Earlier this month, I wrote about how conservative pundits have selectively quoted (“quote mined”) Barack Obama’s answers to Rick Warren’s questions at the Saddleback Civil Forum to make him sound more radical than he actually is. Sadly, The Economist has jumped on board. Blissfully, the Good Lord provides recourse: letters to the editor. Mine, which I hope they’ll print, follows:
SIR -
In your coverage of the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency (“Blazing Saddleback,” 21 August 2008), you reported that Barack Obama was “notably evasive on abortion.” Although this was the mainstream media’s talking point du jour, Obama’s discussion of abortion was, in fact, not the least bit evasive. While he stumbled on the question regarding the beginning of life – saying that the issue was “above [his] pay grade” – he went on to cogently articulate a fairly moderate stance on abortion, stressing the common ground that liberals and conservatives share, in that both would like to minimize abortion, a goal conservative that policies have wholly failed to achieve. He even went on to support a ban on partial birth abortion, albeit not in the form current found in the U.S. Code. If Obama is failing to win over evangelical voters, it might be only due to the fact that the media are refusing to credit that aspect of his candidacy.
Since they’ve published me once before, I have SOME hope.
Seriously, the media are failing to responsibly cover this election. They stick to news narratives with pleasing or simplistic storylines, regardless of the veracity of the story, and set a “theme” that ignores all other news. Examples abound: they blow the PUMA movement facebook group wildly out of proportion, ignore McCain’s seedy past, and overhype division at the Democratic Convention, to the detriment of practically any other coverage. Just when America needs real news, we get a pleasing plot that, still, doesn’t fit the facts.
Say it ain’t so, Economist. Don’t join them.
We’ve all been talking in circles around abortion over here, so I won’t go too far, but what i will say is that it’s not a case of The Economist under-selling Obama’s abortion position. It’s a case of his supporters over-selling it.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 27, 2008, 8:39 amI just think it’s funny when people both take both sides of the issue. PUMA saying he’s not anti abortion enough, doesn’t really favor women, and then you have others acting like he’s the most liberal abortionist ever. Yay for spin.
Speaking of the news coverage, did you hear about John Stewart scolding the media?
I’m glad he’s around. He’s “in” enough to be one of them, but apart enough to be able to criticism them. Someone needs to.
Posted by Oneiroi | August 27, 2008, 10:50 amI’m shocked that, sometimes, Stewart is the only honest voice in the media. How sad is that? But he’s willing to honestly call out the PUMAs on how crazy they are, and pierce the chosen narrative to get to real substance. What a commentary on the sad state of affairs.
Posted by Ames | August 27, 2008, 5:23 pm