NYT: Obama's 'Nuanced' Race Speech Marks Return of Lincoln, JFK
By Media Research Center
March 21, 2008
The New York Times on Wednesday glorified Barack Obama and skipped his apparent contradiction -- he'd previously denied hearing controversial statements by Rev. Wright. Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech was a transparent attempt to quell the controversy over his ties to fiery anti-American minister Jeremiah Wright. But the Times portrayed the speech just the way the Obama camp would have wanted -- as a transcendent address on race in America, past, present and future, with Obama's long connection to Wright a secondary consideration.
Janny Scott's "news analysis" of March 19, "A Candidate Chooses Reconciliation Over Rancor," compared Barack Obama's speech on race to those of Lincoln, JFK and LBJ, and featured no discouraging words from Obama opponents: "In a speech whose frankness about race many historians said could be likened only to speeches by Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln..."
[This item, by Clay Waters, was posted Wednesday on the MRC's TimesWatch site: www.timeswatch.org ]
An excerpt from Scott:
It was an extraordinary moment -- the first black candidate with a good chance at becoming a presidential nominee, in a country in which racial distrust runs deep and often unspoken, embarking at a critical juncture in his campaign upon what may be the most significant public discussion of race in decades.
In a speech whose frankness about race many historians said could be likened only to speeches by Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln, Senator Barack Obama, speaking across the street from where the Constitution was written, traced the country's race problem back to not simply the country's "original sin of slavery" but the protections for it embedded in the Constitution.
Yet the speech was also hopeful, patriotic, quintessentially American -- delivered against a blue backdrop and a phalanx of stars and stripes. Mr. Obama invoked the fundamental values of equality of opportunity, fairness, social justice. He confronted race head-on, then reached beyond it to talk sympathetically about the experiences of the white working class and the plight of workers stripped of jobs and pensions....
He faced a choice: Having already denounced Mr. Wright's ferocious charges about white America, he could try to distance himself from the man who drew him to Christianity, married him and baptized his two children. Or he could try to explain what appeared to many to be the contradiction between Mr. Wright's world view and the one Mr. Obama had professed as his own.
To some extent, he did both.
In a setting that bespoke the presidential, he began with the personal: He invoked his own biography as the son of a black Kenyan man and a white American woman, grandson of a World War II veteran and a bomber assembly line worker, husband of a black American who carries "the blood of slaves and slave owners." Seared into his genetic makeup, he said, is "the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts -- that out of many, we are truly one."
END of Excerpt
For the piece in full: www.nytimes.com
Scott quoted no opponents, just long-time black liberal activists John Hope Franklin and Julian Bond.
The main Wednesday story on Obama's speech was from Jeff Zeleny, who previously covered Obama at the Chicago Tribune. Even the headline, "Obama Urges U.S. to Grapple With Race Issue," helped Obama transcend the issue by putting the onus on America for racism, not on Obama for his long history with the hatemongering minister Wright. The article: www.nytimes.com
Wednesday's Web posting by reporter Jodi Kantor, "An Effort to Bridge the Divide," was the closest thing the Times could muster to an actual objective news story, with dabs of muted criticism. An excerpt:
In a way, Mr. Obama seemed to be arguing not only for his own candidacy but also against the often-reductive nature of presidential politics. To answer the brief, incendiary clips of his pastor's statements that have been dominating television airwaves and the Internet, Mr. Obama made a long, nuanced speech, seeming to bet that voters will care enough about him and the race to give it many minutes of attention and thought.
The address, which Mr. Obama wrote himself, seemed partly like a historical refresher course for white voters on discrimination against African-Americans.
Kantor again praised him for nuance:
It was one of several times that Mr. Obama seemed to be quite purposefully arguing two ideas at once -- another dangerous tactic in presidential politics, in which statements are sifted for hints of contradiction and every speech is an attack ad waiting to happen. He admitted that his pastor is both a divisive figure and an inspiring one. He said that his candidacy should not be viewed through a merely racial lens, though racial reconciliation is one of the reasons he ran.
Kantor did eventually note criticism at end of story -- the only critics to appear in the paper's coverage, by Times Watch's reckoning. Nowhere did the Times question the integrity of Obama comparing privately muttered racist talk by his grandmother to Wright's publicly aired, conspiracy-minded hatred. Excerpt continued:
In interviews, Democratic and Republican strategists, scholars, and voters all agreed that Mr. Obama had given a brave, incisive speech about one of the topics most difficult to address in American life. But nearly all of them expressed doubt that his address will fully put to rest the firestorm over Mr. Wright's statements.
Mr. Obama aimed his speech directly at voters like Linda Smith, a 64-year-old retired teacher from Fishers, Ind., a lifelong Republican who flirted with voting for her first Democrat -- Mr. Obama -- until she heard his pastor's words. "To me Wright's comments were outrageous and undo everything Barack says he's trying to do, which is unite people," she said. She tuned in eagerly to hear Mr. Obama's address, which struck her as sincere and thoughtful. "It helped me understand a little bit how he could tolerate Wright's comments," she said.
But Mr. Obama has not yet won her back to his side. "I still don't quite understand completely why he would stay in a church like that, unless it's a typical black church," she said.
"There's a large black church here in Indianapolis," she mused, "and I just can't believe the minister talks like that."
END of Excerpts
For the entire posting: www.nytimes.com
The Times didn't say anything about the contradiction by Obama caught by Politico -- that he had in fact heard "controversial" remarks by Rev. Wright:
Contrary to his earlier suggestion, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) acknowledged in his speech Tuesday that he had heard "controversial" remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?" Obama said. "Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
Obama had initially written on the Huffington Post website: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."
For the latest examples of bias in the New York Times, check TimesWatch: www.timeswatch.org
Copyright 2003-2006 : DiscoverTheNetwork.org