President Obama gave the commencement speech at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor today. In the course of his remarks he addressed “today’s poisonous political climate” and his prescription for “a vibrant and thriving news business.” It was a refreshing alternative to the adversarial ravings that dominate contemporary media. The President was characteristically fair and balanced. He began by relating his experience with mail he received from a kindergarten class in Virginia:
“The student asked, ‘Are people being nice?’ Well, if you turn on the news today – particularly one of the cable channels – you can see why even a kindergartner would ask this question. We’ve got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names. Pundits and talking heads shout at each other. The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story – which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make the most outrageous comments.”
I have nothing to add to that. The President’s remarks perfectly frame a serious deficiency in today’s press. Here are some more excerpts that speak to some of the most divisive elements of the media, and particularly the cable news sector that is so riven with rancor and falsehoods.
“Throwing around phrases like ‘socialist’ and ‘Soviet-style takeover’ ‘fascist’ and ‘right-wing nut’ may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.”
“…this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning – since after all, why should we listen to a ‘fascist’ or ‘socialist’ or ‘right wing nut?’ It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”
On this point, Obama may need to reflect on what he considers a “bridgeable difference.” The people calling him a fascist and a socialist are not behaving rationally and have no intention of hashing things out. They are devoted to disseminating their brand of dishonest extremism and are well aware of the potentially violent signals they are sending. This is a blind spot for the President who still believes that he can orchestrate a post-partisan political environment. As he continues he returns to more solid footing and unveils his advice for smoothing America’s ruffled feathers.
“Today’s twenty-four seven echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before.”
“Still, if you’re someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website.”
The interesting thing about that last quote is that while the President was able to make a contrasting comparison newspaper to newspaper (New York Times to Wall Street Journal), he was unable to do the same for the radio/TV personalities, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. He had to resort to naming a web site (Huffington Post) for contrast. That illustrates a fundamental ideological imbalance in broadcast media.
In addition to that imbalance, it is also notable that readers of the New York Times are far more likely to have a broader and more diverse range of news sources than Beck and Limbaugh fans. So the president’s advice to expand one’s range of news sources is less necessary for liberals because they probably already have exposure to conservative media. And the advice is less effective for conservatives because they aren’t likely to step out of their right-wing news bubble anyway. There was ample evidence of that in a recent study that showed that 63% of Tea Baggers rely on Fox News as their primary news source, compared to 23% of the population at large. That’s a pretty narrow scope of vision. By the way, Fox News, as it often does, chose not to broadcast Obama’s speech.
Finally, Obama touched on one of the aspects of the hostility in public debate that has long been a big concern for me:
“I understand that one effect of today’s poisonous political climate is to push people away from participation in public life. […] That’s when power is abused. That’s when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That’s when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of Washington.”
What Obama left out is that that’s one of the intentions of poisoning the political climate. Most people think that that sort of negativity is just an attempt to shape an argument, albeit a clumsy and distasteful attempt. But in reality the purpose is to turn people off and dissuade them from participating. From a strategic standpoint you can have greater influence (at less cost) if you can shrink the pool of people you are trying to manipulate. Remember that the next time you see a negative campaign ad.
Let’s not take the O-blab out of context, okay? Maybe if Obama were to heed his own telepromter, people might not object as often as they do:
Obama said: “When we don’t pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders, when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day, when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that’s when democracy breaks down. That’s when power is abused. That’s when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That’s when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of power — because none of us are there to speak up and stop them.”
http://www.annarbor.com/news/text-of-president-barack-obamas-speech-at-university-of-michigan-commencement/
What was out of context? I truncated the quote because I am just posting excerpts, but the context is identical. The portion you added just reinforces the point that failure to participate has negative consequences.
And are you saying that the reason people object to Obama is because he is not paying attention, educating himself or making his opinions heard? Because, if your are, that’s just loony.
Mark, Doncha think you left out some critical O-speak? The reality of the Obama Regime is that what he read from the O-Prompter is not a belief or ideology that he follows. If our collective voices were heard and were heeded, we would not have the National Obamacare.We The People do attempt to have our voices heard (and heard often through letters, voice communications, demonstrations, etc) and we are discredited directly by Obama.
Here is just 1 example of an important statement he made: “American democracy has thrived because we have recognized the need for a government that, while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world.” First, government is NOT limited and ironically it is growing exponentially. And no government needs to help ‘us’ adapt to a changing world. We can now witness the disasterous consequences of the NAFTA and the NAU, feeble though it is. The Fed government isn’t just broken. The Fed government isn’t just corrupt. The Fed government is intentionally being powered up to switch this Nation into a socialist country. Obama speaks of the democracy. Where would that be? Where is the proof that We The People actually have a voice that counts? I’ve not seen it for years.
Obama’s getting unnerved over word choices of ‘socialist’ and ‘marxist’ because the truth is creating a backlash that won’t go away. He may try to rationalize these terms as “name calling” but the reality is that these terms are economically and historically defined.
There is a national swell of active political participants. Although the Obama Regime claims they are uninterested, they’re very concerned. November is around the corner, isn’t it? We The People are continually ignored to our faces, but wait until November.
Obama himself has dismissed polls, public input, and the overall sentiment running across America. The latest Gallup and Heritage polls have Obama’s popularity around 46% now. He is slip-sliding away, from his own undoing.
Obama makes every possible attempt to make his opinions heard. He’s on TV every day and few follow him because he has worn out his welcome. Why call me loony? Reading the O-prompter’s words should have at least enlightened you a bit, though. He said, “maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate.” (I’ll give you credit for not being downright rude or obnoxious, though.)
As I expected, you didn’t bother to support your claim that I quoted Obama out of context. You just went off on an unrelated rant. But you did post a perfect demonstration of the poisonous dialogue that Obama talked about (i.e. the socialist and Marxist BS). So I’ll let your comment stand on it’s own except to say this: You aren’t really concerned about a lack of democracy, you’re concerned about your side losing. The people voted and you don’t like the result. And, for your information, Obama is still more popular than any of his rivals. I’m looking forward to November.
Hey Mark, Why would I explain something that YOU decided that I said? READ MY WORDS. I never said you “quoted Obama out of context”. What I wrote was: “Let’s not take the O-blab out of context…”
Your post did little more than cherry-picked the words you wanted to use to create your post. You left out 99% of the O-blab. You, like so many others, decide which words will fit your agenda or POV and then you run with it. It’s that simple. And that obvious. And your response proves my point. What is poisonous about my facts? What is poisonous about having an opinion that does not align with your own? Where is your creative thought or your argument? No, all you do is take another swipe and try to say that my comments are poisonous. No wonder there are no commenters — waste-of-time trying to debate a void.
Let’s get back to the sections of the O-blab that you decided to use. Out of 31 minutes of Obama’s speech, you chose to highlight a straw-class letter from Kindergardeners. Isn’t that a hoot?!
Fabricating a letter from a kindergarten class in Virginia with lofty ideas and big words prove just how desperate this Regime is. I’m from Virginia. Kindergarten is a half-day program and the kids spend more than half of their time doing nothing more than assimilating to the structure of public school. Letters from straw-classroom serve no purpose but to project the continued desperate Progressive agenda. It IS funny, though.
The irony of O-blab’s entire Michigan speech is that he keeps talking about democracy. I don’t believe you picked up on the content, but that’s okay. It is quite ironic, though — in the light of growing critics in journalism, the media, and the general public, Obama is whining about the very fact that We The People are doing just what he said:
“When we don’t pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders, when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day, when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that’s when democracy breaks down. That’s when power is abused. That’s when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That’s when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of power — because none of us are there to speak up and stop them.”
I pay close attention to decisions (Bills and EOs). I educate myself on the major issues. I make a number of attempts to have my voice and opinion heard. Yet because I do not align with the radical views of the Obama Regime (or your post), I am chastized. Or in your case, told that I am a perfect example of a poisonous dialogue. Where is the poison, Mark? I simply do not agree with you, nor do I believe you fathom the context of the O-blab — you skimmed the surface for your post and that’s where it ended.
Those with strong voices, those who are articulate, those who will make the REAL change in November are the Obama-problem. And you know it…We The People are a larger portion of America than his fans/followers/lemmings, and this is why he is complaining. Obama says, “It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out.”
Facts are stubborn things, Mark. On this one, you just can’t use rhetoric to run from it….Give me facts, not a personal swipe. Support your post and why you merely cherry-picked that which served your voice best.
1) Oh, I’m sorry. You didn’t say that I quoted Obama out of context. You simply said that I quoted Obama out of context. My mistake.
2) This a blog about the media. That’s why I highlighted (not cherry-picked) the portions of the speech that addressed that subject matter. That fact must have gone over your head. And you still haven’t explained how my editing misrepresented the content of the speech. Perhaps because it didn’t.
3) What’s poisonous about your ranting is the use of ridiculous, unsupported rhetoric about Marxism. And now you compound it with your illusions of “fabricated” letters from a kindergarten class, which you also do not support. Add to that your repeated use of your nickname “O-blab” which is more childish than the kindergartners.
You haven’t cited a single thing that I wrote that was not factual. You just make tangential complaints that have no bearing to anything substantive. And then you assert that my blog is a waste of time. Well, it’s my blog, I have to be here. What’s your excuse? What does it say about you that you devote so much energy and effort to something you regard as a waste of time? Your comments are longer the article itself.
Admit it, you like it here.
I find the O-prompter ironic due to Bush’s reliance ear pieces. I would much prefer a President who can read the written word rather than one that is fed his lines. That’s the thing about blind partisanship like Dolt Anne is displaying. There is no attempt to understand the other’s perspective. There’s just fear masked by vitriol.
Mark, Where are the facts in your comments — geez, read what I write not what you interpret. Once again, swipe and attack.
You are obviously concerned that I am on this blog writing comments over your head and more thought provoking that your blog post. Sorry, but you missed the irony of the entire O-blabathon. I’ve never been to this website until last evening, coming from Twitter from someone’s tweet (perhaps your own promo, I don’t know).
Sad that you are on the defensive against a reader who happens to challenge you for more than you are capable of supporting. I felt the jist of this post missed out on the humor that Obama yanked out of most people who are independent thinkers. And aside from the belief that conservatives only read one or two outlets or are exclusionary in their talk shows, think again. Of course, it is behavior such as your own that prevent intelligent discourse and debate (and a devoted readership aside from those who follow along, without question). I know you are used to the “me too” ditto comments, but I just don’t leave ignorant one-liners like that.
Good luck in your future efforts, kiddo. Don’t quit the day job just yet!
OK, this getting tedious. You still haven’t said anything of substance that you can support. I have read your comments and even responded by the numbers. You aren’t interested in discourse, you are just stirring the pot. I’m bored.
I’m happy to respond if you would make a coherent criticism. But if you can’t supply a single example of my having misstated a fact, as you charge, I’m going to regard your further comments as spam.
Oh noooze… Obama uses da teleprompter? And da teleprompter is “pure EVIL”, or somting… therefore… Obama is a witch?
Good point. How come no one ever asks how it is possible to have words appear on a sheet of glass from one direction but be invisible from the other? If that isn’t the work of Satan, I don’t know what is.
I get so tired of people going after Obama because he uses a teleprompter. Perhaps people forget how tedious and time consuming it is to memorize speeches. Add in the stress of speaking to large groups of people as well as cameras knowing it’s (in most cases if not all) being broadcast live and I can see why he would want to use one. Personally, I’m glad he doesn’t try to memorize all his speeches as I’d rather he focus on more important things.
Re teleprompters: considering what a fine writer Obama is (not like some!), why *wouldn’t* he want to read it exactly as written?!
“If you’re someone who only reads the editorial page of the New York Times, try glancing at the page of the Wall Street Journal once in a while…” – President Obama.
Wow. Bill O’Reilly has been dishing out that advice for years. I always figured Obama was an O’Reilly fan.
I figure that any criticism of Obama using a teleprompter (never mind how many politicians do the same) is simply a nostalgic cry for old W. Bush… A way of saying: “Oh how I miss that rodeo clown who couldn’t read no fancy words in a teleprompter, but made us laugh every time he opened his mouth!”
Wow, what a dick! Looks like the server over at Red State must be down. How it all takes me back to the seizing of power on that fatefull day with millions out there in the cold waiting for the “regime” to start. The hardcore gopers need to make smashing telepromters their prime issue in the next election. Can’t they understand our President can’t just go scribbling on his hand like the Princess with her lily whitness of palm to contrast the Sharpie! Unfair!