An Associated Press article, published on Friday, notes that all within a span of roughly two weeks, on Fox: "Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama's baby mama" came on the screen during a Michelle Malkin interview, Fox anchor E.D. Hill apologized for referring to an affectionate onstage fist bump shared by the couple as a "terrorist fist jab," and Fox contributor Liz Trotta said she was sorry for joking about an Obama assassination.
But what about the widespread AP article itself?
First, there was an easily missed oddity regarding the Michelle Obama reference. For some reason, the article, by David Bauder, capitalized only the first letter of every main word, save for the last two words of the phrase: "baby mama," which were all in lower case.
Except that is not exactly what happened.
As this site itself showed in a picture of the screen, the phrase actually appeared as: "OUTRAGED LIBERALS; STOP PICKING ON OBAMA'S BABY MAMA!" in all caps, extra large lettering, highlighted by a blue banner, and predominant on the screen.
Yet the AP article, apart from noting that it was a graphic, neglected to point any of this out. Instead, the author, just before permitting Michelle Malkin to explain it all, instead made sure to clarify that it was not said on the air.
Why the short article had to clarify that it was "not said on the air," is also a little unclear. In referencing the three separate incidents at the outset, before providing its "context," the reasonably short piece read, verbatim:
Fox News Channel referred to Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama" in a graphic on Wednesday, the latest in a trio of references to the Democratic presidential campaign that have given fuel to network critics.
The graphic: "Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama's baby mama" was flashed during an interview with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin about whether Barack Obama's wife has been the target of unfair criticism.
Note first that a major network joking about the assasination of a presidential candidate, not so subtly, yet outrageously, trying to plant the "not so funny" idea linking him to terrorists, and beforehand overtly and purposefully engaging in what is incontrovertibly pre planned racism and orchestrated slander otherwise totally unrelated to the election, the candidate, or his wife, is not grounds for serious questions to be asked about the legitimacy, viability, and role of this dominant network. But, rather, according to the AP, simply provided "fuel," for network "critics."
And again, just to be clear, the article stated "Fox News channel referred to Michell Obama....in a graphic on Wednesday... And then it stated: "The graphic 'Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama's...' flashed during an interview..."
Yet for those many AP readers, who nevertheless confused this term with "to speak out loud," the article helpfully clarified the situation. Just in case, say, the explicit and clear term "graphic," the only term used to describe "how" this phrase was shared -- and used twice, no less -- is actually some sort of street slang for "say" or "state."
Just in case anybody confused was shown "in a graphic," and "the graphic" ...[came on the screen], somehow, some way, with "verbally stated. Since of course "graphic" and [verbally] stated are used for each other all the time. Such as in this very popular rap song:
Yo, yeaaah, so wutup. My mellows. graphic hi, yes do, to all the fellows. turn around, and graphic right. that's right. shout it out, with all your might. gather round; get ready to graphic the funka dilly rapalicious sound.
So let's add, another layer. As it were, so rad, not a slur, but graphic a prayer; to your dead lords, go ahead and brace, your vocal chords. take delight, do it right now, and how, see, graphic with me, that's right, as we traffic in vocal obscenity.
Graphic baby. I don't give a lick, you see, to these tight rhymes you genuflick, and to our country tis o thee. so sick, witches of eastwick, so be a beast, dick, for v. p., vote for a __, you dumb AP hick. I traffic, you see, in hilarity. like zen, I don’t mean to hijinx, like the sphinx, all women and men, as we use our larynx, one more time, to graphic again. You wanna stop? You say when.
Graphic, baby, out loud. graphic baby, so fine, and graphic proud. One more time, just for the foxy ladies around, that abound, you hound, that wanna be, journalistically, using their, God given ability, as the crowd is wowed, to graphic out loud. graphic proud, as we are so endowed. so don't moan, graphic with me, to get some bling bling, hear the phone? don't groan, ring a ling a ling, cause they can't sing, so hon, move around, lips and tongue, to be right with our tight rhyme, in the nick of time, in the blink of an eye, cause we all wanna graphic out that funky sound.
It is, obviously, you can now see, very easy to confuse the word "graphic," with, "the spoken word."
People do it all the time. What I don't understand is why the AP article waited until the 5th paragraph to clear up this very confusing point. That is, that, unlike what one may have thought from reading, twice, that it was, specifically, and singularly, a "graphic" which revealed the tawdry line, "Obama's baby mama" was never actually said on the air.
I mean, come on, it’s not like they said it, or anything. It was just a graphic. That is, aside from planting the image far more solidly than if it was just a few quick words that could easily slip by, or exist as some inadvertent slip of the tongue, and actually being purposefully planned out and orchestrated in advance, it was never actually stated.
So remember. While what Fox engaged in might have, initially, appeared somewhat egregious, at least they did not say it. And again, we know this because, our AP lesson of the day; "graphic, even when clearly printed, twice as the only reference therein, does not, repeat, does "not mean, "to speak or to utter. "
So, since it makes no sense why the AP would have put this clarification in there, when nobody is gonig to confuse "a graphic on the screen," and a "graphic was flashed" with stating it? Well,just in case maybe (to avoid "possible confusion.") But it was gratuitous. But it also has the effect(and again whether this was done purposefully, or by habit), as a matter of style, to mitigate the perceived slight. That is -- even though putting up a large, preplanned graphic indicates far more purposeful intent, and is going to have a broader effect than an inadvertent statement -- by ending the piece's reference to exactly what happened with the words, "nobody stated it on the air," culpability is diminished. That is because it is human nature to be more emotional and impressionable than logical. And the last thought we are left with, unless we were paying very close attention, is "oh, at least it was not said on the air." While logically this may not seem to be the case, this is how the mind tends to work psychologically. The statement tends to mollify what Fox engaged in. And remember, this is the same article than then characterized these three instances of journalistic behavior that can not even be properly described by normal standards as mere "fuel for its critics.
After the article categorizes these three disinct, and all journalistically beyond the pale, incidents a smere critic fuel, and clarifies that it was (at least?)not "stated on the air, what does the article then cover? What Michelle Malkin had to say. Because it was, after all, on her news segment/interview that this graphic "appeared."
So, naturally, Michelle Malkin's opinion is going to be both the most relevant, and the most informative.
And, very consistent with this, Malkin stated: "I can't believe Rupert Murdoch is getting away with foisting his particular views on the country, and you dopes continue to reference us, and refer to us as a news station, so every once in a while we have to shed our largely subversive, subtle, and constantly veiled contortionist ways, and just friggn show ya all."
Actually, that's not what Malkin said. I was kidding.
What Malkin said is even better. She was able to add even more helpful clarifying information to this article of non stop, helpful, clarifying information. "Malkin said during her interview that she had seen no gratuitous or cheap shots taken against Michelle Obama by Republican or conservative critics." [No, not at all. It is of great journalistic value that this very surprising, unbiased, and totally relevant, assessment, was offered by a far right wing conservative, instead of, say, Malkin offering examples of gratuitous shots by republicans or conservatives, such as, by, um, I don't know, maybe Michelle Malkin?)
And it is very good that the AP, in an article about the three separate Fox incidents and not one about coverage of Michelle Obama, nevertheless chose to take a quote on this latter point anyway. And, also that it did so from an interview which, headlined by the blue banner -- "...OBAMA'S BABY MAMA!" was surely "fair and balanced." And, then, in order to do so chose Malkin's view, on top of that. (Which, mild hyperbole aside, is somewhat like asking the Wolf in the famous fairy tale if it had seen little red riding hood. And then quoting it in an AP article with respect to riding hood's whereabouts.)
Well, Malkin's quote certainly cleared that up. And it also makes Fox's (not to be confused with "republican or conservative critics") flagrantly racist, preplanned and highly manipulative actions okay then, or somehow slightly less relevant? Less egregious? If not, then what, once again, just like the inane "clarification" that graphic does not mean to "speak," was the purpose of it, in this AP article?
Maybe the otherwise space limited article was again somehow trying to soften, the appearance of Fox's seeming impropriety, in order to futher substantiate its next point, which is even more manipulative -- once again, whether done purposefully or, (perhaps worse), not even purposefully, but by pervasive habit.
Let‘s briefly review to put this in the proper context. The station put an overtly racist, manipulative, and extremely condescending phrase predominantly in all capital letters on the screen when discussing Obama‘s wife, called(jokingly) for Obama’s assassination, and joked that the fist pump that people do in sports and with our buddies and loved ones all the time, was, between Michelle and Barack Obama, a "terrorist fist jab." (Just like all the times it was referred to this by this station -- or any station that the rest of the country moronically continues to refer to as "news," as a terrorist jab when Bush did it...)
But this wasn’t really as bad, as, say, last election when Howie Long and the boys over at Fox NFL Sunday ran a derisive John Kerry as flip flopper bobble head doll satire during the most watched football pregame show in America. (Yeah, they did that, too). I mean, sure, while blatantly (and erroneously) mocking Kerry in front of our beloved football watching nation, didn’t, you know, subtly associate him with racist, out of wedlock child rearing, terrorist, or assassination ideas, it was during a football show. But when Fox over the course of two weeks did those things with respect to Obama, hey, at least they were talking about "real news."
Yet, it turns out, according to the AP, what this station did wasn't nearly as egregious at all. It was really just part of the "endless campaign chatter."
That is, right after the article began by laying out the three separate incidents (and before it very helpfully explained that graphic does not mean "state out loud"), Bauder writes, in this article picked up all over the country, that, "the incidents are further indications of how closely the endless cable campaign chatter is being watched this year."
The incidents are indications, not of what Fox did and how flagrantly, blatantly, absurdly, out of line it is with anything properly resembling a serious conveyor of mainstream news (let alone the powerfully ironic idea, and its outrageously manipulative constant reiteration, of a "fair and "balanced" one]; but of how closely the news is being watched. You dummies. Back in 60, when Kennedy made that "ask not what you can do for your country" speech, and back in 2003, when Bush hugged Laura and banged fists right after "mission accomplished," and when Reagan got all emotion in late 84 and spoke so eloquently and gesticulated with his arms, the major news networks all joked about how these were really "terrorist fist jabs" too. We’ve had baby mama’s all over the place when it comes to presidential elections and major network news. Remember baby mama Nancy Reagan, or Baby Mama Barbara Bush? And hell, jocular calls for a Presidential Nominees’ assassination by major news networks? Happens all the time. You just don't know, unlike now, because we weren't watching all the endless cable campaign "chatter."
All this stuff described above? No big deal. As Jim Rhome might mockingly say, "Hey, it's not like they said it or anything." And even if they had: Subtle and not so subtle racist and socially derogatory propaganda engaged in by a major network news station predominantly displayed in a banner splashed across its screen? Calls, even jokingly, by the same major "news" station, for that same candidates assassination? Jokes, by that same major "news" station, of a routine and extremely American, and normal gesture of affection and or celbration as a "terrorist fist jab"?
No big deal. All just part of routine "campaign chatter."
Even Michelle Malkin was able to get in her underlying point. "Balanced out" by a quick (and redundant)quote by some salon columinist cited therein that the "baby mama" phrase was a slur?
That's not an issue. The AP article laid out what Fox had done. Blatantly, and overtly. That, the AP had to do. The real quesion, the far more important one, is how it did it.
While Fox, continuing to cleverly promote its extremely right to far right wing partisan point of view (fooling even so called "experts" in the media who somehow think that occassionally offering tepid points of view opposed to its own somehow lessens its skewed effect upon the national debate -- rather than quite the opposite, given that the appearance of "real news" is far more persuasive than that which is readily and easily viewed as outright advocacy) continues to subtly, and not so subtly, take shots at the rest of the "establishment" media -- the rest of the media, instead of responding in kind and with actual evidence that should have run this station out of town long ago, practically genuflects, to it.
Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? When it comes to the media reporting on a media badly in need of it; apparently, no one.