Sort of. Williams’ wording and tone suggested it was false, but he didn’t state that it was. Two things:
(a) I don’t think that stuff should even be dignified with a reference. Morons who spread those rumors and believe them aren’t thinking about voting for Obama anyway.
(b) If the interviewer/moderator feels that he absolutely must reference it, he should be clear in asking his own question that the allegation is false.
It’s not like this is some opinion or policy issue upon which there is room for different points of view. Obama is not a Muslim; Obama did not take his oath on the Koran. Period. Williams should have stated, straight out, that it was false information, rather than vaguely implying it, leaving Obama himself to set the record straight.
I think it’s debatable as to whether it was responsible to bring it up or not. I can sort of see both sides of that.
But I can’t see many people, if any, being confused about whether or not Williams was presenting the info as factually incorrect. He wasn’t absolutely crystal clear, but he was pretty damn close. Especially if they were watching the debate, where the audience was laughing with derision at the accusations.
Sure, watching the whole footage makes it reasonably clear. I agree. Although i think that part of the reason that it’s clear is Obama’s response.
But still, why not ask something like “What strategies do you adopt in dealing with malicious and patently untrue information circulated about you on the internet? For example…”
I mean, if you ask someone “How do you respond to the rumors that you molest children,” you dignify that accusation simply by reiterating it as a question, even if you make clear by your tone that you don’t believe it yourself. At the very least, the question should be phrased so that the mendaciousness and dishonesty of the rumor comes before the rumor itself. At least in cases where the rumor can be easily confirmed as false beyond any reasonable doubt.
I should add, by the way, that it would be nice if things had progressed far enough in American politics that an accusation of being a Muslim couldn’t do a candidate any harm anyway.
I disagree. It isn’t (and shouldn’t be) the journalist’s job to editorialize and/or lobby on behalf of the candidate as to what is or isn’t factually correct in regard to this or that aspect of a particular candidate’s lifestyle, private history and/or beliefs. Not only would it be impossible to know everything one would have to know about the each candidate, it would lead to questions of bias should the journalist be perceived as favoring one candidate over the other with regard to how strongly he/she defends that particular candidate.
Further, it isn’t (and shouldn’t be) the journalist’s job to attempt to influence the audience in advance as to whether the rumor or accusation in question is mendacious or not. It is the job of each candidate to speak for him/herself as to what they believe, what they’ve done in the past, and the degree to which accusations and rumors regarding them may be true or false. Any journalist attempting to fulfill this role preemptively would look ludicrous.
And unlike accusations of child molestation, these types of questions can be easily refuted if answered honestly because there is a great amount of information out there to disprove them should the candidate lie about them. Let’s say for example that Obama was an occasional practicing Muslim (or Christian or Jew or whatever) but denied publicly that he’d ever done so. It would be quite easy for members of the congregations who’d seen him doing so to attest to that fact; to come up with records indicating contributions to the churches, mosques or synagogues in question; etc. These are matters that can be easily refuted if false, which is not necessarily the case with accusations of child molestation.
Come now. It’s really okay for a journalist to raise accusations that have already been refuted by the candidate (as they were in this case), and level them again with NO qualifications? “Senator Bodog, I understand you’ve been called a thespian and a philatelist, how do you answer those charges?” Sen Bodog then fully refutes the charge.
And then at the next event, the press can raise these charges again, in the same manner? Are you really asking for the press to have no memory at all, and act as a conduit in all cases, and they can ask, yet again, the same questions in the same way, with no reference that the accusation was nonsense?
“Senator Bodog, I understand you’ve been called a thespian and a philatelist, how do you answer those charges?”
Do we really need this level of stupidity in the press?
Well, in the first place, I’d prefer the question be stated in a more respectful and tactful way, something along the lines of “Senator Bodog, how would you respond to the continuing allegations that you’re a thespian and a philatelist?”
IMO, if the rumors and accusations persist, as in the case mhendo raised above, I believe the journalist is actually doing the candidate a service by raising them again and giving the candidate an excellent opportunity – as was certainly the case above – to go on record and refute them unequivocally.
You see, even though I wouldn’t vote for Obama because I’m a tighty-righty, I do like him nevertheless, and to me it’s good for him (or any candidate) to have these types of questions posed in a respectful way (as opposed to the journalist trying to debunk them himself) and then be given the opportunity to refute them clearly and without equivocation (Hillary excepted, of course )…especially within the context of a debate where there is such a large viewing audience.
You might have a point (there’s a first time for everything) if Obama hadn’t frequently and categorically stated that the rumors were false, and if there were even the slightest scintilla of evidence to support them.
But the rumors are factually incorrect, and are known by every single thinking person to be factually incorrect. For the journalist to state that the rumors are factually incorrect isn’t editorializing or lobbying on behalf of the candidate; it’s just doing the fucking job that journalists are supposed to do, which is to be objective and professional in their work.
Doing him a service? Give me a fucking break.
Why should the candidate be continually forced to spend time and effort on the defensive, denying allegations that everyone, even the mouth-breathing rumor-mongers themselves, knows to be false. If the reporters know the allegations are false, and are easily demonstrated to be false, why bring them up at all? Why not deal with issues of substance? It’s just poor journalism.
You really don’t get this at all, do you? The “rumors and accusations persist” because the press raises them, the candidates refute it, then the press writes a story on the candidate refuting in, which prompts the rumors and accusations to persist which prompts the next round of “Sen Bodog, have you stopped responding to the allegations that you once told your carpenter to suggest your plumber should beat your wife?” which makes the rumors persist because someone wrote about it again.
It’s truly a house of mirrors. Blaming it on a candidate to manage this stupidity is nuts – the narrative takes on a life of its own; responsible journalists are aware of this, and can goddamn ask less stupid questions.
Clearly everyone doesn’t know them to be false or there wouldn’t be any point in bringing them up in the first place.
Further, I don’t see that it matters whether the journalist asking the question knows the rumors are false or not – the idea is to educate the public and if either the Obama camp or the journalists themselves feel that the campaign is being negatively impacted by these rumors, it serves the best interests of both journalism and the candidate for them to be refuted clearly and unequivocally…especially, like I said, in a debate scenario where the largest number of people will see and hear the refutation themselves, thus either their own ignorance is dispelled or they gain proper ammunition to refute the accusations should they encounter them at some time themselves.
Not everyone in the country keeps up with things like we do here, and lots of people (not all, certainly) believe these types of things more because they just don’t know any better rather than out of malice. After all, if ignorance didn’t exist, there would be no need of the board’s motto.
Well, you certainly aren’t going to see me evangelizing for the mainstream news media. Still, your logic seems fallacious. Is it really your contention that if the press didn’t keep asking these questions, people would just abandon their false or inaccurate impressions and somehow begin to embrace a candidate they had previously objected to due to ignorance and misinformation? That too much information only foments more ignorance?
Doesn’t compute, to me. I don’t know of anyone who has been wrong about Obama’s history and beliefs because they heard questions about them raised by the mainstream news media; instead it comes from bigoted or misinformed sources outside that media such as talk radio, small time publications, or (and more likely) misinformed people of their own acquaintance, and I would think that someone who saw Obama himself clearly and unequivocally state how these types of accusations are wrong would be in a much better position (and probably more motivated, having it come from such a charismatic speaker) to refute these allegations convincingly whenever they might hear them coming from an ill-informed friend or family member from that point on.
But all this is essentially beside the point of my original post. I simply don’t think it’s the journalist’s place, particularly in the context of a debate, to try to pro actively plead a politician’s case for him/her. Let them raise the question if necessary, and let the politician deal with it. If you want to rail against journalists for raising it in the first place, that’s one thing…and perhaps a valid issue. But it’s another entirely to voice no objection to the question being raised so long as the journalist himself sneers at it or denies its validity…which is what mhendo appeared to me to be suggesting.
If the rumor in question has been denied categorically on multiple previous occasions, and is clearly and demonstrably factually incorrect, then why is it wrong for the journalist to say that it’s factually incorrect? Aren’t journalists supposed to report the facts?
Conversely, are you suggesting that a candidate should only be asked about a rumor or piece of information once and that’s it? If so, I’m sure only a small proportion of the public will get wind of it, and many of those who do will forget about it shortly thereafter. But since you asked, let me ask you: how many times do you think a troublesome rumor or issue should be raised before it becomes verbotten? What would be your answer to that conundrum?
And on preview, mhendo, I would have no problem with a reporter reporting that the allegations are false. They are, like you say, in the business of reporting the facts…or at least trying to. What I object to is what you appeared to suggest earlier, which is the reporter answering on behalf of the candidate prior to his even asking the question.
Besides, I don’t really view a journalist asking questions at a debate to be “reporting”.
)…especially within the context of a debate where there is such a large viewing audience.