

I just wanted to shove the link in here as a placeholder since I think there will (sadly) be plenty of these. Thanks to Kevin M. and Ezra for the extra photo and article links.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=78385948&blogID=361333228

- Barney Dannelke

User avatar
Duane
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Duane » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:29 pm

>> Whereby the conceptual space between Hillary Clinton and Jesse Helmes becomes ever more evanescent... <<

Of course, the Hillary campaign will "censure" whatever staffer(s) made this suggestion, and offer a statement "retract"ing any false or misleading messages, but the damage will be done, and a few thousand or so wobbly Demos will switch sides.

For the first time in my political life, I was going to just sit back and enjoy all the election cycle daytime soap opera drama, but what I'm getting instead is a first rate education in what passive aggressive behavior really means. I wasn't planning on casting my vote Obama's way, but I might now, just to shut some people up. (Does this mean I've fallen into the trap myself?)

By the way, if Obama does become president, what do you think he will accomplish during his first 100 days?

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:28 pm

Duane asked

By the way, if Obama does become president, what do you think he will accomplish during his first 100 days?

Well at the very least we should get a helluvan inaugural speech.



I guess I'm naive but you know I've been impressed how little Obama's complection has been a factor in the race (pardon the awful pun) so far. At least until the primary in South Carolina.


My Clintonophobia was challenged just this past weekend. My sweetie and I went out and fell in amongst a group which contained a couple of local pro-Hillary politicos. The subject of a woman running for Prez eventually came up and alas the usual template presented itself.

The fact that Hillary would be the first woman prez is a reason for celebration but if you support her it's because she is so well qualified. HOWEVER if you are against her it MUST be because you are against the idea of a woman running for president.

I wasn't really in the mood and so I held my peace until that last and could restrain myself no longer.

"Can't you conceive of a reason why someone might not be bothered by her gender but not support Hillary anyway?" I asked.

"Would you support Condaliza Rice if she were running against a male opponent?"

Well that last got a look of horror. No conservatives here.

"Oho, so there ARE criteria beyond gender that might disqualify a woman for being considered for Prez? Well then do me the consideration of considering that my dislike of Hillary is based on something other than misogyny, won't you?"


Tell the truth, I'm still right conflicted here.

I could have perhaps supported (or at least respected) the John McCain that opposed the Bush tax cuts and gave the finger to the religious right. But the McCain we've got now, Bush III, is beyond the pale for me.

Do I, will I, support Obama?

He does seem the only game in town but electing him will be a gamble.

Will he turn out to be another Jimmy Carter?

If Hillary gets the nod I'll probably do what I used to do, vote for whoever the Libertarian rep is, as a protest.

There is no consideration given to not voting. My uncle who was at Anzio would come out of his grave and kick my ass.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Barney Dannelke
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Allentown, PA.
Contact:

Postby Barney Dannelke » Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:15 pm

(I'm cut and pasting this from another forum I write on because it will dovetail with Ezra's comments - sort of.)

---------------------------------------------------

Dodd just endorsed Obama. That's not "big" as endorsements go but it
plays into my remark from two weeks ago about the Veep slot. It is big
in the sense that he could very easily sit on his hands and take the
political coverage but by endorsing before Hillary gets out it serves
as a nice political placeholder for him. I wouldn't mind Dodd as a
V.P. in that he would be about THE most qualified guy to step in since
Johnson under JFK. And no, I don't LIKE that analogy for historical
reasons but Johnson was a demon of a congressional wrangler. Things
would get done under Dodd. Don't ever want it to come to that but
after dim bulbs like Agnew and Quayle he would be a dream V.P.

And I would prefer Dodd to Bidden because Bidden has a little too
much ego and is much more effective where he is in the senate. No
using giving him up for the "warm bucket of spit" pole position.

TEAMSTERS endorsed Obama last week. I meant to remark on that because I don't think the TEAMSTERS ever endorsed a candidate who failed to get the nomination. Maybe R.F.K. ... crap. I hate history...

Anyways, last debate tonight. Utterly irrelevant unless Hillary melts
down and flashes us. Two new national polls have Obama "narrowly
ahead" (CNN) of Hillary 54% - 38%.

In what political reality is that a narrow margin?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ezra - I hear you on the "not for Hillary = you hate women" front. Nothing to be done there but press on.

On the Carter question it's VERY apples and oranges. Carter had no beltway network to speak of. None. He was hamstrung on that front from the get-go. This is precisely why he has been better and more effective post-presidency.

Obama suffers from none of "those" problems. He has MANY supporters in the House and Senate. And the DNC LOVES him right now. Why? Well, I'd love to talk policy here but frankly, that's second (NOT irrelevent, just second) behind a black man raising 37 million dollars in the month AFTER Christmas in a quasi-recession. In a political reality where Dems stand to pick up 4-6 Senate seats and perhaps 2 DOZEN house seats who wouldn't want to ride those very green coat tails? Carter could NEVER have done that. I'd love to be all starry eyed about it but that's a huge factor.

---------------------------------------------

100 days. A decent start on some massive health care legislation. Plan for Iraq troop draw downs and reduced rotations COMBINED with re-stocking some armories. If you drive past the locals you can SEE the depletions. That will be the necessary and required concession to the Republicans. But that needs doing regardless. The reversal of about a dozen presidential orders. A reversal on warrantless wiretaps. Some roads and bridges legislation coming out of committee. An education initiative of some sort.

And the STAFFING of about 200 important government positions that have remained unfilled under Bush because he ran out of old drinking buddies.

These are my best guesses.

- Barney Dannelke
History is a vast early warning system. -Norman Cousins (1915-1990)

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:55 pm

Barney, the media always try to help the person behind in the race so that they can have a horse race--keeps their ratings up.

By God you actually could be right. hehe.

Call me Sybil.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:35 pm

(Okay, we all do it, perhaps me more than others -- but it's just the mood I'm in.)

FRANK - "The world is more complex then you may think."

ThAn you may think. (Although you may then think it is more complex.)

DORMAN - Yul Brynner, not Brennar.

and BARNEY - It's Joe Biden, not Bidden. (Though Biden may be bidden if he gets enough attention.)

Cleer as mudd?

Thot so.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Barney Dannelke
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Allentown, PA.
Contact:

Postby Barney Dannelke » Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:01 pm

Yeah. The double D in "Dodd" keeps spilling over. What's my pay scale again?

- Bbarrnee Ddanekleklekleklearoo
History is a vast early warning system. -Norman Cousins (1915-1990)

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:55 pm

Barber wrote:Cleer as mudd?

Thot so.



Dat's THAWT, Babar.
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests