Obama's 'Gaffe' Part 2 (Michelle, that is)

When then-Prime Minister of Australia Paul Keating put his arm around the Queen of England in 1992, it earned him the nickname the "Lizard of Oz." Later, when Keating's successor, John Howard, was accused of doing the same, his spokesperson "firmly denied that there was any contact whatsoever." So what's all the fuss about, and what's with these Australians, and why is anyone talking about this anyway? Well, the fuss is that uninitiated contact with the Queen is considered to be strictly against royal protocol, and people are talking about these past faux pas because first lady Michelle Obama recently committed such an act while accompanying her husband to the Group of 20 summit.
When I first learned of Mrs. Obama's physicality breach, I immediately presumed the media would be on her like a pack of wolves, and of course I had to investigate. What I found in the news media as well as the blogs surprised me. For the most part, the media was very forgiving on the side of Michelle Obama, and even supportive of this rare embrace between the first lady and the Queen. There were also many basic descriptions of the event and explanations that substantiated why it was okay with them that Michelle "broke protocol." I was impressed that the media did not use this situation as an opportunity to rake the first lady over the coals, and that they made the time to take the circumstances into consideration (circumstances: a criticism I've often had of the media in the past). But don't just take my word for it, check out any of the following as proof.
CNN.com ran an article on April 2 that included an interview from author Charles Mosley. When asked by CNN if initial claims that the Obama's meeting with the Queen had gone well, Mosley replied with:

Absolutely. What is astounding is the picture of the queen with her arm around Michelle Obama and Michelle Obama's hand around the queen, too. But the queen made the first move. This is the most astounding thing because the queen is not known for being touchy-feely.

The important thing to extract from Mosley's quote is that the Queen made the first move. This is circumstance # 1. If the Queen had not initiated the first physical contact, Michelle Obama would likely have received a lot of criticism from the media for touching her, but because she was simply reciprocating contact, she was in the clear (for the most part) with the press. However, CNN.com is only one source, so I kept looking. Upon further investigation, I could only find one source, out of dozens that I found and read, that claimed that Mrs. Obama made the first move. This source was a subsection of the chicagotribune.com called The Swamp, and supported its claim that the first lady had initiated the contact by saying,

"Given the Queen's track record -- she is not a woman known for doing warm, at least not in public-- the fact that Mrs. Obama is American, and that the president spent most of the first part of the day putting his arm round Gordon Brown, it can safely be assumed that it was the first lady who took the initiative.

I address The Swamp's comment only to provide counterargument to my own, and, because this was literally the only source I could find that claimed this, I think the assertive media consumer "can safely assume" that it was the Queen who first made contact. Thus, the majority of the media who covered the notorious embrace acknowledged the fact that Obama was simply reciprocating a friendly advance from the Queen and that this was an acceptable action on her part.

The second set of circumstances I want to touch on involves two things: the fact that the two men who were cited in nearly every article for having previously offended the British by touching the Queen were both Australian, and technically still recognize the Queen as their head of state. Also, the fact that it was evident throughout the meeting of Mrs. Obama and the Queen that they were smitten with one another, and that warm sentiments were mutual between them, thereby making it appropriate for this simple gesture to occur. From the London Times online,

It is usually a breach of protocol to touch the Queen. But as the two women stood side by side, chatting about their height difference, she put her hand on the back of Mrs Obama, who did the same for a few moments. Before she departed, Mrs Obama told the Queen: “I really enjoyed our meeting.” (Laura Dixon)

As Dixon states: Yes, it is usually against the rules to touch the monarch, but she goes on to explain that they were conversing amicably throughout the engagement, resulting in the gesture. Nowhere in the article did Dixon antagonize Mrs. Obama for her actions, and I felt that was the appropriate reaction. Time.com went further into the explanation of why Michelle's actions were accepted by the media (and everyone else as a result) by saying that:

Another defense for Michelle Obama, of course, is that she is not a subject of the Queen. (Australians, despite referendums attempting to turn themselves into a republic, still recognize the Queen as their head of state.) The First Lady of the United States is not required to curtsey before her or any other crowned head.

Here again, the media remained civil and even supportive of the Queen and Obama's friendliness by considering all aspects of the situation. It is also important to note that media from both sides of the pond were on Michelle Obama's side. A statement that came directly from the Palace said that

"This was a mutual and spontaneous display of affection and appreciation between The Queen and Michelle Obama," a Palace spokeswoman explained.

So did Michelle Obama dodge a bullet here? I think one could argue that yes, she did. This situation could very easily have gone in the opposite direction, and could have turned into a very embarrassing international gaffe for Mrs. Obama, but that is the whole reason I call attention to it. I applaud the media in this case for not immediately jumping to conclusions, considering all of the facts, not making a "mountain out of a molehill", etc. As I've stated in previous blogs, I believe the media are very skilled in that discipline, therefore to see them give due consideration to Michelle Obama and what seemed at first glance like an apparent act of crassness was very refreshing.

Before I sign off, I'd like to supplement my argument with just a few more pieces of information from the Web and blogosphere (kudos to you, Professor, for enlightening me to that word). I mentioned before that when former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard was accused of physical contact with the Queen, his people issued a vehement denial, insisting "there wasn't any contact whatsoever." A Los Angeles Times blogger writes:

When his successor, John Howard, was accused of doing the same, a spokesman insisted: "We firmly deny that there was any contact whatsoever." But the White House issued no such denial Wednesday. And the queen seemed to enjoy the virtual hug. As the Daily Mail put it, "The two clearly took to each other."

If Michelle Obama had really committed any kind of "political gaffe", as some have called it, surely the White House would have issued some sort of statement, and clearly the press caught onto this fact and steered clear of negative criticism. The informality of the meeting between the Obamas and the Palace also mirrors the more informal tone that Obama has evoked to the country as both a person and a President. He's been seen in the public eye enjoying beers, dancing, and generally being a very approachable guy, and I think both the media and the public think that that's "O.K." for the most part. This sentiment carries over to his wife and to the media's coverage of the meeting with the Queen as well:

The warm conclusion to the Obamas' Royal meeting was matched by the rest of the US President's engagement, which was both informal and affectionate. (London Times online)

This is yet another circumstance of the situation that explains why Michelle Obama did not come under a lot of fire from the media.

As usual, I like to peruse the various media outlets for counterarguments to my claims. I'm happy to report that in this particular subject, I was able to find only two relatively negative comments about Michelle Obama embracing the Queen. They came from the London Times online and FoxNews.com (big surprise...), and they were both one-line statements at the very beginning of the articles:

Protocol seems to be dispensed with when the Obamas come to town.

That was it. And I must point out that this was the first line of both of these articles, and they both went on to basically completely contradict this negativity by also reporting all of the reasons why Michelle's actions were acceptable. Therefore, I don't really give much credibility to either of them.

All in all, I give props to the media this time around for not blowing a simple little gesture out of proportion. Usually, my blogs are the opposite of this, as I usually feel strongly that the media do an excellent job of making huge stories out of mundane things that are not nearly worth the amount of negative coverage they get. I agree with nearly all of the coverage I read about Michelle Obama and the Queen, and was very relieved to read positive stories with reasonable and sound explanations that did not throw her under the bus. I only wish the mass media, with the enormous leverage they have as agenda setters and influencers of opinion, would take the time to do this kind of reporting with every story that comes to their desks. And if I ever find myself in one of the newsrooms of the world, I'll remember how I appreciated their discretion in the situation regarding Michelle Obama's so-called royal protocol breach.



PS: In case you haven't seen it or are curious, here is a link to a YouTube video of the "touch" in question, which is an excerpt from Anderson Cooper's program, 360.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbQoaNxcYgo

Obama's Gaffe

I'm sure by now everyone has heard about the comment President Obama made on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno recently. Before I delve into that however, I must ask what Obama was doing on the Tonight Show to begin with? Since the Tonight Show is a mass media outlet in itself, I feel this is relevant. The economy is in shambles, and we already see and hear from Obama in our media more than any president in recent history. Plus, he had a prime time address scheduled for the very next week, interrupting American Idol, no less, so I felt the Tonight Show appearance was pretty unnecessary. My sentiments reflect these I pulled from Fox News:

Timing is everything in comedy -- but was President Obama missing his cue with a late-night TV appearance in the middle of an economic crisis? "It's not an accident that no sitting president has ever done a show like this," media analyst Steve Adubato told FOX News.

While my underlying opinion is that he should not have appeared on Jay Leno's show in the first place, I am digressing from the real heart of the matter, and that has to do with what he said on the show. While on the campaign trail, Obama participated in an impromptu game of bowling in Pennsylvania, during which he fared very poorly, scoring somewhere south of 100. Naturally, Leno had to take a small jab at Obama for this performance, which segway-ed into him inquiring about the White House bowling alley, and whether it had been "burned and closed down." Here is Mr. Obama's response:

MR. LENO: Now, are they going to put a basketball -- I imagine the bowling alley has been just burned and closed down.

MR. OBAMA: No, no. I have been practicing all -- (laughter.)

MR. LENO: Really? Really?

MR. OBAMA: I bowled a 129. (Laughter and applause.)

MR. LENO: No, that's very good. Yes. That's very good, Mr. President.

MR. OBAMA: It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something. (Laughter.)

A lot of people and critics have argued that this offhand comment is no big deal, a slip of the tongue, what have you. So here is my argument. Obama's careless, derogatory comment is kind of a big deal, and I don't think the media should be giving him a "pass" of any kind for it. What if this had been President McCain or President Romney? I doubt it would have been glossed over nearly as much. And we all know that the media ripped into George W. Bush for a good 8 years about every single misstep in his speeches and appearances, even when they weren't publicly offending and negatively stereotyping a group of disabled or handicapped people. Obama has talked extensively about accountability of politicians and government, and I think the media should all be holding him accountable for his attempt at humor at the expense of the disabled.

Perhaps I should take a moment to address the fact that Obama did issue an apology for his words on the Tonight Show. White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters that Obama

"made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics. He thinks that the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives an opportunity to shine to people with disabilities from around the world."

I think it is appropriate and admirable that Obama's press secretary apologized, however this raises another question. If he felt so strongly about the Special Olympics to begin with, why would his first thought of what to compare his poor bowling score to be that organization? Also, people say things all the time with no real malicious intent behind them, but the difference here is that those people aren't the president of the United States, and they didn't say it on national television. Robert Lloyd of the Chicago Tribune writes:

Now this is the sort of remark that, sadly, has become commonplace in contemporary humor. But it's nothing you'd want your president to say, or even to think.

I couldn't agree more Mr. Lloyd. There is a big difference between your average citizen making a joke like this in their own home, and the President doing it on national TV. That's the responsibility Mr. Obama accepted when he accepted the post, and I think it's unacceptable for him to say something like this so nonchalantly when it could potentially hurt so many people.

To take this argument another step, the events Obama took part in earlier that same day of his Tonight Show appearance make his comments slide even further down the political correctness ladder. From Politico.com,

Aside from the regrettable appearance of a president even implicitly poking fun at the disabled, Obama’s comments came on the same day that he had appeared with California First Lady Maria Shriver, an early supporter and the sister of Tim Shriver.

Tim Shriver is the brother of Maria Shriver and the chairman of the Special Olympics. From where I'm standing, if Obama's joke had even a chance at looking like a direct shot to the Special Olympics, he should have withheld it out of respect to the Shrivers (who no doubt voted for him, at least in Maria's case). I don't want to say that Obama is "getting away with" anything here, because I know that's a little extreme, however it bothers me that this isn't a bigger deal than it is. George W. Bush was raked over the coals in 2004 over a comment he made at a media dinner (which, might I add, far fewer people probably actually watched). At the dinner, Bush "cracked a joke about not being able to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Too far, critics said," taken from Fox News. But alas, once again He (and by He, I mean Obama) can do no wrong it seems. Or he can't do wrong enough to actually take any substantial heat for it, anyway.

On a related but slightly different spin on Obama's lack of respect to his colleagues with his remark, there is Sarah Palin. I was of course curious to see how she would respond, given that she is the mother of an infant with Down's Syndrome. However, after googling and reading her reaction, and the responses to her reaction, I am more enraptured by what the blogosphere had to say about her remarks. Palin said,

"This was a degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world."

Now, this class is all about bias, so in order to not appear too one-sided, I'll post some of the blog comments I read from both angles of this story.

Jdarts85 writes:

I just can’t imagine if G.W. Bush had said this how badly he would have been beaten up by the liberal media. It just kills me how large the double standard is when it comes to the “anointed one” Barack Obama. I’ll do you one better, imagine if Sarah Palin had said this, people like Keith Olberman would be calling for her to be publicly executed. Please tell me I’m wrong.

I don't think Jdarts is way off base here, but here's another.

George says we’re giving it too much attention:

Come on, people. Anybody with any kind of sense of humor occasionally utters a similar joke. I’ve made that very joke, not out of any kind of sneering disrespect, but just out of a sort of left-over juvenile insensitivity that sometimes oozes out amongst casual company.

I believe the key words in George's post are "amongst casual company." I've already touched on this, but again, late night television and millions of viewers are not "casual company", George, and the circumstances absolutely matter in situations like these. Especially when you're dealing with the most prominent political figure in the country, and maybe the world, right now. I think some people will inevitably see Obama's derogatory comment as a direct jab at his former opponent Sarah Palin, and he should have perhaps considered this association when choosing how to describe his bowling skills.

Overall, I have to agree with my fellow bloggers that if this had been Bush or McCain's comment, "the story would go on for weeks and be the top story on MSNBC AND CNN for a month." (Jimmy Orr) I know the honeymoon with Obama has definitely subsided, if not ended, but it seems that many members of the media still feel he can do just about no wrong. I think the media is still treating him as the celebrity he was on the campaign trail, because if a mere celebrity had said this comment, it really wouldn't have been as big a deal to me at all.

"Part of me says it's great a president is using every avenue to talk to everybody he can," Amundson said. "On the other hand there is always the potential of losing political gravitas and stature."

One could argue that he hasn't even really established that political gravitas thus far, only celebrity stature, but that is a whole other blog. What he did lose, however, was his flawless public gaffe record and a little bit of respect, from at least some of the media out there, and especially from me. If Mr. Obama is going to insist on appearing on late night entertainment talk shows in the thick of economic foibles, I think he should at least make sure not to insult and offend people in the process. Lastly, if he is going to both appear on these shows and make questionably offensive comments, the media should hold him accountable for it.

Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal's rebuttal speech to Obama's national address on Tuesday was met with scathing reviews from liberal news networks, pundits, and bloggers at its conclusion. Even more suprising, and arguably even more harsh? The scathing reviews that came from Jindal's own Republican party and various conservative media. "Insane. Childish. Disaster. And those were some of the kinder comments," wrote the Washington Post when reporting on the terminology some conservative columnists had used to describe Jindal's address. I have a few problems with the severity of the criticism Jindal has received since Tuesday. Once again, I think the news media has done an excellent job of blowing a story out of proportion. The reactions to Jindal's speech that: A) claimed he had hurt his presidential race chances, B) mentioned social networking sites and likened him to TV characters, and C) christened the speech a "disaster" for the Republican party, are slightly extreme and unfounded, in my opinion.
Let's examine point A. On the New York Times Opinionater, Matt Cooper wrote that "if you're Mitt Romney or John Huntsman or someone else contemplating a GOP bid in '12, you have to feel good about Jindal's performance." On Politico, Larry Barr said that "Jindal will recover. But it's difficult to imagine him now as Obama's 2012 opponent." Now, I understand that if you ever plan on running for president, you're supposedly campaigning your whole life, but I just don't buy that this one 12 minute speech, following one of the most talented orators in recent history, is going to turn Jindal's name to mud when 2011 campaigns get underway. Then there's the fact that, as aforementioned, Jindal had to go on national television just minutes after Obama, "mr. well spoken" himself, and try to compete against his hour-long, perfectly polished (as usual) address. It didn't matter who got up there, or what they said, it still would've looked worse than whatever Obama just said, and I think that needs to be taken into consideration in attacks against him. One critic said that Jindal's speech looked "sound and solid" on paper, but he ruined it in his delivery. Something tells me that if Obama had gone up to the podium and said the words Jindal said in his speech, he would be catching a lot less flak about it. We know Obama is a star behind the podium, so all of the rest of the mere mortals should be cut some critical slack when having to follow him. So the guy was a little awkward and goofy; that shouldn't retract so substantially from what he actually said, and it definitely shouldn't mean he's out of the running in the presidential race three years from now.
I'll move on to point B. My fodder for this argument came from a washingpost.com article titled "Republicans, Democrats criticize Jindal's speech." The article begins by offering some background information on Jindal, moves on to criticize his view on emergency economic spending, and then naturally progresses to.....Facebook? I realize that social networking sites have become increasingly more integral, viral opinion outlets, but I was confused as to why the Washington Post felt it was necessary to cite Facebook in validating their point. According to this article, whose title suggests you'll be hearing about politicians from both wings reacting to Jindal, a Facebook group was created called "Bobby Jindal is Kenneth the Page." Kenneth the Page is a character from NBC's "30 Rock" comedy show known for his awkward and dorky demeanor. My opinion on this is that it is simply uneccesary, and somewhat unprofessional for such an esteemed media source as the Washington Post to be using a trivial Facebook page to support their argument that Jindal's delivery lacked style. While very popular, I don't think political news media should be using satirical Facebook group names as credible proof of their claims.
And finally, point C. I think the real "disaster" at hand is the amount of criticism and name-calling Jindal received from his own political party. After all, we all know he didn't write his speech by himself and seal it up until the moment of delivery. He had plenty of help and input, and was speaking on behalf of the entire Republican party. So, the conservative politicians and pundits that blasted Jindal are really only doing a disservice to themselves and their party. Laura Ingraham and David Brooks were both among the collection of conservatives who had nothing but foul words in response to Jindal's speech. Brooks is the writer who literally said that Jindal's Tuesday oration was "a disaster to the Republican Party." To the critics who commented on Jindal himself, such as Brit Hume or Charles Krauthammer (Fox news), my opinion is that a few comments on Jindal's podium persona are legitimate. Yeah, the guy was awkward and a bit cheesy. However, so as not to contradict my argument up in point B, I still do not think it's a legitimate argument to compare this established politician to comedic TV characters. One blogger wrote regarding Jindal, "Won't you be my neighbor?" Even that blogger must realize Mr. Rogers comparisons are a stretch.
I don't think Bobby Jindal committed as extensive a calamity as many media made it seem in their coverage of his speech. I'll leave you with a comment by Rush Limbaugh that I think summarizes some of my main arguments well.

"The people on our side are making a real mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal," Limbaugh said. "We cannot shun politicians who speak for our beliefs just because we don't like the way he says it."

Michael Phelps

Michael Phelps has been in the spotlight a LOT in the last five years or so. When you ask the question "Why?", the answer seems pretty obvious to me. Back in 2004, he was one gold shy of Mark Spitz's seven-medal record, and he shattered that with an eight gold medal record of his own in August. He earned multiple endorsement deals worth millions, graced the cover of Sports Illustrated magazine, won their "Sportsman of the Year" award for 2008, and did it all before the age of 24.
All of this, however, has apparently been forgotten by some media in light of a picture that surfaced a few days ago on News of the World. The 'shot' of Phelps inhaling from a marijuana pipe 'heard round the world'. I think that media on both the local and national levels have taken this story, blown it a little out of proportion, and cast a more dire light on it than the situation, or Phelps, deserves.
The first thing that strikes me as unfair by the media is that some outlets are treating Phelps as if he is denying or not owning up to what happened. The initial statement released by Phelps included a sincere apology, an acceptance of his actions, and a promise to fans that it would not happen again. For many celebrities and public figures, their course of action in similar situations is denial or an attempt to receive preferential treatment because of their status. One opinion, taken from the Gamecock, was that people (like me, I guess) who are sympathetic to Phelps and the barrage of negative media coverage surrounding him are implying that we think celebrities are "exempt from public examination." I don't think this is the case at all. Of course celebrities are subject to being in the public eye, but only to an extent. They are still people, and still have a right to enjoy some privacy. Everyone in the world knows what Michael Phelps did by now, and he has accepted that as evidence by his issued statement. He made a mistake, he admitted it, he apologized, end of story. Right? Of course not.
To cite the Gamecock again, I think the editorial they ran the day after The State's front page Phelps story summed it up nicely. "This is another classic example of things that aren't that important getting blown up because of a big name." Fact: People get caught smoking pot all the time. Fact: Rarely do these marijuana mishaps turn into international news stories. This incident is only a story because the protagonist's name is Michael Phelps. Which brings me to my next point. Daily Gamecock columnists and an article in The State both questioned Phelps' position as a positive role model to young people, aspiring athletes, the general public, etc. Why is this being questioned? Phelps became a role model in the swimming pool. He accomplished an impressive and unprecedented feat at a young age and proved he is an extraordinary athlete. It isn't like he tested positive for steroids, or was photographed with marijuana during the Olympic games.

"Michael Phelps is a great Olympic champion," the IOC said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press on Monday. "He apologized for his inappropriate behavior. We have no reason to doubt his sincerity and his commitment to continue to act as a role model."

If the International Olympic Committee still supports Phelps and continues to regard him as a role model, why can't the Gamecock, the State, or even FoxNews.com? Because continuing to cast him in a more negative light or find a new scandalous angle makes for a better story, and keeps people reading, that's why.
There is another piece of this story that received a significant amount of media coverage, and that was the concern over Phelps' many endorsement sponsors. A FoxNews.com article from February 2 reported the following:

"'It's certainly not good and it’s a disaster in terms of the near future,' said Robert Tuchman, president of Premiere Corporate Events. 'He's going to take a big hit on this.'"

The article also reported that the "megabucks that were flowing in could soon go down the drain", and that...

"The inside word is that his current sponsors are reviewing this incident and will then decide," a source close to Phelps told FOXNews.com. "He will lose a few. Corporate America is not looking favorably at this."

Fair enough. Brands that endorse Phelps can understandably want him to portray himself in a positive light. However, Fox News reported some things in that SAME piece that seem to contradict the aforementioned statements. The article states that Swiss watchmaker Omega regarded the event as a private and "nonissue", while Speedo said Phelps was still a "valued member of the Speedo team." Both companies are continuing to endorse Phelps, along with Mazda. Two other endorsements mentioned in the article were AT&T and Rosetta Stone. Both companies said that their deals with Phelps, which concluded at year-end 2008, would not be re-signed, but those decisions were made before the pot picture surfaced. It seems that FoxNews.com's article is just a little too contradictory to really make a valid point against Phelps. They brought up companies that Phelps hasn't been signed with in months, and that weren't planning on resigning Phelps for reasons completely separate from the marijuana incident.
Furthermore, if Phelps is still being supported by the Olympic Committee, Omega, Speedo, Mazda, and thousands of fans that have not turned on him, I wouldn't exactly say his career has gone "down the drain." I think what it all boils down to is the news media, as usual, wanting a story. And who can blame them? Their job is to report the news, and this was news. But not of the caliber some media made it into. In this case, I think a publicly known name made a mountain out of a molehill, and Phelps deserves a break.