Here is an interesting article about the treatment of the Obama Press Corp. As an aside, I found especially fascinating the part where Dean Reynolds provides this analytical gem:
The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn't be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.
The main reason I bring this article is for its description of Obama's much vaunted campaign. Considering Obama's answer to his lack of executive experience is that he ran a massive (and successful) campaign, the contents are, well, scary. Here is an example:
Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons.
If so, I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.
The fact that the first time I had ever heard of the lack of organization and hubris (well, maybe not the hubris part) surrounding his campaign was after the election, and that I had to read a right-wing mag like The Weekly Standard to hear about it, is also, well, scary. Yet more proof of the massive media failure to discover the real Obama, even when the story was literally the media themselves
On that note, here is another example that we do not really know who we just elected. Here is the reaction ofMohhamed Ahamdinejad on the Thursday after Election Day:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulated U.S. President-elect Barack Obama -- the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes to a U.S. president-elect since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad on Thursday outlined where he thinks U.S. policy needs to change.
One analyst said the welcome was a gesture from the hard-line president that he is open to a more conciliatory relationship with the U.S.
Ahmadinejad said Tehran "welcomes basic and fair changes in U.S. policies and conducts," according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency on Thursday.
Then Obama said this:
In his first post-election news conference Friday afternoon, Obama reiterated that he believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." He also said he would help mount an international effort to prevent it from happening.
Leading to the following Iranian reaction:
"Obama must know that the change that he talks about is not simply a superficial changing of colors or tactics," Larijani said in comments carried by the semi-official Mehr News Agency.
"What is expected is a change in strategy, not the repetition of objections to Iran's nuclear program, which will be taking a step in the wrong direction."
The entire article is available on CNN. I don't know if I can blame the U.S media for their confusion, but there is a definite pattern emerging.
Further evidence that the U.S public does not have a realistic view of Obama is found in this new poll released by CNN:
"The bar is being set awfully high for an Obama presidency," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
According to the poll, most people think it's likely that Obama will improve race relations, improve economic conditions, bring stability to the financial markets, make the United States safer from terrorism, reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, win the war in Afghanistan, and remove U.S. troops from Iraq without causing a major upheaval in that country.
"That's a pretty big to-do list," said Holland.
I'm surprised the public is not expecting Obama to cure cancer. These- clearly unrealistic- numbers are clear evidence that Obama did not win the Presidency by laying out clear concepts that people related to. Rather, he made an emotional connection to voters everywhere, and they projected their wishes on him. If my wish was to keep the U.S safe from Terrorism, then Obama became the person who was going to accomplish this, ect. Hence, "that's a pretty big to-do list."
The CNN poll also provides valuable evidence that allows us to view Obamamainia in context. In my last post, I acknowledged that there is certain amount of uncertainty that surrounds every new president. How much of this is responsible to the ambiguity surrounding Obama? Well, if we assume that the public's unrealistic expectations for Obama are a product of his campaign style- and the failure of the media as an advocate for the public- then we can expect Obama has a much higher positive rating then the normal first term president elect. A normal freshly minted President would also have the benefit of a clean slate to boast his popularity. Thus, these numbers from CNN are extremely important:
Three-quarters of those polled also have a favorable view of Obama, up 12 points since the election. Among black Americans the number was 99 percent, while among Republicans it was 41 percent.
The overall 75 percent favorable rating "makes Obama the most popular president-elect in at least a quarter of a century," Holland said.
In November of 1980, after his landslide victory over incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan's favorable rating was 67 percent. Eight years later, the elder George Bush had a favorable rating of only 50 percent immediately after his win in the 1988 election. When Bill Clinton beat Bush
four years later, his favorable rating was 60 percent just after the election.
And after the Florida recount ended in December of 2000, George W. Bush had a 59 percent favorable rating.
Although, the poll registers a 12 point bump in popularity since the election, I don't think it skews the point because the other President-elects could also count on this effect. Could I be wrong? Could Obama really be all that the public expects him to be? Maybe. But not likely.
12 comments:
I don't want to sound mean, but I think this needs to be said; You really need to give this a rest. It's exhausting for some of the rest of us.
Hey man, sometimes the truth hurts.
Perhaps Mordy can articulate his objections, or highlight why he (presumably) thinks this post fails to make a case?
Essentially, the argument here appears to be that America doesn't know who Obama is. Problematically, that was precisely the same argument being made in the November 5th post, just two posts ago. Here is the evidence in this post being offered to make that argument:
1) A complaint by a member of the media that the Obama campaign didn't keep them informed enough, and that he wasn't pandered to effectively. (btw, the same media that was to blame in the Nov. 5th post for tricking America into voting for Obama). In the original article (written in October, btw), the writer complains about the plane not being as comfortable as McCain's.
2) Some remarks from Ahamdinejad who is disappointed with Obama's stance on nuclear weapons. Apparently this makes the argument that Obama is not who he says he is. It's the kind of hallucinated argument that I expect from FreeRepublic. Not from a college student. Obama has always said that he's against Iran attaining Nuclear Weapons. If Ahamdinejad thought differently, he was wrong. It's not a proof for anything.
3) A CNN poll that shows that people expect a lot from the President elect. This is offered as proof that he didn't make any intellectual arguments, only emotional ones that people were able to project their pet issues onto. Except that it doesn't actually prove that at all. Correlation/Causation, etc. There's just no argument here.
4) A bump in favorability, that the author of this blog believes shows that people have unreasonable expectations of Obama. Ironically, the only piece of evidence here that I find somewhat compelling. Even though the author himself admits that other Presidents also has post election bumps in popularity.
Here's the thing: I get that the author here doesn't like Obama and thinks he bamboozled a nation of people into voting for him. But offering proofs like the Ahamdinejad piece is just ridiculous pandering. It's unconvincing and fails to make any sort of legitimate argument. It's exhausting because this sort of thing wears its bias conspicuously, and then fails to offer any bang for its buck. I read all the blog posts (as is the obligation for the class) - I'd like to read something substantive outside the fuming of a Republican who lost the election.
Mordy hit a lot of the points that came into my head as a I read this post, but the argument that additional security is a sign of a "quiet president-elect" can be quickly responded to by additional security is required Obama because of the significant numbers of threats to his life.
Daniel: Your turn. Mordy has offered a point-by-point response; can you respond to his critique in like manner?
Before I begin, I would like to add I am among the 79% in this country who have a favorable view of Obama. I find his victory inspiring, and was moved by his victory speech. In addition, I view his meeting with both his vanquished rivals as a positive beginning. As I mentioned to Cranky Doc at the election night party, the defining move of the Bush Presidency was the appointment of John Ashcroft as AG in the wake of the disputed election of 2000. The appointment showed that Mr. Bush did not care to unite the country, as the appointment created immediate controversy not helpful for a nation seeking reconciliation. Obama has done just the opposite, even after an election where he received a mandate (no matter for what reason). Coupled with the caution he has exhibited in other cases, (read, financial crisis), I firmly believe he will be a moderate president.
Having said that, Mordy fails to bring a substantial argument against any of the points laid out in my post.
(1) In his criticism of my post, Mordy finds it easy to disagree with a “one” reporter who spent months on the Obama campaign. I am not so flippant. Until proven otherwise, he has credibility. Further, although the complaints do seem trivial, being that Obama entire executive experience consisted of running his campaign, its execution must be viewed with a magnifying glass. If the campaign seems unorganized, then how do we not know that lack of organization will not carry over the White House? Further, the fact that the blog was published in October is exactly the point. Did you hear about it? Did I hear about it? No. The rest of the media simply did not report the story.
(2) Apparently, Mordy’s objection to the point about Iran is that it is an argument below his intellectual standing. My apologies. Mordy does, however, fail to appear to have read the post, or perhaps understand its central argument. No one is saying that Obama is not who he says he is. The claim is being put forward that what Obama is saying has been sufficiently ambiguous that no one knows exactly what to think, including the whackjob at the helm of Iran. Like Americans everywhere, A-Jad chose to believe that the change meant what he wanted it to mean; in his case, that there would be a change in Nuclear policy regarding Iran. That is why he was so surprised when after his election, Obama said this was not the case. If you need proof that it was Obama’s election rhetoric that caused this confusion, look no further then Iran’s second statement, and consider reading it this time:
"Obama must know that the change that he talks about is not simply a superficial changing of colors or tactics," Larijani said in comments carried by the semi-official Mehr News Agency.
"What is expected is a change in strategy, not the repetition of objections to Iran's nuclear program, which will be taking a step in the wrong direction."
(3) Mordy argues that because correlation does not indicate causation that the logical argument I present must be false. This is not an acceptable argument. The fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation does not indicate my argument is wrong; rather, that it is impossible to prove that it is right. Hence, it is indeed speculation, but educated speculation backed by the other pieces of evidence I have presented. Until you can offer a counter-argument that makes more sense, you have no right to stick your head in the sand and argue nothing can be learned from stats.
(4) Finally, the 12 point bump is natural and reflects a general sense of: “O.K, my guy might have lost, but lets see what my second choice can do before I view him negatively.” That is why all the Presidents in the CNN survey got boosts after their election.
Steven, I have no idea what you are saying.
It has been nice chatting. Now back to my hallucinations…
I think we can agree, Daniel, to divide your post into 4 distinct sections (with an underlying narrative). You're trying to justify your narrative, but let's start with section one.
On October 7th, Dean Reynolds, a reporter for CBS News (one of the big three networks, btw, that is commonly called liberal and in the bag for Obama), wrote a dispatch from the road. He made the following complaints:
1) Obama doesn't seem to have a tangible bond with the people he speaks to, while McCain does. This complaint actually undermines your entire argument about Obama's emotional connection with voters.
2) Obama campaign is more hectic and his workers seem to be overworked. In hindsight this probably is a bit excusable, being that he won the election. But let's set that aside and assume that Obama overworks its employees. How does that prove your point that it is disorganized? Labor issues are generally the things that concern me, not you. (Though if you're joining the pro-labor team, I'm happy to have you aboard.)
3) The campaign doesn't coordinate enough with the network to help them get their stories, by contrast to the McCain campaign that is very helpful. Once again, another point that undermines one of your arguments. In your November 4th post (and even in this post), you suggest that the media has been complacent in Obama's tricking of the voter body. This suggests that the media (if you really want to use this CBS reporter as representative, which, apparently, you do) actually has warmed more to McCain's campaign than Obama's campaign at this point.
4) Obama doesn't banter enough with reporters. Honestly, I'm not sure what this is indicative of, besides the author being a whiner.
5) McCain's plane smells better than Obama's. See point (4).
Basically, none of the reporter's arguments supports your assertions, and a number of them actually subvert your very argument. This is, essentially, my issue with a number of your blog posts. You take pieces of evidence that you believe speak for themselves, and present them for your case. But when examined closely, the evidence seems to entirely contradict your argument.
So here's my advice (if you're interested in taking it). Show, explicitly, how an argument follows from one of the parts of this article you quoted. If you want to show that the Obama campaign is disorganized, explain why you think that is important, or why you think this reporter's evidence proves that. (It can't be too disorganized, it won a National campaign for President - it must've been pretty organized to do that.) If your argument is that we don't know enough about Obama, explain how that follows from anything in this article. If your argument is that the media hasn't told us enough about Obama, explain to me how an article from CBS NEWS (!) proves that.
And in terms of Ahamdinejad, you can't argue that Obama is an unknown quantity because Ahamdinejad was confused. Obama said early and often (in front of AIPAC, at two of the debates) that Iran would not be allowed to have nuclear power under any circumstance. All Ahamdinejad's comments are proof of is that Ahamdinejad was confused. And that's his own fault. Not the media's, not Obama's. If all of America knew that Obama was against Iranian nuclear power, how is it Obama's fault that Ahamdinejad did not? You're giving an idiot in Iran far too much credit.
(This is like when the media solicits endorsements from third world communities - like the Congo, Rwanda, or Gaza. Really, who cares what the common person in Gaza thinks of Obama + McCain? He's undereducated, impoverished, and generally doesn't speak English with enough fluency to have total understanding of campaign announcements.)
Daniel writes this above: "The fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation does not indicate my argument is wrong; rather, that it is impossible to prove that it is right. Hence, it is indeed speculation, but educated speculation backed by the other pieces of evidence I have presented. Until you can offer a counter-argument that makes more sense, you have no right to stick your head in the sand and argue nothing can be learned from stats."
No. The burden is on the one making the argument to offer a credible chain of evidence to support it. It is not the obligation of others to disprove an assertion. At least not in my classroom!
To explain myself, my point was that this journalist was suggesting that due to security mishaps the Obama campaign was disorganized. I was suggesting that the campaign knowingly kept security "disorganized" the protect a president-elect who has been threatened several times.
I think there are a few things that seem to have been forgotten here. First is on the topic of unrealistic expectations. No president is able to keep all the promises he makes during his campaign. Every candidate says things that are unattainable do to the nature of our system. Unfortunately most Americans lack the knowledge of how our system works and believe that the president has the power to do what he claimed during his campaign. Although it may appeal to us, (us meaning educated citizens who are somewhat knowledgeable about our system) no candidate is going to be realistic when conveying his goals to the people.
Second is about information coming out after the election. Campaigns try to control what the media, there are things that they would like to keep under wraps until the election is over. This is something all candidates do, there are always things that come out after the election that the campaign successfully hid. Where is your outrage over the new stuff thats coming out about Sarah Palin? This is also something our government does. One can argue that we need transparency but you cant blame the Obama campaign for playing the game.
Lastly I don't see how you can use Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a reliable source, unless you are willing to believe him when he says the Iran nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Post a Comment