‘clinton, context, and coverage – a case study’

Steve Benen: If you perused the headlines on several prominent political news sites yesterday, you were led to believe that former President Clinton, in an interview with Newsmax, expressed his opposition to President Obama’s debt-reduction plan, or at least the provisions related to tax fairness.

….. Perhaps the most egregious was Time’s Mark Halperin, who ran this as the lead political story yesterday afternoon. The headline …., read, “42: No Tax Hikes.” The blurb told readers, “In Newsmax interview, Clinton says, ‘I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes … This has been a dead flat economy.’”

What did Clinton actually say? The quote from the former president is pretty straightforward: “I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground.”

Notice the difference between the quote and the media’s coverage?

First, these media outlets simply chose to ignore the part of the quote in which Clinton rejected spending cuts during a weak economy. Halperin went so far as to use ellipses to take out the part in which the former president dismissed the Republicans’ priority, misleading the reader about Clinton’s position.

…. Clinton and Obama are saying the same thing. There’s no excuse for these media outlets telling the public otherwise.

Full post here

cautious & consultative = weak. seriously.

You gotta love the poll Reuters carried out with Ipsos after the start of operations in Libya. People were given just three choices to describe President Obama, these were the results:

48 percent: Cautious and consultative
36 percent: Indecisive and dithering
17 percent: Strong and decisive

Note how they separate ‘cautious and consultative’ from ‘strong and decisive’, like being cautious and consultative are signs of weakness when you’re contemplating sending American men and women in to combat. If weakness is being cautious about taking military action against another country, before consulting widely to get the best advice, and then acting accordingly – then I love weakness!

Reuters’ headline? ‘Few Americans see Obama as strong military leader’!

So, because 48% chose cautious and consultative, instead of ‘strong and decisive’, Reuters seem to interpret this as meaning those 48% think the President is ‘indecisive and dithering’. Okay – but if that’s the case, then, eh, why didn’t they choose ‘indecisive and dithering’?

Could it possibly be that these people just think being cautious and consultative is a good thing, bearing in mind the catastrophic military madness of the Bush creature (and his VP, Dick Haliburton) and all the lives lost during his ‘reign’?

“The survey suggested Americans may see Obama in a very different light from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who launched the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with some allies but was widely seen as a go-it-alone leader.”

No shit Sherlock!

😆

****

Thanks to Suzanne for linking this terrific Kevin Drum post in the comments:

Kevin Drum (Mother Jones): I’m not likely to blog very much about Libya, but I have to say there’s an air of unreality surrounding a lot of the commentary that’s starting to get on my nerves. Criticizing Obama for not consulting Congress is one thing. It’s not as if this is some kind of unprecedented break with past practice or anything, but still. I get it.

But the “dithering” complaint? Give me a break. When did it suddenly become a personality defect to decline to intervene in a foreign rebellion the instant it broke out? Isn’t there anyone left who appreciates the fact that Obama still retains a few shreds of anti-interventionist instinct and moves in a deliberate fashion?

Then there’s the “why did he change his mind?” nonsense. Answer: because when events on the ground are moving fast, presidents change their minds. How? Usually by first holding a meeting and getting lots of input. Obama changed his mind last Tuesday in exactly the same way that every president since George Washington has changed his mind.

And then the “following, not leading” complaint. Look: if the only thing you actually care about is showing just how manly the United States can be, this makes sense. But that’s a pretty stupid justification. There’s just no reason why America should be required to take the leadership role in every military action around the globe.

Finally, there’s all the handwringing over why we’re intervening in Libya but not Bahrain or the Congo or Yemen. Please…..

Look: I’m not really happy about the intervention in Libya ….. but an awful lot of the criticism is just so unremittingly juvenile that I can hardly stand listening to it anymore. Time to grow up, people.

Full post here