Giddy Sense
May be a bad case of nitrogen narcosis from being so deep in the tank. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz marvels at the media’s post-election Obama profiteering and adoring sense of wonderment at the great accomplishment, and gives bias a considered, responsible and measured stamp of approval. A Giddy Sense of Boosterism:
Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled “Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story.” Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama’s campaign.
Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue — “Obama’s American Dream” — filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.
Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.
What’s troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there’s nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.
What is troubling is that Kurtz seems to be suggesting here that this is some kind of astonishing post-election phenomenon, rather than a victory lap.
“The Obamas’ New Life!” blares People’s cover, with a shot of the family. “New home, new friends, new puppy!” Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: “I Think I’m a Pretty Cool Dad.” The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle “is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis — combined!” for the fashion world.
Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed “Generation O”?
Yeah, so what’s new?
Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. “OBAMAISM — It’s a Kind of Religion,” says New York magazine. “Those of us too young to have known JFK’s Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us,” Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it “BAM-A-LOT.”
“Here we are,” writes Salon’s Rebecca Traister, “oohing and aahing over what they’ll be wearing, and what they’ll be eating, what kind of dog they’ll be getting, what bedrooms they’ll be living in, and what schools they’ll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas’ tastes and habits. . . . Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again?”
Sniff and snurfle away. Apparently she, and he, have forgotten our capacity for idealized Americana as it manifested itself on Sept. 11, 2001. Remember the day, October 7, 2001, when we learned American forces were going into combat in Afghanistan? Briefly, the world looked on in wonder and tyrants trembled when Saddam’s statue came down. Then there was that day when Iraqis showed up at the polls, and came out in their millions holding up their purple thumbs. No American flags waving, but I remember a bit of overwhelming Americana in my heart, that all the American blood and anguish had bought something. No puppies involved.
But aren’t media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating?
Where have you been?
… what happens when adulation gives way to the messy, incremental process of governing? When Obama has to confront a deep-rooted financial crisis, two wars and a political system whose default setting is gridlock? When he makes decisions that inevitably disappoint some of his boosters?
I dunno. I guess that’s the risk you take when when adulation gets in the way of the messy, incremental process of covering a presidential campaign.
I am not trying to diminish the sheer improbability of what this African American politician, a virtual unknown four years ago, has accomplished.
You may not want to, but allow me. All great men stand on the shoulders of giants. In this case, that includes media giants.
The media would be remiss if they didn’t reflect the sense of unadulterated joy that greeted Obama’s election, both here and around the world, and the pride even among those who opposed him.
The media would have to have a belated sense of shame that to date, is not in evidence.
There is always a level of excitement when a new president is coming to town — new aides to profile, new policies to dissect, new family members to follow. But can anyone imagine this kind of media frenzy if John McCain had managed to win?
You’re joking, right? Of course there’d be a media frenzy. Endless stories about what racists Americans are, about the Wasilla Hillbillies moving into Blair House, with a kickoff on the death watch on the president-elect.
Obama’s days of walking on water won’t last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality.
Sure they will. On stilts. Raise your hand if you think the bulk of the national press won’t continue to make excuses for him and herald his dividing of loaves and fishes, curing of lepers and raising of stiffs. Kurtz’s gaga-eyed failure to acknowledge any of that here calls into question his ability to cover the Obamist press as much as it does the ability of the Obamist press to cover Obama. Hang on, here’s a longer version of the same thing, Our New Pop Icons, must be web-only, where he finally gets around to mentioning it …
But here, for a change, is a defense against the charge that the MSM helped Obama win the election:
“Oh, please . . . The mainstream media reflected what was happening in this nation. It did not drive it. The blogs didn’t drive this movement. The media didn’t drive this movement. Barack Obama did not lose this election. It was his to lose, it was not John McCain’s to win. The Republicans had no shot unless the Democrats gave it to them, and they didn’t. And to blame the media is a cop-out and ridiculous. We are always here to be blamed by people like you who enjoy that activity. We always will be. When the Democrats lost last time, it was our fault. When the Republicans lost this time, it was our fault. It’s not.”
The speaker? Fox News anchor Shepard Smith. He was responding, on the air, to comedian Nick DiPaolo declaring that the media were “in the tank” for Obama. Go Shep.
… just to be able to dismiss it. Go Shep! Sorry, I’m having a hard time understanding how you can be concerned about a media that is exulting over its candidate’s win without recognizing the not-insignificant role played by an Obam-adoring campaign press corps that utterly failed, even when the issue was forced, to examine the candidate with any seriousness, while actively and unfairly trashing the opposition.
Which is not to say that Obama didn’t benefit from awfully favorable coverage. But the news business isn’t quite as powerful as its detractors imagine. Ronald Reagan and both Bushes managed to win five elections despite what they saw as a biased media. We don’t have the ability to stop a determined president from taking the country to war, though we certainly should have done a better job in the run-up to Iraq. And we didn’t bamboozle the country into voting for Barack. The man won North Carolina, for cryin’ out loud. He must have been on to something.
Which looks a lot like a rave endorsement for media bias, despite the minimal pretense of concern Kurtz is voicing here.
Hot Air: So, how ’bout that media hagiography!
Gawker mocks Kurtz with a quote from my shadow puppetmaster, Murtdock, Murdock, whatever the heck his name is, which I shall here slavishly regurgitate to feed my family:
“The complacency [in newsrooms] stems from having enjoyed a monopoly—and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception.”
Some guy at Huffington Post: It’s so great! Obama showed how you can use the new media to drive your own message when the old media is already kissing your ass! At least I think that’s what he was trying to say.
Babalu, helpfully, offers an Obama Media-Sickness Bag.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:47 pm on Monday, November 17, 2008
7 Responses to “Giddy Sense”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Goodbye Shep.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Shep embarrassed himself with his coverage of Katrina where he showed a remarkable capacity to divorce himself from the facts and engage in the wholehearted reporting based on nothing and sentiment. If figured Ailes added him the roster, along with Colmes, to show he had a sense of humor.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Sorry, folks, Should read: “…nothing but emotion and sentiment.”
November 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
But the news business isn’t quite as powerful as its detractors imagine.
Not anymore, thanks to people like Kurtz.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
‘The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle “is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis — combined!”‘
I presume that means that the MSM is fully prepared to cover up any “love affairs” that Obama will engage in, and present a totally false image of a fairy tale marriage…just as they did for JFK.
Nothing like having a compliant media that will cover up any unpleasant news when you’re trying to create a cult of personality.
Helen Thomas will be wild with glee.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“Soon afterward, Kennedy blundered into the Bay of Pigs debacle.”
Nah, he didn’t blunder into it. He and his henchmen knew exactly what they were doing, which was launching a sneak attack against another nation in flagrant violation of international law.
Just don’t hold your breath waiting for that to become the standard line in the schools, the media or the history books.
If you want to talk about blundering, then you would have to talk about Clinton’s response to Iraq (eight years of bombing and blockading of Iraq with no tangible results) and Al Qaida (no need to talk about how Bill’s non-response to repeated Al Qaida attacks worked out, given what happened on 9/11/01). Slick Willy inherited a war in Iraq, which he failed to deal with, and, well, we all know how he handled Al Qaida. We have a big hole in the ground in NYC to testify to his competence. That’s what I call blundering.
Of course, you won’t hear all that talked about too much, because it would destroy the fantasy being perpetrated by the schools/media/historians that Clinton gave us eight years of “peace and prosperity” and that the evil and stupid George Bush (supposedly the worst president ever) started, or at least bungled us, into wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, even though it’s obvious that none of the fantasy is true.
Unfortunately for us, most people are actually dumb enough to fall for this nonsense, even when the truth is right in front of their vacuous looking faces, and so we’re eternally doomed to suffer under the “leadership” of amoral morons like Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton and now, I fear, the new messiah.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:16 am
If Barack Obama was a serial killer not only would the media not cover it, they would help him bury the bodies.
The thing is they did not cover Obama the way they would have any other candidate. And everyone knows it, including the people who voted for him. I think some people voted for him because they believe that as long as he is president, the news will be good. No more sad scary stories. Just one long fairy tale of hope and change puppies.
Sure….sure…