Obama’s media winds shift in the other direction

I think Garance and Ezra are quite right; the [tag]media[/tag]’s coverage of [tag]Barack Obama[/tag] has taken a noticeably hostile turn. News accounts were less than kind from the weekend forum on health care policy, when Obama steered clear of specifics, citing the fact that his campaign is “only eight weeks old.” Today, The Politico’s Mike Allen skewers the senator for alleged “rookie mistakes.” Over the weekend, Ron Brownstein questioned the limits of Obama’s appeal. The AP has a surprisingly antagonistic article this morning asking whether Obama is “all style and little substance.”

Some of this is fair and, to the disappointment of Obama’s ardent fans, inevitable. As Garance explained well, we’re seeing a second-phase unfold. After the initial “get to know you” coverage, more intense scrutiny and skepticism kicks in. It’s unlikely Obama is surprised by any of this; he’s alluded publicly to this being unavoidabe, if not healthy.

But Richard Cohen seems to have picked up on this trend in an unusually silly way.

I tell you this story to suggest something about Barack Obama. In his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” [Obama] recounts a watershed moment of his own — a “revelation,” a “violent” awakening, an incident that “permanently altered” his “vision.” Twice he tells how as a 9-year-old he went to the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia (a country where his mother had taken him to live) and came across a Life magazine article about a black man who had tried to whiten his skin through some sort of chemical process. The result was a disaster.

“I felt my face and neck get hot,” Obama wrote. “My stomach knotted; the type began to blur on the page.” The child had, for the first time, confronted racism and its hideous consequences.

Only there is no such issue of Life magazine. So says the Chicago Tribune, which has gone through the Obama memoir with commendable thoroughness.

There’s thorough scrutiny on an autobiography, and then there’s pettiness. This appears to fall into the latter.

I kept waiting for Cohen to acknowledge that a grown man’s memory of an article he saw at age 9 is hardly a reliable indicator for veracity. Instead, Cohen makes the opposite argument — that Obama’s three-decade-old confused memory raises questions about the senator’s integrity. He calls this mistaken anecdote “a warning flag.”

When the Tribune told Obama that Life magazine historians could find no such story, Obama suggested it might have been Ebony — “or it might have been . . . who knows what it was?” (The Tribune says Ebony’s archivists also could not come up with such an article.) Indeed, the memory of the event/non-event is so firmly planted in Obama’s mind that it seems to have become an emotional truth for him, far more powerful than an intellectual truth. […]

In Obama’s case … there might be something more than foggy memory at work. He may be manipulating the facts in order to wrap raw ambition in the gauze of a larger cause…. This tendency to manipulate facts may bear watching in Obama. (After all, we hardly know him.)

Glenn Greenwald thinks we’ve seen this movie before.

Cohen, even while praising Obama, starts infecting the public discourse with the type of slippery, odorous innuendo about his character which lingers and can never really be disproven. With almost a full year before the first primary vote, Obama has already, in essence, claimed to have invented the Internet, to be the source of inspiration for Love Story, and to have been in Cambodia during Christmas.

For that matter, Kevin Drum is keeping track of media “dimwittery” when it comes to high-profile Democrats.

* Nancy Pelosi: the military jet flap

* John Edwards: the Georgetown house flap, the foul-mouthed blogger flap

* Barack Obama: the madrassa flap, the stock purchase flap

* Hillary Clinton: the “evil and bad men” flap, the family foundation flap, the “Southern drawl” flap

Looks like we can add another to the list.

Cohen’s column was obnoxious, but Allen’s hit piece was mean-spirited. And fits his and the Politico’s pattern. So long as he gets a prominent link on Drudge, I’m sure Allen doesn’t care that he’s quickly lost any credibility as a real journalist and instead is now simply a tool of the far right. Keep those WH/RNC-drafted articles coming Mike!

  • Now that this story is out, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone tracks down the original article – in “Look”, or in “Time”, or who knows where. I’m guessing it will take about a week.

  • While the sycophantic MSM is gunning for all Democrats, mark me down as skeptical about the broader appeal of Sen. Obama. Racism in America has lessen in the last 50 years; and, the racism that remains has largely been driven underground. Sen. Obama could walk around with a halo above his head, and it wouldn’t improve his chances–in my mind–of beating the Republicans in November of 2008 because of the country’s incipient racism. Let’s not forget the Bradley effect.

    Although I could vote for Sen. OBama, defeating the Republicans in 2008 and having a change of party leading country matters to me the most.

  • This got me thinking… Where was George W. Bush when he was AWOL from National Guard duty?

    Oh, I may have just lost my shot at a network news job for saying he was not there WHEN HE WAS NOT THERE!

    If he says he will not answer drug questions that pertain to a time before he was 40 years old, does it become “an emotional truth” that he was not a cokehead? Just sayin…

    Why on earth would they have looked up that story in Life unless they were hoping not to find it? Uggggghhhh!

  • I really, really, really, really, really hate it when alleged “liberal” pundshits like Cohen, Dowd, etc. do the right’s dirty work for them by creating misleading/deceptive story lines. Cohen, Dowd, et al did this to Gore and did more damage to Gore’s campaign than any conservative pundshit could ever do, and to some extent they did this to Kerry as well. Now they are doing this to a number of the Dem candidates for 2008. It is one thing to discuss the issue and maybe make suggestions to Obama’s campaign as to how he might overcome such perceptions, but the way our “liberal” pundshitocracy currently does things, this Cohen piece being an example, just contributes to false perceptions and storylines, which are gleefully manipulated further by the right.

  • I’m going to say this only one time, because this shit reallly is stupid. But if you are writing a book, and you plan to run for President, somebody should be tracking this shit down and double-checking it.

    Obama’s book / memory is wrong. It’s a minor detail, but it’s there. Obama’s got nobody to blame but himself. And his editor.

    [/ducks]

  • The Politico is probably still reeling from completely blowing the John and Elizabeth Edwards story last week. That being said, Obama does need to start defining himself more before others do it for him.

  • When the Tribune told Obama that Life magazine historians could find no such story, Obama suggested it might have been Ebony — “or it might have been . . . who knows what it was?”

    How many people can’t remember the details of events from when they were 9? So he thought it was Life magazine but it wasn’t, big deal. I remember for the longest time I used to tell people I could see the Twin Towers from my backyard in Bayonne, a place I lived until just after I turned six years old. The only thing is, I subsequently realized I couldn’t. You could probably see the Twin Towers at points a mile or two from my house, but from my backyard you could only see housing projects in Jersey City (which we lived right on the border of). As a kid I romanticized it into being the Twin Towers and never thought of it or asked anybody about it until years later. I think I even dreamed of seeing the Towers as we all know they looked from the backyard years later, and the dream and the childhood mistake in the background of my memory added up to being confident I could see them from there.

  • My first thought on reading this story was that Obama is misremembering John Howard Griffin’s “Black Like Me”. Griffin was a journalist from Texas who used drugs to turn his skin dark and then spent time traveling around the segregated South in 1959. His story became a series of magazine articles a book and later a movie. This sounds very much as if it could be the basis of Obama’s memory. However, I seem to vaguely remember that years after Griffin did his invesigative piece, a black man may have done the reverse, but I am not as sure of that. Perhaps someone else remembers something?

  • That’s like thinking you read something in Highlights in the dentist office when you were a kid, but it was actually Boys’ Life, or Nickelodeon magazine, or you heard it in some story the school librarian read to you. Who remembers what magazine they read each time they went to the dentists’ office as a kid and what the articles were? You’d have to be an extremely rare genius.

  • I’m wondering if Obama may have been referring to an article published somewhere about the book, “Black Like Me.” A quick snipet about the context of he book, “On October 28, 1959, after a decade of blindness and a remarkable and inexplicable recovery, John Howard Griffin dyed himself black and began an odyssey of discovery through the segregated American South. The result was Black Like Me, arguably the single most important documentation of 20th century American racism ever written.”

    Obama may not have clearly recalled what the article was about, but there probably was an article about this social experiment and book in one of those coffee table magazines of the time. Cohen is barking up the wrong tree due to a confused fact, most likely.

  • Maybe Life was just the magazine he was most fond of when he was a kid so he remembers magazines from his childhood as Life. He would obviously be more sophisticated than I was at age nine.

  • Or he could have read a hypothetical musing in amagazine article, or a commentary about Black Like Me that speculated on doing the reverse. It’s easy when you’re nine to skip to the middle of a magazine article, and be told by your mom that it’s time to go before you really read much of it, and totally not understand what the article is about.

  • I agree with Mr. Furious that candidates books should be fact-checked, but it would be nice if the last 100 or so wingnut books had been given the same perusal.

    Why is AP weighing in on opinion. I thought they were a news wire.

  • It’s not really the media’s fault. They jumped on the Obama bandwagon when it seemed as if he was smearproof. Now, thanks to the help of their good friends in the GOP, they’ve learned that he can be smeared. And so now it’s their job to smear him as much as possible, in order to make room for the one truly smearproof Dem to run. And who is that candidate? Jesus H. Christ, our savior.

  • Books, news stories, television news all suffer from a lack of fact checking. I’ve lost track of the number of places that keep saying that Al Gore is an “Oscar winner.” No, An Inconvenient Truth won the Oscar for documentary feature, but the prize went to the film’s director, Davis Guggenheim, not Al Gore. I recently read David Lynch’s fun book Catching the Big Fish about meditation and anecdotes about his life and it misspells Kyle MacLachlan’s last name. There are so many errors that I notice all the time that what really bothers me is how many facts are wrong that I wouldn’t immediately recognize as being incorrect.

  • “Cohen, even while praising Obama, starts infecting the public discourse with the type of slippery, odorous innuendo about his character which lingers and can never really be disproven.”

    Perhaps you think that the Lib’rel press is incorruptible?

    1. Who does the WaPo want the Democrat Party to nominate?

    2. Would Cohen’s (or WaPo’s) political sources be more relevant, less relevant or unchanged if a relative newcomer was elected?

    3. Does Cohen have a strong favorite (or source) in the primaries?

    Then of course we must remember that we ARE Democrats. We have no concept of ‘Unified Partisan Front’ and we regularly eat our young. It wasn’t Republicans who brought Lyndon Johnson down.

  • I seriously doubt if Obama will be derailed by the ridiculous antics of the punditocracy. The guy is simply not playing way over their level, and he can not only see right through the silliness, he can eloquently rip it apart with a smile, knowing full well that people are tired of the media dipshits telling us what we should be thinking.

    There will be the usual stumbles, but he seems very graceful and believable whenever he has to interact with the media.

  • You know that the MSM longs for Hillary’s nomination because they think it makes the best story: Wife of former president runs herself, could be first woman president. Their deep-seeded bias is less ideological than what they think is the best story. That’s why I think McCain is plunging so rapidly. They don’t think Rudy can get the GOP nomination, but they want him to so they can have a NY vs. NY general election between him and Hillary and get to see the Senate campaign they were deprived of in 2000. If you toss Bloomberg into the mix as an independent as well with three NY candidates, they will eat it up. Unfortunately, there are 49 other states.

  • An interesting thing about that insignificant piece of information whether such article appeared in Life is that it practically has to come from an oppo research shop that has been taking Obama’s writings apart sentence by sentence. I’m guessing somebody is testing the dissemination channels with this.

  • Fascinating.

    The Republicans release their official attacks on the Democratic candidates for President, encouraging everyone in their corner to repeat them consistently. A month later when everyone has forgotten where it came from, AP prints a story repeating the Republican narative for one of those candidates, as something “heard increasingly”. The RNC then pushes the AP article agressively as “validation” of their story.

    Textbook perfectly executed PR.

  • For that matter, Kevin Drum is keeping track of media “dimwittery” when it comes to high-profile Democrats

    Newt Gingrich, in the hospital room, with the divorce papers!

  • Comments are closed.