“Unsurprisingly the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage.”
h/t Robert W.
19 Replies to “Not Waiting For The Asteroid”
The PIED PIPER of Chicago, piping U.S. MSM, including ( and especially) Canadian MSM,
FOX News and Bernard Goldberg excepted.
Google “Robert J. Samuelson” and you’ll learn that he’s a very middle of the road fellow. The fact that HE is raising this concern should be huge wake-up call to all members of the MSM. But instead, they’re all snoozing right through it.
I can’t comment on the Canadian MSM because I don’t watch CBC, CTV, etc or read the Canadian political pundits. Because I know they are all Liberal hacks.
With regard to the US, I suspect that Obama’s constant emphasis on race, both in his own words and via his administration, are a deliberate strategy to inhibit criticism of him.
Obama is a, and only a, manipulator. He is able to interact with others in only one manner, by manipulating them. If he cannot manipulate you, he’ll insult, smear and eventually ignore you. You aren’t part of his ‘textual world’ which he alone authors and is in control of.
A major part of his manipulative strategy is a two-leveled setup of surface rhetoric and reality – the two are contradictory. He’ll tell you that he is non-partisan, that he rejects divisions etc..and yet, his actions will encourage and promote divisions. When they occur, he will then blame YOU for them, despite the fact that he, himself, enabled them.
Obama will never accept any blame for anything; it will always be the fault of someone else. And his two-leveled strategy means that you must reject ONE of his levels; either the rhetoric or the reality. This then puts you, the public, in an untenable position.
If you reject his rhetoric, he can claim that you do so because you are biased (racist, partisan). If you reject the actions, he’ll blame others as having made them necessary.
Dislike his Stimulus? Well, he had to do it because of Bush.
Dislike his choices of administration or judges? Are you a racist?
Dislike his takeover of GM etc? Are you politically partisan?
Point out that his rhetoric in the campaign about ‘openness’ etc is not being followed, and he’ll claim that you misunderstood him and that the ‘crisis’ situation made his actions necessary.
This two-leveled manipulative strategy, along with an arsenal that any criticism is biased, renders him almost immune to criticism.
However, I maintain that the Internet and blogs will break through his textual bubble.
Your analysis is absolutely right, ET.
I was surprised when reading Samuelson’s article that he skated around why it is the MSM is treating Obama with kid gloves: “The cause of this acquiescence isn’t clear.”
Though he finally concedes that “journalists … don’t want to see the first African American president fail,” he shies away from suggesting that Obama himself will use the racist card, over and over again, if he’s challenged.
So, even journalists who acknowledge that Obama’s being protected from criticism by the media are reluctant to call a spade a spade.
ET – A few changes and you described Biffy, leader of the LIEberals.
At the present your assesment of Ob[s]ama is very true viewpoint of many Canadians.
The Americans voted for his dreamand now they have to pay for it. Their debt will take generations to pay off, and a dream will become a nightmare when reality sets in.
Criticism is lacking because of the connotation that criticism of this president is racist, when in actual fact not holding him to the same standards as white presidents is what is racist. This fawning over Obama because he is “cool” on account of his skin color is sending the message that anything he does is good enough because he is hampered by skin color and all that entails.
The MSM’s dry-humping of Obama’s leg is not just unseemly, it’s dangerous to America and the rest of the world. We need astute and accurate criticism, not puppy love.
Totally, uuess. It’s the worst kind of racism because in the service of not wanting to appear racist, we actually totally underestimate and condescend to the race of another, the implication being that they don’t add up and that we have to swath them in cotton batten. In essence, when we do this, we continue to ghettoize the group/individual we’re trying “to be fair to.”
It’s called the equality (sic) of lowered expectations.
And the really sad thing? Obama’s happy with it. He’s delighted with it. He knows he can use it to manipulate the whole political process to get what he wants — and to Hell with true equality, fairness, responsibility, and accountability.
Well, we’re in the midst of the forced collectivization, so now comes the cult of personality. Any surprises?
Things to look forward to: the elimination of the kulaks and nepmen, the war against counter-revolutionaries; when the disasters begin to mount the denouncing and elimination of wreckers and saboteurs; when things get even worse the purging of the left-socialists etc, etc, etc.
Plus ca change . . .
Although ET’s portrayal of Obama as a manipulator may be accurate, it fails to account for his political success. We are all manipulators to the extent that we frequently try to manipulate others in the service of our goals. This is not necessarily pathological, and those who lack skill in this regard are often seen as social misfits. However, few of us become POTUS. For that, the “manipulator” needs to be a shrewd reader of the culture and of individuals. He also needs willing accomplices, millions of them in fact, and I doubt that someone focused totally on an internal fantasy could command such a following.
I think Obama’s success can be attributed to (1) a desperate longing on the part of the American people to eliminate the race question, (2) a severe economic recession that has made Americans insecure and more open to government “protection”, and (3) an MSM bias in favor of socializing large areas of the economy and society. In view of this last factor, a vigorous and free Internet is more important than ever.
I thought Samuelson was basically on target, though, as “batb” notes, he did pull his punches somewhat.
RSP
said
“””” For that, the “manipulator” needs to be a shrewd reader of the culture and of individuals”””
say what???
the man did NOT obtain a lot of small internet donations to ride to the top fiscally, he got a some top end large donations. So it would appear the manipulator was manipulated by some back room boyz (soros???). So there was no need to read any people, just ride the racist train and let the back room boyz manipulate. Try not giving credit were it ain’t due!!!!
I totally agree, GYM. Obama is not a shrewd reader of the culture and individuals. He remains only a pathological narcissist. He’s being run by the BackRoom Boys, such as Soros etc.
As Krauthammer has said of Obama – he’s never even so much as managed a candy store. Obama has no ability to manage anything. He has no ability to ‘shrewdly read’ anything.
Note, how disastrously he is reading the nature of the Muslims states. Obama thinks that the only reason the West and the Muslim states don’t get along is purely phenomenological – it’s that we simply misunderstand each other.
No, the real reason is structural. The Muslim states are operating in an economic, political and societal system that is tribal; that rejects individualism, reason, democracy, free speech, equality of all. That’s why we don’t get along; each side is structurally the opposite.
Obama is ignorant of history, of societal structure, of political systems, of economic systems – his only skill is manipulation. That requires lies, charm, slick hyperbole and emotional appeals. If he can’t manipulate you, then you cease to exist for him.
The backroom boys made us of his rhetorical skills, filled with empty vapid promises, and his constant references to race – and the fall-out from a rejection of the war phase of Bush. That’s how Obama got into power. Oh, and ACORN and other strategies helped as well.
And something else – Ace has a post noting that the Obama administration is ‘crowing’ about ‘all the jobs that have been created by his stimulus’.
But Obama has no right to make such a claim. Here’s the comment:
“After nearly twenty years in Washington I thought I’ve seen every trick ever conceived, but the White House claims of “jobs saved” attributed to the stimulus bill is unrivaled. What causes the jaw to drop is not just the breathtaking deception of the claim, but the gullibility of the Washington press corps to continue reporting it.
News stories from President Obama’s event last week hailing the 100-day mark since the stimulus was passed typically repeated the assertion that the stimulus has already “created or saved 150,00 jobs.” (“And that’s just the beginning,” the President crowed.)
Here’s an important note to my friends in the news media: the White House has absolutely no earthly clue how many job losses have been prevented because of the stimulus bill. None. Not Christina Romer. Not Jared Bernstein. Not Austen Goolsbee.
Each of these distinguished economists would have failed Statistics 101 for making such a laughable claim. But we see them now repeating these assertions to reporters who have seemingly abandoned all skepticism.
Forget that only a trickle of stimulus spending has yet made its way into the real economy. Set aside your views on whether or not the stimulus has any job-saving or -creating impact. And leave for another day the White House’s failing to account for changing macroeconomic conditions and seasonal adjustments.”
Remember how Obama went to an Oklahoma plant (I think) to boast about how his actions would create jobs – and the plant cut hundreds a week later?
And note how this same MSM press won’t give Bush credit for no terrorist attacks on America, but will accept Obama’s self praise about the results of his actions, even though such results are pure empty rhetoric.
GYM:
I don’t think people arrive at Obama’s position without considerable inter-personal skills, a fact that ET’s previous posts (not necessarily her most recent one) seemed to overlook. As for those “back room boyz” (a favorite image of the left, incidentally), they don’t settle on just anyone. Furthermore, influential people and institutions are quite diverse in the US, so the notion of a unified cabal is probably inaccurate.
As for the source of Obama’s financial support, I confess to not knowing too much about it. I’ve heard that those internet donations were significant, but perhaps that was not the case. Do you have more complete information?
I was surprised when reading Samuelson’s article that he skated around why it is the MSM is treating Obama with kid gloves: “The cause of this acquiescence isn’t clear.”
Though he finally concedes that “journalists … don’t want to see the first African American president fail,” he shies away from suggesting that Obama himself will use the racist card, over and over again, if he’s challenged.
So, even journalists who acknowledge that Obama’s being protected from criticism by the media are reluctant to call a spade a spade.
~batb at June 2, 2009 11:30 AM On the contrary, the MSM are part and parcel of the developing Obama personality cult. A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders.
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
Toronto Sun (print) has story about a lawyer, Michel Drapeau who is suing CBC over ‘no access to information’, written by Christina Spencer.
Sun Media is supporting him.
I haven’t been able to find the story on line.
He is frustrated with several attempts to receive info thru ‘access to information act’.
Perfect analysis, once again ET.
I am wondering if anyone, in the media, is ever going to grasp the fact that Obamarama is not an African American, he is a White American or a Black Kenyan and or both. He is not a Black American because his black side comes from Kenya. He just might be a ‘subject’ of Mr. Brown and Queen Elizabeth II; two people he went out of his way to offend. His Dad was a British subject …. Things that make me go ‘hummm’.
Oz: “On the contrary, the MSM are part and parcel of the developing Obama personality cult.”
You have obviously misunderstood my post, Oz. The point I was making is that, although Samuelson — in attempting to expose the personality cult aspect of the Obama presidency and the MSM’s acquiescence to it — acknowledged the colour of Obama’s skin when he wrote that American journalists don’t want an “African American President to fail,” he didn’t go far enough — and, thus, even he declined to get to the heart of why Obama has been protected by the MSM: lowered expectations because he’s black and no one wants to be accused of being … racist.
The MSM is most definitely “part and parcel of the developing Obama personality cult.”
batb – I could not e-mail you the information and photo’s of Joe Boyle. Do you have another e-mail address where I could try it again?
The PIED PIPER of Chicago, piping U.S. MSM, including ( and especially) Canadian MSM,
FOX News and Bernard Goldberg excepted.
Google “Robert J. Samuelson” and you’ll learn that he’s a very middle of the road fellow. The fact that HE is raising this concern should be huge wake-up call to all members of the MSM. But instead, they’re all snoozing right through it.
I can’t comment on the Canadian MSM because I don’t watch CBC, CTV, etc or read the Canadian political pundits. Because I know they are all Liberal hacks.
With regard to the US, I suspect that Obama’s constant emphasis on race, both in his own words and via his administration, are a deliberate strategy to inhibit criticism of him.
Obama is a, and only a, manipulator. He is able to interact with others in only one manner, by manipulating them. If he cannot manipulate you, he’ll insult, smear and eventually ignore you. You aren’t part of his ‘textual world’ which he alone authors and is in control of.
A major part of his manipulative strategy is a two-leveled setup of surface rhetoric and reality – the two are contradictory. He’ll tell you that he is non-partisan, that he rejects divisions etc..and yet, his actions will encourage and promote divisions. When they occur, he will then blame YOU for them, despite the fact that he, himself, enabled them.
Obama will never accept any blame for anything; it will always be the fault of someone else. And his two-leveled strategy means that you must reject ONE of his levels; either the rhetoric or the reality. This then puts you, the public, in an untenable position.
If you reject his rhetoric, he can claim that you do so because you are biased (racist, partisan). If you reject the actions, he’ll blame others as having made them necessary.
Dislike his Stimulus? Well, he had to do it because of Bush.
Dislike his choices of administration or judges? Are you a racist?
Dislike his takeover of GM etc? Are you politically partisan?
Point out that his rhetoric in the campaign about ‘openness’ etc is not being followed, and he’ll claim that you misunderstood him and that the ‘crisis’ situation made his actions necessary.
This two-leveled manipulative strategy, along with an arsenal that any criticism is biased, renders him almost immune to criticism.
However, I maintain that the Internet and blogs will break through his textual bubble.
Your analysis is absolutely right, ET.
I was surprised when reading Samuelson’s article that he skated around why it is the MSM is treating Obama with kid gloves: “The cause of this acquiescence isn’t clear.”
Though he finally concedes that “journalists … don’t want to see the first African American president fail,” he shies away from suggesting that Obama himself will use the racist card, over and over again, if he’s challenged.
So, even journalists who acknowledge that Obama’s being protected from criticism by the media are reluctant to call a spade a spade.
ET – A few changes and you described Biffy, leader of the LIEberals.
At the present your assesment of Ob[s]ama is very true viewpoint of many Canadians.
The Americans voted for his dreamand now they have to pay for it. Their debt will take generations to pay off, and a dream will become a nightmare when reality sets in.
Criticism is lacking because of the connotation that criticism of this president is racist, when in actual fact not holding him to the same standards as white presidents is what is racist. This fawning over Obama because he is “cool” on account of his skin color is sending the message that anything he does is good enough because he is hampered by skin color and all that entails.
The MSM’s dry-humping of Obama’s leg is not just unseemly, it’s dangerous to America and the rest of the world. We need astute and accurate criticism, not puppy love.
Totally, uuess. It’s the worst kind of racism because in the service of not wanting to appear racist, we actually totally underestimate and condescend to the race of another, the implication being that they don’t add up and that we have to swath them in cotton batten. In essence, when we do this, we continue to ghettoize the group/individual we’re trying “to be fair to.”
It’s called the equality (sic) of lowered expectations.
And the really sad thing? Obama’s happy with it. He’s delighted with it. He knows he can use it to manipulate the whole political process to get what he wants — and to Hell with true equality, fairness, responsibility, and accountability.
Well, we’re in the midst of the forced collectivization, so now comes the cult of personality. Any surprises?
Things to look forward to: the elimination of the kulaks and nepmen, the war against counter-revolutionaries; when the disasters begin to mount the denouncing and elimination of wreckers and saboteurs; when things get even worse the purging of the left-socialists etc, etc, etc.
Plus ca change . . .
Although ET’s portrayal of Obama as a manipulator may be accurate, it fails to account for his political success. We are all manipulators to the extent that we frequently try to manipulate others in the service of our goals. This is not necessarily pathological, and those who lack skill in this regard are often seen as social misfits. However, few of us become POTUS. For that, the “manipulator” needs to be a shrewd reader of the culture and of individuals. He also needs willing accomplices, millions of them in fact, and I doubt that someone focused totally on an internal fantasy could command such a following.
I think Obama’s success can be attributed to (1) a desperate longing on the part of the American people to eliminate the race question, (2) a severe economic recession that has made Americans insecure and more open to government “protection”, and (3) an MSM bias in favor of socializing large areas of the economy and society. In view of this last factor, a vigorous and free Internet is more important than ever.
I thought Samuelson was basically on target, though, as “batb” notes, he did pull his punches somewhat.
RSP
said
“””” For that, the “manipulator” needs to be a shrewd reader of the culture and of individuals”””
say what???
the man did NOT obtain a lot of small internet donations to ride to the top fiscally, he got a some top end large donations. So it would appear the manipulator was manipulated by some back room boyz (soros???). So there was no need to read any people, just ride the racist train and let the back room boyz manipulate. Try not giving credit were it ain’t due!!!!
I totally agree, GYM. Obama is not a shrewd reader of the culture and individuals. He remains only a pathological narcissist. He’s being run by the BackRoom Boys, such as Soros etc.
As Krauthammer has said of Obama – he’s never even so much as managed a candy store. Obama has no ability to manage anything. He has no ability to ‘shrewdly read’ anything.
Note, how disastrously he is reading the nature of the Muslims states. Obama thinks that the only reason the West and the Muslim states don’t get along is purely phenomenological – it’s that we simply misunderstand each other.
No, the real reason is structural. The Muslim states are operating in an economic, political and societal system that is tribal; that rejects individualism, reason, democracy, free speech, equality of all. That’s why we don’t get along; each side is structurally the opposite.
Obama is ignorant of history, of societal structure, of political systems, of economic systems – his only skill is manipulation. That requires lies, charm, slick hyperbole and emotional appeals. If he can’t manipulate you, then you cease to exist for him.
The backroom boys made us of his rhetorical skills, filled with empty vapid promises, and his constant references to race – and the fall-out from a rejection of the war phase of Bush. That’s how Obama got into power. Oh, and ACORN and other strategies helped as well.
And something else – Ace has a post noting that the Obama administration is ‘crowing’ about ‘all the jobs that have been created by his stimulus’.
But Obama has no right to make such a claim. Here’s the comment:
“After nearly twenty years in Washington I thought I’ve seen every trick ever conceived, but the White House claims of “jobs saved” attributed to the stimulus bill is unrivaled. What causes the jaw to drop is not just the breathtaking deception of the claim, but the gullibility of the Washington press corps to continue reporting it.
News stories from President Obama’s event last week hailing the 100-day mark since the stimulus was passed typically repeated the assertion that the stimulus has already “created or saved 150,00 jobs.” (“And that’s just the beginning,” the President crowed.)
Here’s an important note to my friends in the news media: the White House has absolutely no earthly clue how many job losses have been prevented because of the stimulus bill. None. Not Christina Romer. Not Jared Bernstein. Not Austen Goolsbee.
Each of these distinguished economists would have failed Statistics 101 for making such a laughable claim. But we see them now repeating these assertions to reporters who have seemingly abandoned all skepticism.
Forget that only a trickle of stimulus spending has yet made its way into the real economy. Set aside your views on whether or not the stimulus has any job-saving or -creating impact. And leave for another day the White House’s failing to account for changing macroeconomic conditions and seasonal adjustments.”
Remember how Obama went to an Oklahoma plant (I think) to boast about how his actions would create jobs – and the plant cut hundreds a week later?
And note how this same MSM press won’t give Bush credit for no terrorist attacks on America, but will accept Obama’s self praise about the results of his actions, even though such results are pure empty rhetoric.
GYM:
I don’t think people arrive at Obama’s position without considerable inter-personal skills, a fact that ET’s previous posts (not necessarily her most recent one) seemed to overlook. As for those “back room boyz” (a favorite image of the left, incidentally), they don’t settle on just anyone. Furthermore, influential people and institutions are quite diverse in the US, so the notion of a unified cabal is probably inaccurate.
As for the source of Obama’s financial support, I confess to not knowing too much about it. I’ve heard that those internet donations were significant, but perhaps that was not the case. Do you have more complete information?
I was surprised when reading Samuelson’s article that he skated around why it is the MSM is treating Obama with kid gloves: “The cause of this acquiescence isn’t clear.”
Though he finally concedes that “journalists … don’t want to see the first African American president fail,” he shies away from suggesting that Obama himself will use the racist card, over and over again, if he’s challenged.
So, even journalists who acknowledge that Obama’s being protected from criticism by the media are reluctant to call a spade a spade.
~batb at June 2, 2009 11:30 AM
On the contrary, the MSM are part and parcel of the developing Obama personality cult.
A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.
A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders.
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
Toronto Sun (print) has story about a lawyer, Michel Drapeau who is suing CBC over ‘no access to information’, written by Christina Spencer.
Sun Media is supporting him.
I haven’t been able to find the story on line.
He is frustrated with several attempts to receive info thru ‘access to information act’.
Perfect analysis, once again ET.
I am wondering if anyone, in the media, is ever going to grasp the fact that Obamarama is not an African American, he is a White American or a Black Kenyan and or both. He is not a Black American because his black side comes from Kenya. He just might be a ‘subject’ of Mr. Brown and Queen Elizabeth II; two people he went out of his way to offend. His Dad was a British subject …. Things that make me go ‘hummm’.
Oz: “On the contrary, the MSM are part and parcel of the developing Obama personality cult.”
You have obviously misunderstood my post, Oz. The point I was making is that, although Samuelson — in attempting to expose the personality cult aspect of the Obama presidency and the MSM’s acquiescence to it — acknowledged the colour of Obama’s skin when he wrote that American journalists don’t want an “African American President to fail,” he didn’t go far enough — and, thus, even he declined to get to the heart of why Obama has been protected by the MSM: lowered expectations because he’s black and no one wants to be accused of being … racist.
The MSM is most definitely “part and parcel of the developing Obama personality cult.”
batb – I could not e-mail you the information and photo’s of Joe Boyle. Do you have another e-mail address where I could try it again?