these idiots make me wanna puke. no wonder the times is going belly up. can't happen soon enough.
On Jan 1, 9:34 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > newsbusters.com > By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive) > January 1, 2009 - 08:34 ET > > In our year-end edition of the Best of Notable Quotables, two of our > winners for outrageous liberalism were unloaded on the Charlie Rose > show on PBS, a very comfortable TV salon for liberals to speak freely > without conservative rebuttal. On December 18, the Rose show was one > stop for Time editor Richard Stengel to tout his "titanic" figure > Barack Obama as the magazine’s person of the year. Rose played the > hype up in the show’s opening: > > STENGEL: The story of Barack Obama was the great overarching, titanic > narrative of this past year. And so it just -- it would have been > pretty much impossible not to select him. > > ROSE: And a narrative that had global proportions. > > RICK STENGEL: Absolutely. I mean, he was Person of the Year in the > most universal sense. > > Rose clipped it short, but Stengel’s expression concluded: "I mean, he > is the most popular man on the planet, the cynosure of everybody`s > attention on the planet. So I think it was just inevitable." Perhaps > "cynosure" is even too brainy a word for PBS audiences. But it works > for media liberals. Dictionary definitions are "something that > strongly attracts attention by its brilliance, interest, etc." or "An > object that serves as a focal point of attention and admiration." > > The interview itself centered on how impossible it was not to offer > homage to Obama: > > ROSE: Everyone anticipated this would be your man. Hard not to do > that. > > STENGEL: Hard not to do it, yes. > > ROSE: Okay, so – > > STENGEL: Can you imagine what we would be talking about tonight if he > was not the Person of the Year? > > ROSE: We would be talking about you or something. So what? Just > automatically – you didn’t even think about anyone else? > > STENGEL: You know, in some ways, I feel like Person of the Year was > invented for someone like Barack Obama. I mean, from the loose > defintion, it’s somebody who affected the news more than anyone else, > who dominated the news. > > This is where that discussion of Obama’s titanic narrative and his > global proportions kicked in. He was also touted for quickly resetting > America’s image from the damaging Bush brand: > > ROSE: I’m intrigued by whether the whole world is now moving to > Washington – I don’t mean individuals, but the focus of the world, > because of this man in that place is going to be somehow, even eclipse > New York and London and Moscow and everywhere else. > > STENGEL: Well, it does reset things for America, in a way. I mean, we > have talked before about how Brand America under the Bush > administration for the last eight years was really hurt and damaged. > He is a kind of one-man fixer-upper in one fell swoop – which doesn’t > mean, of course, that a year from now, or six months from now, you > know, wer’e not going to be saying ‘Uh-oh, he’s taken the wrong > course’ or ‘He’s not doing as well as we thought.’ But he has > rejuvenated Brand America in one election cycle. > > Stengel just can’t stop with the praise: > > STENGEL: As we say in the story, it’s not just he’s charismatic, it’s > not just that he’s a stupendous speaker. What he proved is that he’s > hyper-competent, that he’s super-competent, that what he set out to > do, he executed. I mean, we sometimes dismiss this [?], but he ran a > $750 million operation for the last two years to get himself elected. > He said he was going to engage people. He said he was going to run a > populist campaign. He said that he was going to run a campaign that > was above board. He did all of those things, he executed them, and he > won. I mean, it’s an extraordinary accomplishment. > > After a few more minutes of Obama worship, a fraction of self- > awareness emerged, even as Stengel expressed amazement that his guru > Obama would instruct him on how he should be evaluated: > > ROSE: Now, some people watching this are going to say, one more time, > there are two journalists in New York, in a television studio, sort of > saying all these wonderful things about Barack Obama. Should we not > pause, they may be saying, and I ought to say, shouldn`t we not pause, > A, and talk about, one, the magnanimity -- the largeness of the > problems, and secondly, he is not Superman? Where are the warts? Where > are the areas in which he has to prove to us that he can not only talk > the talk, he can walk the walk? > > STENGEL: Well, our second question to him was ‘How do we hold you > accountable?’ > > ROSE: Exactly. > > STENGEL: And again, what was interesting about that – > > ROSE: Yours is much better than mine. > > STENGEL: Right. It’s one sentence. And it was interesting is he had > already been thinking about that. I mean, you look at the transcript > of the interview – I mean, he lays out six or seven ways that we hold > him accountable. And I think that is the challenge now, for – > > ROSE: Lay it out for me. What did he say? > > STENGEL: He said, you know, will people feel – in fact, we asked him, > how do we hold you accountable by the next midterm elections two years > from now? He talked about, you know, have we seen some progress on the > economy? Have we seen some progress on helping the infrastructure? > Have we seen bipartisanship in Washington? I mean, he laid out a > number of things, metrics of how to judge him. But to go your other, > larger question, I mean, he`s certainly having a honeymoon now. He`s > certainly been... > > ROSE: Most presidents have -- even though most of them have not had -- > Clinton or Bush or anyone else -- a 75 percent approval rating. Many > have been down at 50 to 60 when they took over. > > STENGEL: Right. I think it will be a challenge. I think it will be a > challenge to how do we cover him? Just -- just the way, as a candidate > in many ways, he was -- as Washington said of his presidency, "I`m > walking in sand that nobody has walked in before and people will have > to follow me." The same thing happens once he`s in the White House. I > mean, it is a different paradigm now, and the coverage will have to > adapt and change to it too. You know, a lot of people would say, and I > would agree with this, is you have to be as strict with him, as > rigorous with him as you were with George Bush or as you would be with > any president, and that goes without saying. > > That utterance deserved a laugh track. The media is also supposed to > be rigorous and strict with presidents before they win the presidency, > but Time magazine has failed that test. Consumers should be wary of > the idea that the magazine will ever gain a sense of balance about > Barack Obama, after more lines like this discussion of his biracial > identity: > > ROSE: And his story of that in his first book is just remarkable. And > it shows A, a search for identity, and it also shows a remarkable self- > awareness. > > STENGEL: Really quite extraordinary. I mean, the EQ that he > demonstrates in his own memoirs... > > ROSE: Emotional intelligence? > > STENGEL: Emotional intelligence, is sort of off the charts for someone > that you think of as -- who hasn`t even become president yet. > > Stengel's emotions are certainly off the chart, if not his > intelligence. Doesn't anyone who wants to be seen as an objective > journalist keep his emotional attachments a little more hidden than > this? But today's "news magazines" are in no way attempting to be > reserved and objective. They're partisan opinion magazines, and proud > of it. > > [The screen image comes from Charlierose.com, where you can also view > the video.] > > —Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
