Hmmm?? I think this reporter kind of likes Obama....
- Thread starter Shawn R. L.
- Start date
AinuLainour
New member
I\'m not entirely sure if anyone has studied media here but according to some theories, gods and monsters are now the celebrities, the politicians, the terrorists - that were the the Pharaoh or the Devil in centuries past. People with powers above ours. While calling Obama a \"god\" is going to offend the right-wingers (who revel in every opportunity they can to bash the left) because most right-wingers assume this is talk of how Obama is LIKE the traditional bearded, all-knowing Christian God, well, that\'s not the case. The journalist clearly asserts Obama\'s case next to Reagan\'s, and goes on to say how it\'s like Obama\'s ascended in the public mind to a new degree - and that \"G\" word came to mind.
Umm... guys have you ever heard of metaphorical speech? Clearly... never... but then again metaphors.. they are complicated... requires sense of humor and understanding of context. Unfortunately people who are trained to believe literally, well.. they are trained to believe literally.
I don\'t think anyone has supposed that the man meant it any other way. Yet even metaphorically speaking, it was a rather hyperbolic comment to say the least.
The striking thing here isn\'t anyone\'s assertion that Obama is the \"traditional, bearded, Christian God\" but that the media has utterly surrendered any pretense of objectivity and is less and less ashamed reveal their bias openly and without scruple.
AinuLainour
New member
And with Bush, Fox was completely unbiased? Sure, it was an opinion piece. What news program doesn\'t have one? Showing a clip under a minute long and prosecuting modern journalism without recognizing the stupidity that occurs in the Fox News offices every morning, day and night, is ludicrous.
Right. So because Fox does it, it\'s okay...
Whatever happened to objective journalism? You can\'t find it anywhere anymore. Not on Fox, not on MSNBC, not on CNN...
It\'s ALL Op Ed anymore. And it\'s asinine. If I want propaganda, I can listen to talk radio. Journalists are paid to report the news, not promote their pets.
Originally posted by mattrock
Yeah, skeeve...that\'s exactly my point.
It\'s interesting, but if you\'ll read my comments thus far, you\'d find no mention from me of conservative or liberal.
I have bemoaned the death of objectivity. You guys added the political labels.
Not really. Asking for objectivity of a metaphorical comment is rather characteristic of certain frame of mind that correlates well with certain political preferences. Let me know if I am wrong.
We can discuss media objectivity, or existence of objectivity in general but choosing this particular comment to illustrate the \"death of objectivity\" is rather silly, because comment itself is rather silly. Give me any big enough political leader and I will find you a media outlet that compared him/her to god(devil) on one occasion or another
AinuLainour
New member
Way to miss the mark completely. To reply to your latest; YES, it is true that journalism is biased ALL OVER. However, you and others fail to recognize typical devices used for metaphors, used to display a thought or even just labels that may be applied appropriately. Who in the world has approached the level of the mythological god, nowadays.. who is closest? Probably Obama and royalty. But for a politician, Obama\'s command among many, many people is the closest to \"god-like\" one will see outside of organized religion. As Skeeve has said, you\'ve effectively implied political leanings without any of our help.
I suppose in that way it\'s rather a lot like baseless assertion put forward as cogent argument...particularly when seasoned with a pinch of generalization and a smattering of condescension.
My comments regarding the loss of journalistic objectivity are not solely based on this clip.
...but I have little doubt you already knew as much.
I\'m not asking for objectivity in metaphor...though a little intelligence would be refreshing.
Tell me you\'d be arguing likewise had a reporter referred to Dubbya as the \"Savior of the Middle East\"... :~(
What I\'d like is a little objectivity in reporting, metaphor be damned.
And yes, I would likely be someone you\'d recognize as a member of the vast and maniacal \"religious right\", which means you\'ve likely got me nailed...
...so skeeve, what am I thinking now?
Not really. Taking this comment seriously and use it to illustrate anything at all - this is what implies political leaning.
As for the \"Savior of the Middle East\" I would react the same - comment with no content to it. Taking it seriously is silly.
What is \"objective\" reporting btw?
In what way, exactly, did I miss the mark, Ainu?
You\'ve conceded my point regarding the lack of objectivity in media anymore, so that can\'t be it...
Surely you aren\'t asserting that it is the job of Journalists to promote their pets, be they people or cause?
So that only really leaves my sarcastic implication that Fox\'s erroneous actions do not in any way offer license and absolve from accountability others who would do the same.
If you\'re contesting that, though, you\'re effectively putting forth the proverbial \"but mom! HE did it first!\" argument which...come to think of it...would actually be pretty typical from the left.
So hey! Looks like this game can be played both ways! :beer:
When you say \"true\"...do you mean like, in the sense that saying Obama is a god is true...or like, you know...TRUE?
Or, inappropriately, as the case may be.
And I failed in no such way. I understand the metaphorical use of the word, \"god\"...I just think that in this case (as would have been the case even in reference to Reagan, my own little right-wing darling) it was a bonehead thing to say.
Well, now that depends on how you understand the metaphor, I suppose. But if you are understanding it in terms of unchallenged power, I\'m almost certain you could come up with better examples than Obama or royalty. It just that those examples may not serve your argument quite so readily...
Scary, isn\'t it?
And it\'d make a great argument too, were that the sense in which the reporter had used the word.
That, or you assumed them...and in so doing made greater implication of your own standing that I could ever have done on my own, short of coming right out and laying it bare...which I did. :beer:
No Such Agency
New member
It\'s good that people are optimistic about Obama\'s chances of improving US international relations. I don\'t think GW did you any favours in that department, between invading an enemy (whether justified or not) and encouraging the insult and mockery of allied nations (not at all justified).
That hardly makes him a \"god\". Yes it\'s just a metaphor, but I think Obama\'s humanity, in the positive sense, is one of his assets. He is just a guy, brighter than many and wealthier and luckier than most. It\'s what you do with that chance that tells what kind of guy you are.
This is where the link gets downright LOONY:
Gotta love the \"Comments\" section on any political site
That hardly makes him a \"god\". Yes it\'s just a metaphor, but I think Obama\'s humanity, in the positive sense, is one of his assets. He is just a guy, brighter than many and wealthier and luckier than most. It\'s what you do with that chance that tells what kind of guy you are.
This is where the link gets downright LOONY:
Gotta love the \"Comments\" section on any political site
Amazon warrior
New member
In ancient Roman times, when a general triumphed (i.e., majorly kicked arse on the field of battle and distinguished himself in various proscribed ways), he got a massive procession through the streets of Rome. Fancy chariot, firey steeds, the whole works. And a public slave to stand behind him on his chariot, and whisper in his ear that he too was mortal and all this would pass. I think more politicians could do with being reminded of their humanity and not their \"godhood\", no matter how metaphorical (and arguable) that might be.
generulpoleaxe
New member
Nah, they gave up the mortality reminder after JFK.
