Yesterday the New York Times published a hit piece on Obama entitled, "McCain Displays Credentials as Obama Relaxes." The article is a prime example of how Big Media tries to establish narratives and shape the political landscape in the USA.
Here's a link to a New York Times story published yesterday that looks and reads like a advertisement for John McCain. The piece is entitled, "McCain Displays Credentials as Obama Relaxes."
http://www.nytimes.com/...
From the perspective of the McCain campaign this article is even better than paid advertising, because it comes across to many readers as legitimate news. I would really like to sit in the editorial office at the NYT and learn how rubbish like this finds its way onto the pages of what is supposed to be a very important newspaper. Did the editors give their reporter Michael Falcone a mission to do a hit piece on Obama, or does the reporter take the initiative to cook up a story and then convince his editors that it's newsworthy?
Take at look at the big color photo at the top of the article. Watermelons, anyone? How could the editors at the NYT have missed the obvious visual connotations? And are we supposed to believe that the Times had no motive when they painted a picture of the serious McCain, who spent the week pontificating on foreign policy, with the frivolous and shallow Obama who is photographed as he slurps a snow cone?
NY Times Writer Michael Falcone offers this amazing declarative statement in his article:
"On the other hand, the fluency with which Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, discusses Georgia, citing the history of the region and the number of times he has visited, lends an aura of commander in chief."
The author of the article also shares this essential information with us:
"On Thursday, he (Obama) toured a nature preserve and went body surfing. Beyond that, Mr. Obama has played golf, taken walks on the beach with his daughters, eaten dinner at a few Honolulu restaurants with his wife and friends...."
Falcone includes a couple of quotes in his article, the first from ABC News analyst Cokie Roberts, and then closes with a quote from a journalism professor in Pennsylvania:
"I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii, and I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place." Ms. Roberts added, "He should be in Myrtle Beach if he’s going to take a vacation at this time."
"When you’re being accused of being an elitist," Ms. Jamieson said, "and when people are using code words such as ‘exotic’ in order to describe you and your background, you would not want to locate your biography in Hawaii, if you had a choice."
Note Jamieson's use of the words "exotic" and "elitist." John McCain is a privileged white guy who enjoys a very upscale lifestyle. He married a wealthy beer heiress, owns a bunch of homes, and wears $500 shoes. But yet she is willing to reinforce the notion that the African-American Obama is the elitist. Something is very wrong with that picture.
This sorry NY Times article is a calculated effort to establish a narrative that will damage Obama's prospects for November. This is biased and shabby journalism. The author of the article could just as easily have taken a different view of Obama's vacation by pointing out that the candidate is a devoted family man who is willing to set aside politics for a few days to be with his wife and children.
If the editors at the NYT want to challenge Obama on substantive policy matters, that's fine-- bring it on. But the Times is taking the low road here. If we want to read People magazine we can visit the dentist's office.
---------------------------------
*Editor's Note for Cokie Roberts-
You might be interested to know that when I served as an infantry Sergeant E-5 in Vietnam (11th Brigade of the Americal Division, 1969-70), I met my parents in Hawaii for my one-week allotment of rest and recreation. Hope that is OK with you.
Eagleye