Update: David Weigel, the author of the piece that I refer to in this post, has responded in the Comments.
As I noted yesterday, the Supreme Court has declined to hear one of the "ZOMG! Obama is not a citizen!!1!" cases. The people pushing these conspiracy theories are nearly insufferable, but after I take a few deep breaths, I always come back to the conclusion that this is part of the cost of living in a society that treasures free speech. No matter how much of a wacko you are, you're allowed to express your views.
What pisses me off, though, and won't go away, is the way the media swarm to cover these people. David Weigel has a piece in Slate that reports on a press conference some of these Truthers held after the Supremes made public their denial of cert. Weigel says that half the people in the room were from the media.
To see what I'm getting at, here's a bit from earlier in the article:
On Friday, about two dozen of them gathered outside the Supreme Court to talk to reporters, wave flags, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Some of them questioned whether they could prosecute Obama for spending "foreign money" they alleged had been donated to his campaign. One questioned whether Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was the president-elect's real father or whether his real filial relationship to Frank Marshall Davis or Malcolm X had been covered up.
"There aren't a lot of people out here today," admitted Steve Brindle, a Pennsylvanian huddling in the cold. "There are a lot of people talking about this back home. Really, everyone's asking questions."
Emphasis added, and that's my point: If this bunch could only roust twenty-odd of their numbers, while the rest couldn't be bothered to leave the cozy confines of their mothers' basements and their virtual echo chambers, why should they be given so much attention? This is the same thing that the media did all summer with the PUMAs -- gave a disproportionate amount of attention to a small group that makes the fringe look mainstream, thereby creating the impression that there was a mass movement when there wasn't anything of the sort. It's the same thing as the tight shots camera crews did of the small groups of protesters outside the hospital where the husk of Terri Schiavo lay. It's the same thing as local TV news leading with the worst bit of violent news they can dig up for that day. In each of these cases, the result of the coverage choices amounts to spreading misinformation.
Now, I know that a kook always makes for an interesting (and easy) story. The FSM knows I've spilled a lot of electrons remarking on the doings of various of these characters myself. But at least I'm portraying them for what they are -- wingnuts -- and not putting that patina of "balance" on the story. Nor am I using this to feed talk shows in the ensuing days that are filled with hairspray junkies asking, "What if there is something to these allegations??? What would that mean??? And how much is this hurting Obama???"
And finally, much as it pains me to admit this, I'm not exactly addressing an audience of millions. Which really prompts another thing to be pissed about. Remember how much coverage the media gave to crowds protesting the invasion of Iraq got, back during the big Bush sell job in 2002-2003?
Exactly. Of course you don't. The media didn't see fit to assign anything near a ratio of one reporter per protester back then, did they?
(h/t: Instaputz)
4 comments:
The people pushing these conspiracy theories are nearly insufferable...
If anyone doubts this, they should watch this video:
— Birth Certificate Blues
Note how, like so many Republicans, he threatens extreme violence if Obama takes office. He has another video in which he does the same: promotes violent recourse to Obama's election.
Hi, I'm the reporter who wrote the Slate piece. An important fact about the media in the room, as I noted, was that most hailed from friendly, conspiracy-minded fringe outlets. Salon, the Washington Post, and Slate (via me) were the only mainstream print media, and we all debunked the arguments made at the press club.
I've been writing about Obama conspiracy theories for months, not because I want to give them coverage, but because they're weird, legitimate stories. What convinced me to chase down some of the Obama birth certificate truthers, and debunk their cases, was a conversation I had with a Republican lawyer before the election. This lawyer, who was working to challenge bogus voter registrations for the RNC, told me with all seriousness that he expected Hillary Clinton to leak Obama's REAL birth certificate (from Kenya!) to reporters right before the election.
So this stuff is out there, and I think it better to debunk it than to ignore it.
David:
Thanks for checking in.
Yes, you did say in your article, "Most members of the media [at this particular gathering] were, themselves, part of the Obama Truth squad." I perhaps could have made that more clear.
On the other hand, those people are the media. They have access to microphones or other methods of addressing a larger audience than the average person does, and they are often privileged to be able to gain entry to place where the average citizen is not invited. It's hard to say where to draw the line in this age of fragmented media between someone who's a crank who happens to have just enough of an organization behind him or her to get a press pass, and someone who considers him- or herself a reporter, commentator, or analyst who also likes spreading these sorts of stories around. If you ask most of the better-known blowhards on cable TV or AM radio, they'll claim that they're "journalists." But think about the lies and smears and innuendo that many of these people spread, on a regular basis.
It is also hard to say where the line should be drawn between my complaint that a few wingnuts are given too much attention and airtime, and your contention that debunking them is the important thing.
I see your view, and I agree with it a bit, but I don't fully accept it. Two reasons: First, as I said in the original post, the way these people are covered almost always makes it seem as though their groups are larger than they really are. Not your story, but in general. Second, there is an awful lot of evidence being accumulated that shows that repeating an untruth for the purpose of debunking it is not effective; in fact, it can be counterproductive. Many people will believe the original untrue story even more firmly after hearing something that debunks it. You could look it up.
So, in general, it's a tough call, but I don't think it is in this specific case. This handful of people who are trying to claim that Obama is not a citizen are just the latest iteration of a contingent of society that keeps flinging mud him, and has been for the better part of the past two years, hoping that something, anything, will stick. I don't think debunking is called for here, because I don't think anyone outside their own circle believes them. Until the MSM starts making it a bigger story, that is. I think this a case of unwarranted attention being paid to a few cranks, when there are far more important stories that real reporters ought to be covering.
Finally, I should also say that in my original post, I was not really criticizing you, personally, for reporting on these cranks, as I read your article as media criticism in some sense -- reporting on the reporters. I perhaps could have made that distinction more clear, but I thought I had when hit publish. I will note at the top of the post that you have responded here in the Comments, and I thank you again for weighing in.
At least David Weigel has a sense of dramatic irony: "For some reason, Shultz gave Manning a microphone to talk about Obama's parents." I was wondering myself by that point who gave Weigel the column space to write about this exposé.
Maybe the Court can teach David Weigel something about certiorari? They grant only 1 in 50ish, mercilessly pruning those cases lacking either wide or deep import to Americans (usually both are needed, except in weird commerce stuff that the Justices seem to love).
Writing about this non-case falsely offers legitimacy to these wingnuts, in importance if not in veracity (and to wingnuts, the first is vastly more important anyway).
The "debunking" argument doesn't wash either. This meme has no more legs than the "John McCain is really a Panamanian" did in its time. At this point, even if Obama were Martian, I think a majority of the country would want him as President anyway.
Perhaps it's overkill to suggest that the President (in deed if not quite yet in word) — who somehow managed to raise close to a billion dollars (that's with a B) in fundraising and shatter the color barrier to the nation's highest office — might not need help with PR?
Certainly Hillary does not. It shames me to admit that I share with Sean Hannity any belief whatever, but we both take it on faith that if this smoke had any fire, HRC would have been the very first to fan the flames (unless of course her husband beat her to it, and I say this even as a strong supporter of both of them!). That she could not speaks much more loudly than some Republican shill falsely predicting that she would.
Sorry, Agent Mulder. If you want a real story, discuss why Nina Totenberg always says "SCOTUS" and not "the SCOTUS" even though the "the" is needed in the spelled out version. Now that is a conspiracy worth writing about!
Post a Comment