I think it’s interesting that everyone seems to agree that calling Obama a Muslim is “smearing him”. Why is that a smear, any more so than calling him Episcopalian or Lutheran or a Jew?
Steve Croft, Hillary and most everybody here seem to think that being a Muslim a bad thing to be.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic here or not. In one way that’s true, in another not at all. Care to elaborate?
No, they just think that being a Muslim (or being widely perceived to be) would be an almost insurmountable obstacle to becoming President right now.
And they’re right.
People with the name Obama and who are Muslim aren’t real popular in the US right now. Besides…he’s NOT Muslim. It would be like calling someone a Jew who was a Christian but LOOKED like a Jew, or maybe had Jewish ancestors. It’s designed to play to people who aren’t exactly critical in their thinking and who would be prejudiced against certain religions.
-XT
It would also be like saying that a candidate who was a Mormon was therefore not a Christian 
No, I’m not being sarcastic here at all. Obviously, interviewers have various techniques and various aims. However, with a high-profile politician such as Hillary Clinton, one aim will be to get an interesting news item out of the interview, and an “interesting” in this context will generally mean damaging in some way to the interviewee. And since Hillary has been a public figure since the mid 1970s, when Bill became involved in Arkansas politics, she should know all the tricks that interviewers use. Given everything she has had to face, this wasn’t even very tough, being asked the same question three times, and she should have known better.
Of course, it’s very annoying that interviwers do this sort of thing, but it’s understandable, because they are hunting for a headline. Though in this case I think it unlikely that they would get much than they got: a headline like “Hillary says that Barack is a closet Muslim” is unlikely outside the National Enquirer.
I don’t think it’s fatal to Hillary’s campaign, but it’s just a stupid mistake that she’s going to have to live when and if she has to support Obama’s campaign in the real election later this year.
and
My feeling exactly. I’ve been less than impressed with some of the tactics used by the Clinton camp, but this one doesn’t strike me as her fault.
Actually, i think a good reporter should ask questions that provide some actual insight into the subject’s ideas and positions. Simply looking for a “gotcha” moment that adds nothing to our actual knowledge of the person is not, in my opinion, good reporting. By all means, press the candidates when they fail to answer the question, but don’t keep badgering in the hope of an “interesting” answer when the question has already been answered unequivocally.
It may be that your definition serves to delineate a successful reporter in today’s media, but that’s not necessarily the same as a good reporter.
Yes, you’re right: they should ask questions on more substantial issues, like the Iraq War and health insurance. Unfortunately, that’s not what sells in the media today – and Hillary Clinton, with her ill-advised answer, allowed him to get away with it.
The smear isn’t about being Muslim, per se, it’s the insinuation that Obama is hiding his true identity, that he’s dishonest and untrustworthy and, of course, that he’s probably working for the terrorists.
There are an awful lot of Americans who don’t draw any distinction between “Muslim” and “terrorist” (a perception that the right wing media works overtime to perpetuate) and the Obama “secret Muslim” meme serves to play directly to that segment of the electorate who already believe that anyone with even a hint of an affiliation with Islam can automatically be classified as a backback wearing suicide bomber.
The innuendos are aimed at those who are already bigots.
In the 30’s there were whispers and rumors that FDR was really Jewish. The rumors were intended to play to antisemitism. Muslims are the “Jews” of the 21st Century.
don’t really agree w/this, but this:
is, IMHO, spot on and the reason for all the attempted linkage, from the ‘link’ to the Muslim school of his childhood, to the pictures, and, of course, the calling him by his full name (something that isn’t done, w/any regularity with any other candidate).
I saw this when it was broadcast, and I had to shake my head at Hillary’s answer. In real time, at the time, it came off as distinctly slimy (IMO). Moreso than when reading the transcript or on rewatching it.
That misrepresents the exchange. First of all, “never” wasn’t used; the question was, “You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” So there’s a difference in tense.
Secondly, there’s a difference in “documentation” (that is, independent and well-known records from other sources). I might as well ask about a documented fact about another Doper. For instance, excusing the use of a negative to make the construction fit, “You don’t believe that Boyo Jim hasn’t won a literary award?”
Finally, the flow of words did not indicate a dismissal followed by a qualification. Rather, it came out as a single, concrete thought that included an expressed doubt.
Again, upon reading or re-watching it, it’s not as prominent. But when I originally saw it, it made my eyes roll.
Perhaps, but it doesn’t misrepresent the post by DtC to which I was responding. Check that out and see if that doesn’t clear this up for you.
I’ll be damned if I can figure out what point you’re trying to make here.
Perhaps that says more about what you bring to the perception than what the objective reality is.
::shrug:: I disagree.
Sorry about that, I was trying for a close-to-home example that was obviously didn’t work. The point was that it is well documented from multiple sources that he is a practicing Christian and has not been a Muslim. This is qualitatively different than claiming a random factoid about an arbitrary person on the SDMB – you’re right, I have no idea whether DtC has “toyed with Scientology” or whether you’re Catholic. For all I know, your SDMB personae is a complete fabrication. But that’s most likely not the case with Boyo Jim (although I admit it is possible, as I haven’t done the legwork to confirm his award…y’know, the reason he has Best of the Worst under his name). It’s definitely not the case with Obama, no hedging necessary.
Yes, that’s possible. Although it works the other way also. Perhaps reading the transcript after formulating an idea of how it went down affected your perception of it. I can only say what my reaction was at the time – pure reaction, with no foreknowledge of what was coming. And subsequently admit that after the fact, it seemed less prominent (or more innocuous?) than it did as it occurred.
Totally agree. I got to say, with such an obnoxious interviewer Hillary really missed an opportunity here. I know her instinct is to “play nice” but she could have really scored some points by going on the attack, even if she had to defend Obama to do it.
If she had been sharp she would have said something very similar to “He’s a member of a Christian church, he’s never been a member of an Muslim congregation. We should take that as the truth and wonder what the point of this question is anyway. The vast majority of American Muslims share extremely similar values to the vast majority of American Christians. They live and work together every day.”
But I guess if she was able to say something so seemingly unselfish like that on the fly, she’d be as beloved as Obama. Too bad for her.
Disagree all you like, but clearly, you are wrong. Diogenes plainly did say “never,” as in Clinton should have said “Barack Obama is not and never has been a Muslim.” I responded to that.
Something is off with your perceptual devices. Perhaps your interpretive ones as well.
There is also a difference between formulating an idea of what I would say, in contrast to formulating an idea about how it went down. I said that I did the former, not the latter.
Thanks for the clarification. Two different views of what a “good” interviewer is, good for their career and media success and getting the interview shown vs. good for society and journalism.
The stupidity of this whole issue is that it’s ridiculous to even imply that someone could be a “closet” Muslim. You have to pray four times a day, toward Mecca, and you have to go to the Mosque. You can’t keep it a secret.
I think the phrase “as far as I know” was more just trying to say, “I haven’t looked into the issue,” rather than insinuation. Still, it doesn’t come off very well, because your opponent’s faith shouldn’t even be an issue to look into.
You’re correct, I overlooked where DtC used the term never.
And if you honestly believe the former has no affect on the latter, then I honestly believe you need to do some self-reflection, analyzing your thinking process and the conclusions you reach.
But, just as honestly, I don’t care enough about your level of self-applied intellectual rigor (much less your view of me and mine) to continue this pedantry. I reported my own uninfluenced reaction, admitted that bias may play a role, and gave reasons to support why I think you misrepresented the exchange and how that affected your interpretation of the interview. ::shrug:: YMMV (or, I should say, YM obviously does V).
Waitaminute! Do people really think that shit they show on TV is news? I guess I’m not old enough (27) to remember when there was news on TV.
Seroiusly, guys, this kind of crap rarely occurs on NPR.
I see so many threads on here about shoddy reporting on TV, and I wonder why people still watch it.
Oh, and Guizot: ｀ˇˋˇ植ˊ致致致阿凹屋阿凹失失燒科失ㄎㄑ恩失失喔ㄎㄑㄟ喔恩喔ㄟㄑ喔ㄎㄟ喔恩ㄑ失尻骯失ㄎㄑ阿凹骯阿燒骯ㄎㄑ阿凹奢ㄎㄑ凹骯阿燒骯ㄎㄑ阿凹骯屋阿凹屋阿凹ㄑ屋ㄘㄜ ㄠ ㄑ ㄕ
ETA: How the hell did that happen?
I think “60 Minutes” has always been about gottcha journalism. The 30 minute National News shows that the networks put on are OK. Not great, but OK. And the Cable News shows suffer from having to put out 24 hours worth of news when there just isn’t that much real news out there. They will air 2 hours of reporters camped outside Michael Jackson’s residence so that we don’t miss the non-event of him driving to the courthouse.