Story of the Day: Leading Newspapers Perpetuated Obama-Muslim Mython Day of IN Primary

(updated below)

Media Matters posted a piece this afternoon about how the right-wing Washington Times today "quoted  [an] Indiana man saying Obama is 'a Muslim' without noting the assertion is false."

A fine catch.

Media Matters also smartly showed how a responsible journalist reports such incidents:

By contrast, after quoting the same man in its own article, the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that "Obama has never been a Muslim, but bogus e-mails accuse him of being a Muslim who put his hand on a copy of the Quran to be sworn into the U.S. Senate and refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance."

An additional search, however, reveals the decidedly more credible Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Baltimore Sun also reported the same scene without pointing out the man's claim was false. Except they published their reports yesterday, on the day of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. Specifically, the failure of these newspapers - two of which, along with The New York Times, are considered our nation's papers of record - to clarify the man's misstatement was potentially directly damaging to Obama's chances in Indiana. Whereas today's Washington Times piece, published in a disreputable rag the day after the Indiana primary, might impact voters' opinions for the general election and, possibly, still undecided superdelegates.

Here's the breakdown:

Los Angeles Times (5/6/08), as reported by Peter Nicholas:

One of his first encounters went poorly. He approached a man sitting alone at a table and was waved away. The man told me afterward he had no interest in meeting Obama.

"I can't stand him," he said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

Obama seemed unfazed. He had better luck at a round table where several men were eating.

At no point, prior to or following this anecdote, did Nicholas clarify that Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.

Washington Post (5/6/08), as reported online by Shailagh Murray:

Obama arrived at the Greenwood restaurant about 7:40 a.m. and received a mixed response. One man waved the senator away from his table, later telling the pool reporter on the scene that "I can't stand him. He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."
      
At another table, a group of regulars dubbed the "Johnson County Roundtable" greeted Obama warmly.

Murray failed as well as to cite Obama's actual religion.

Baltimore Sun (5/6/08), as reported online by John McCormick: 

One of his first table stops did not go well. As he approached a man sitting alone at a table, Obama was waved away. The man later told a Los Angeles Times reporter that he was not interested in meeting Obama.

"I can't stand him,'' he said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

McCormick and the Baltimore Sun even did WaPo and the LA Times one better, not only excluding clarification of Obama's religion but also creating an original claim of their own in the very next sentence:

Obama got another surprise at another table. While talking to a trio of men eating breakfast, one handed him the bill. "This will seal the thing,'' the man said. The somewhat tightwad senator accepted the check and later took it to the cashier and paid it.

"The somewhat tightwad senator"? Nice of McCormick to back up this assertion with somewhat zero factual information. What's more, as McCormick reports himself, Obama paid for the three men's breakfasts. And, notably, without hesitation. So is Obama a "somewhat tightwad senator" because he didn't pick up every diners' breakfast during that stop or the breakfast of every diner he's met along the campaign trail?

To paraphrase Joe Pesci's character in Goodfellas: What exactly does McCormick mean, Obama's a somewhat tightwad senator? You tell us! Somewhat a tightwad how? How is Obama a partial tightwad? What are his miserly attributes? Tell us, tell us! What about him makes him such a tightwad?! (Of course, Pesci's character soon revealed he was joking around with the other character; McCormick, on the other hand, to be a credible journalist, must supply supporting facts when making such claims.)

In a more nuanced offense - exemplifying why words do indeed matter - McCormick and the Sun provide this gem later in the piece: 

Obama prowled the building's parking lot looking for people on their way in to cast ballots.

Yes, not searched or canvassed or even scoured. Is McCormick oblivious to the inarguably pejorative meaning of the word prowl, the primary definition of which on Dictionary.com (an aggregate of the most authoritative dictionaries) is "to rove or go about stealthily, as in search of prey, something to steal, etc." 

Let us pray this coverage improves.

UPDATE: Mike Tronnes over at Cursor alerted me to this new twist by the Financial Times:

"I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist," said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

You haven't heard that Michelle Obama is an atheist? That might be because she isn't. Nevertheless, while this article does correct this man's false assertion that Obama is a Muslim, it fails to clarify that his wife isn't an atheist.

Is this really so difficult?

Comments

[Brad Jacobson]

Leading Newspapers Perpetuated Obama-Muslim Myth on Day of IN Primary

[Patrick Stoffel]

Amazing. Just amazing. I can't believe that the press was ever considered "liberal" - of course things have changed over the last 50 years. These news services along with the major television network news programs and channels cannot be trusted for honest news. Absolutely cannot be trusted - their bias is strongly neo-conservative and corporate. (except for few exceptions).

[Froot Loop]

I'm disappointed to know Obama is secretly a Muslim. I thought he was Shinto. Now I'll have to reconsider.