To boil it down to a phrase, it’s about short-term memory. So long as Obama pushes government to respond to long-term challenges and communicate with the American public beyond 24-hour news cycles, he will always be out of step with what the Beltway media demand. However, what’s been striking in the first 10 months of the Obama administration is how the press disregards information they have already reported on.
In other words, the problem with the MSM isn’t just their inability to cover complex issues or look deeper than the horserace coverage or tabloid headlines—it’s their inability to retain information already brought to their attention.
Witness today’s Morning Meeting on MSNBC after the jump to see an example...
Morning Meeting host Dylan Ratigan moderated a discussion on possible Ft. Hood hearings with Congressman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet. Sweet is normally one of the better DC journalists, but this exchange was appalling:
Sweet: He campaigned on this very point that Jacob is making, and it is time to deliver. He said that his very presence would change the way America looks, and his unique—the world looks at America. And this is a time when he doesn’t have to run from his own Muslim background if that helps. Now I don’t mean Muslim—people, don’t get excited—I’m talking about his relatives. He has some capital to use here. But please, Congress of course is going to look into this Ft. Hood thing right away. It’s hard to think they wouldn’t have jumped all over it because they do have oversight and they feel that the dots have not connected.
Sweet was responding to fellow guest’s Jacob Weisberg’s column in Slate magazine, which Ratigan quoted on air:
America does not face a threat from the perversion of faith in general. We face a threat from the perversion of one faith in particular. The president needs to dip into his reservoir of good will to remind mainstream Muslims of their special responsibility. If militant Islamism is a distortion of their moderate beliefs, only their beliefs can defeat it.
The premise of Weisberg’s column is ridiculous. While acknowledging Obama’s speeches in Cairo and at Ft. Hood, where the president was brilliant and eloquent in calling out extremism, Weisberg seems to think that because of mounting casualties in Afghanistan, foiled terrorist plots in Denver, Dallas, and Boston, and now Nidal Hasan, Obama has a "Muslim problem" that might create blowback because of his "olive-branch strategy" with the Muslim world. You know, because they’re all Muslims.
This kind of loose thinking only gains salience in the wake of right-wing paranoia from the likes of Sarah Palin (R-Russia’s Neighbor), who agrees we should be profiling Muslims in the military, and despicable cads like Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who blames Obama for the shooting and may have leaked classified information in the process. Add to them former AG Michael Mukasey suggesting Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) should get "professional help" from Nidal Hasan, and we can see that Weisberg’s assumptions are based in a xenophobic, partisan ploy that don’t have any basis in reality.
Weisberg’s argument boils down to the idea that Obama needs to call out Muslims by name, not just in the way he’s vowed to defeat Al Qaeda and called on the world to reject extremism, because Muslims somewhere are causing problems.
But the merits of the argument aren’t my point.
My beef comes from the fact that this conversation could occur on a cable news network in front of a respected political journalist and proceed in a vacuum devoid of any context or history about Obama's record in office.
Does Sweet really believe that the president hasn’t delivered on his promise to revamp America's image?
Does no one remember the story from just last month that Obama had boosted America’s regard in the world back to #1?
And beyond the casual reporting on the fact that Obama gave some sort of speech in Cairo or Ft. Hood, no one bothers to remember what the president actually said.
Here are some relevant passages at Ft. Hood:
It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.
These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.
As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon.
...
We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.
We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.
We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.
Gee, Lynn, you were the one who posted these remarks at your Sun-Times blog. It would have been nice to remind folks that Obama said everything that Weisberg was talking about, but he didn’t take the time in a eulogy to say something like, "You moderate Muslims out there, take note."
While they were at it, someone could have actually mentioned the actual words of Obama’s Cairo speech, instead of just the event:
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
...
Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.
Hmm. I may just be assuming too much, but I’ll wager there were a few moderate Muslims watching that speech.
Again, I don’t think the problem Weisberg and Sweet have is just a matter of Obama not meeting whatever benchmark they’re setting. They are not remembering the record.
Here’s another good one. It was a little something in Obama’s friggin’ inaugural address. Maybe these guys covered it?
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
This myopic memory from people who get paid to follow current events is always disheartening, but it goes a long way to understanding why John McCain has a standing invitation to the Sunday shows and why the Beltway has already moved on from the tragedy that was the Bush presidency.
As an example, here’s CNN’s Jack Cafferty before the Beer Summit marveling about how Obama had avoided controversies about race until then, even though Cafferty had written about Obama’s race speech in Philadelphia during the campaign.
And with the same sense of perspective, Chuck Todd of NBC was already saying Obama owned the economy he inherited, not just from eight years of Bush, but 30 years of deregulation, even in November 2008.
As if this argument needed repeating, we cannot rely on the press to police the marketplace of ideas. They are institutionally incapable and uninterested in doing so.
However, as a warning to my friends in blog land, we can’t succumb to the same shortsightedness. Obama has only been in office for 10 months. These things, as we’re constantly reminded, take time. But when we criticize Obama on policy, let’s criticize him on the facts, always remembering the record.