Whenever “some” make headlines, it is a cue to readers that the Boston Globe is running an inflated story. Today a front page headline announces “Obama’s silence on Imus alarms some blacks”. The story carries pictures of protesters, but they are protesting Imus, not Obama. Furthermore the story reports that Obama has not been silent, as the headline states. The story notes: One adviser pointed out, however, that Obama issued a public comment before the other major Democratic candidates -- including Clinton and former senator John Edwards of
The “some” here are apparently alarmed because Obama has not “taken the lead” in condemning a vulgar morning radio talk-show host (or should I say “hos”?) for his offensive remarks.
And exactly who constitutes the alarmed “some”?
The story quotes 2 college professors, a political consultant, and Al Sharpton.
Sort of. Actually it recycles a old Sharpton quote from a month-old Washington Times story about another subject. And the consultant does not directly criticize Obama, but simply comments.
Only the professors Melissa Harris Lacewell (professor of politics and African-American studies at
So the “some” referred to in the front page headline amounts in this case to 2 college professors, both of whom support Obama for president.
Then why do “some” Boston Globe editors think this story merits the front page?
14 comments:
Why would the Globe inflate this story? If they are such a liberal rag then they surely don't aim to criticize Obama. And I don't remember the Globe having a deep anti-Imus bias, even though none is shown here, maybe it could be found somehow. Why are they trying to inflate the outrage of Boston's nappier community not at Imus but at a black presidential candidate? A typically vague and toothless allegation of bias from the rightwing fleas on the establishment media dog.
If they are aiming to boost the fortunes of Hillary, a target for them IS Obama. This is something that you cannot and will not see, and is typical pablum from left-wing, Globe-loving radicals (or employees of The Globe who visit this site).
The dilemma for the Globe is that Imus is a 'lefty.' He is one of 'your kind.' Bowtie-festooned Oliphant even sides with Imus, while others of your ilk don't. It is fun watching this Lefty Octopus battle among its tentacles!
"If they are trying to boost the fortunes of Hillary,"?
Oh man Chris. Well its also possible they could be trying to boost the fortunes of Edwards, or maybe with those lawn mowing stories about Romney they were trying to boost the fortunes of McCain or Guliani. This is just such rank right-wing paranoia. I can find hidden intentions in just about every news story ever printed. Some standard dof proof. And I love how I am automatically called a "lefty" because I don't agree with you. You're an idiot. Have you been sitting about all month waiting to use "pablum" in a sentence?
Headline should have read:
Some upset that Obama chooses to NOT be a Race Pimp like Sharpton.
What the I Man did was sexist and woman of all races should be upset with it. Not just Black women. So where are the leaders from womens organizations that should be condemning his comments?
I find it somewhat instructive about the intellectual value this entire enterpirse of exposing liberal bias that no conservative of any heft obsesses over it. Why is it that Andrew Sullivan, George Will, David Brooks, William Buckley, Charles Krauthammer, (or for some flamboyance) Mark Steyn, and John Derbyshire dedicate little or no energy to discussing vague "biases" of mainstream media? For one they have the mental wherewithal to combat opposing ideas with those of their own, and two are not naive enough to think that political bias can be kept totally out of journalism. The one's who do obsess over thuis are the morons of the Hannity, Ingraham, O'Reilley, Limbaugh, ilk who like you Chris haven't the brains to intelligently discuss ideas. If you need confirmation of this just watch what happens when they are challenged. They yell platitudes and cut people off and confine most of their coverage to tabloid stories so that this won't happen very often.
Allegeing liberal bias everywhere simply exposes your intellectual poverty.
"Have you been sitting about all month waiting to use "pablum" in a sentence?"
Not nearly as long as you've waited to use the word 'nappier.' The Globe would spin themselves into orgasms over Hillary, that much is true. And, RRRRRRRRRRRaaamon, no need to use the word 'idiot.' I'll have to get the Rev'unds after you ;-).
I don't believe Hannity, Ingraham, O'Reilley, Limbaugh are morons...neither is Imus, or NBC News President Steve Capus... they have all convinced themselves that they are paid for a worthwhile service or product that the public marketplace finds useful. Now that is certainly a formalistic way of explaining (or rationalizing) their deeds (and words). But I think it is a fair assumption...certainly not a cynical one. They have convinced themselves that they serve a purpose, and deserve their remuneration.
I think the Globe inflates this story to prod Obama to stake out a position more in tune with the left of the political spectrum. They have to search pretty far and wide to get anything even remotelt substantive. I happen to think they are really stretching it here, but it is certainly in agreement with the editorial in today's Globe.
I would agree it is not a strong example of the Globe's liberal bias, but that does not mean they have no liberal bias. Imus conflicts them because he is one of them.
The value of pointing out liberal bias in the media is the pervasive nature of that bias combined with the media's obsession in telling the public that the mainstream media is the only real, valid source of dependable news and information. I think this mindset also helps explain thier abhorence of blogs.
The most interesting thing about this non-story story is how it allows these participants to talk and talk about what may be a serious issue (in this case race), without saying one single thing of substance. I think a truly neutral observer would be left scratching their head in confusion trying to figure out what all the blather is about. Amazing!
If you don't think the aforementioned Fox News personalities are morons then you are beyond hope. I won't run through a long description of their faults but if you find that to be intelligent you are truly part of the problem. I never said they don't deserve their remuneration but they are simply cable tabloid garbage.
I will direct you to type "Firing Line" into youtube and watch what real debate once looked like before Fox News polluted it.
I guess I'm beyond hope.
Indeed
Perhaps one of the principal reasons that the conservative cofnscenti are reserving comment is that they understand that at this time, in this issue there is not sufficient room for intellectual honesty.
I seriously am interested in what Oliphant thinks -- if he has the courage to speak frankly about this.
Racism and bigotry, by definition require animus. I want to hear from the liberals (vocal and silent) who know this man whether they believe (and have any reason to believe) that his statements contained some animus of racism or bigotry.
Or does Ramon believe that there is no need to demonstrate a racist state of mind?
What?
Racism and bigotry do not by definition require animus. I can find someone inferior but be perfectly indifferent to them. I find a dog to be my inferior but I don't bear dogs any ill will.
I really don't think Imus is a bigot or a racist and I don't think he should have been fired or even that what he said was all that bad. Why would you think I owuldn't need a racist state of mind demonstrated.
Well there's the problem.
Racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
In every respect, animus is an essential element.
There is a distinction betwen the meaning of words and the intent of the speaker. Lenny Bruce's fmous piece on racist words is instructive of the point.
If racism necessarily requires animus then why do liberals often get accused of racism for what conservatives see as a patronizing attitude to minorities. Programs such as affirmative action and welfare are seen as racist because they supposedly treat minorities like children, unable of competing on equal terms with the rest of society. Now if a liberal possesses this attitude he is properly called a racist. But I don't think he hates or wants to harm minorities. His pity is a form of condescension and racism but not hate.
Post a Comment