Fox News racist or just hates Obama?

[Brainster]

I will confess I don't know much urban slang, nor I suspect did the Fox News producer who put together the "baby mama" graphic. I am willing to accept, if you guys say so, that calling somebody "my baby mama" is horribly racist, while calling somebody "my baby's daddy" is just a term of endearment. But you could see how somebody might not realize that, and think they had just done a clever twist on Mrs Obama's own words.

 

[joobz]

I will confess I don't know much urban slang, nor I suspect did the Fox News producer who put together the "baby mama" graphic. I am willing to accept, if you guys say so, that calling somebody "my baby mama" is horribly racist, while calling somebody "my baby's daddy" is just a term of endearment. But you could see how somebody might not realize that, and think they had just done a clever twist on Mrs Obama's own words.

The term tends to stem from urban/lower class setting. Think the jerry springer show.

Now, obviously, it could be used as a sign of class station, and it would make it's label purely a classist issue. However, Considering that Obama's been quite effectively labeled an elitist, it's difficult to assume that this was the intent behind the term.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If anyone at Fox News thinks they're clever in any way whatsoever, I am willing to give them counselling. Expensive counselling, with elements of cult-like abuse.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't agree that the term is necessarily racist. My wife and I (and yes we live in an urban area) use the term, as well as "baby daddy", for people of any race so long as they aren't married.

I agree. However, Michelle and Barack Obama have been continuously married for sixteen years and were married for six years when they had their first child.

So, we know that the term was used incorrectly. And you agree with me:

I do think it is insulting to use it for someone for whom it doesn't apply and I think it was intended that way.

The inquiry shouldn't end there, hoever. The question that should be answered is why FOX News used the term. It didn't apply to Michelle Obama, eight seconds of research would confirm that it didn't apply. They either didn't do the research or they didn't care. Why not? It seems fairly obvious that racism played a part. They used a term specifically because Michelle Obama is black.

It was disgraceful and FOX has yet to do a damn thing to address it.

I'm not surprised. FOX doesn't want to cultivate broad appeal, it wants to cultivate loyalty among the narrow set to whom it does appeal.

 

[Brainster]

My thought on the subject is simply that Fox news has an agenda to paint Obama in the worst possible and in enacting this policy, some underlings cross the line. I just wonder who will still have the gall to claim that fox news is "fair and balanced"

So they sent around a memo and Juan Williams and Jeff Cohen and Mara Liason all said, "Sure, we'll paint Obama in the worst possible light."

Yes, Fox News has a bias. As does ABC News (which was clearly in the bag for Clinton during the primaries), as does CBS News (which did its very best to bring down President Bush in 2004), as does NBC News. Know where Tim Russert got his start? Working for Pat Moynihan and Mario Cuomo. And Russert was probably the best at being fair; Rather was probably the worst.

 

[Brainster]

It was disgraceful and FOX has yet to do a damn thing to address it.

This just in:

Rupert Murdoch's Fox News television station has been forced to apologise to Barack Obama for the third time in a fortnight after screening a racially tinged caption referring to his wife Michelle as his "baby mama".

Bill Shine, senior vice president of programming at Fox, said in a statement on Thursday that a producer "exercised poor judgment" during the segment.

BTW, let's remember that the owner of Fox News, Ruppert Murdoch, praised Obama just last month.

Murdoch heaped praise on Obama, saying he was a "highly intelligent man with a great record at Harvard", but stopped short of a full personal endorsement because he wanted "to meet him personally".

"The Obama phenomenon and undoubtedly the recession and everyone getting hurt... the average American family today is really financially hurting and that all bodes well for him," he said.

So if there's a "get Barack" attitude at Fox, it's not coming down from the top.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I will confess I don't know much urban slang, nor I suspect did the Fox News producer who put together the "baby mama" graphic. I am willing to accept, if you guys say so, that calling somebody "my baby mama" is horribly racist, while calling somebody "my baby's daddy" is just a term of endearment.

"Baby mama" and "my baby's daddy" aren't the same. You don't have to take our word for it. Just read the words.

But you could see how somebody might not realize that, and think they had just done a clever twist on Mrs Obama's own words.

Yes, I see that someone could misread it that way--someone who was careless or maybe someone who had a pre-conceived idea and was looking for something to support that idea might make a mistake like that.

 

[varwoche]

Fox was all over the Obama = Islamanchurian candidate baloney.

I wish I could locate the segment from the clown act known as Fox and Friends (it fell off of youtube) which echoed and amplified the Insight Magazine hit piece. Here's a snippet:

It was even echoed by Cal Thomas on Fox News Watch -- a show that supposedly exposes this sort of malfeasance.

 

[T.A.M.]

The obvious answer to the OP question, as I am sure others have said is "both".

TAM

 

[Loss Leader]

So if there's a "get Barack" attitude at Fox, it's not coming down from the top

... insofar as Rupurt Murdoch's own self-serving words have yet to show.

 

[T.A.M.]

This just in:



BTW, let's remember that the owner of Fox News, Ruppert Murdoch, praised Obama just last month.



So if there's a "get Barack" attitude at Fox, it's not coming down from the top.

Yes, this trick we have seen before ala McCain praising Obama while his surrogates and the 527s do the dirty work.

TAM

 

[Puppycow]

Well. Fox has apologized, so they admit they were in the wrong. Good enough for me, if they stop doing it. Nothing more to see here folks, move along.

 

[boloboffin]

Somebody should tell John McCain that it is never tough to be proud of America.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well. Fox has apologized, so they admit they were in the wrong. Good enough for me, if they stop doing it. Nothing more to see here folks, move along.

Got a linky?

Have they apologized for their horrible non-stop rev. wright coverage, and their continuous character assassination of him, or simply for the "baby mama" comment? I suspect the latter.

TAM

 

[Gene L]

I don't see it as racist at all. I'd hate to see the time when opposition to a candidate automatically presents a racial interpretation. I think Fox leans away from Obama markedly.

MSNBC leans so heavily toward Obama it's remarkable to watch. They show their preferences, raw and unafraid.

It's idle to think that any statement by any politician, or his spouse, is off limits and not a part of the campaign, and won't be taken into account. Bill Clinton was news, Michelle Obama is news, and they have a lot more impact because both have given political speeches. So what they said or did in the past is relevant to their spouses because they're very influential with their better halves.

Cindy McCaine is less sructinized because for the most part she keeps her pie-hole shut.

Anyway, tying opposition to a candidate to racism is wrong, the opposite of the First Ammendment, and juvenile.

These folks are running for the President of the United States. Everything about them, past and present, is fair game. Before turning over the nuclear football to a new quarterback, the electorate needs to know as much as possible about that QB.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Anyway, tying opposition to a candidate to racism is wrong, the opposite of the First Ammendment, and juvenile.

Really? So if I tie this to racism, how am I wrong? ... and what exactly happens to the First Amendment, does it self-destruct or something? ... and ... "juvenile"? ... yes, I believe that a child could see the connection.

 

[Gene L]

If that blog is somehow related to Fox News, I'd like to see the connection. If there is a mutual connection to any candidate for president, please inform me.

Is there racial hatred in the world? Absolutely. Duh.

Racism plays a part in the election as well. It works on both sides. The exact demographic Obama was losing among white blue-collar voters is the same demographic where he was getting 90% of the vote among black voters. Go figure.


Some nut posting hate speech is a nut. In my mind it's not nearly as important as a candidate's pastor giving hate speech, because in the latter case, the two are connected by mutual agreement. I'm glad Obama split with Rev. Wright, personally, but it took him way too long.

If you're collecting hate speech, try the Huffington Post or Kaily Kos. Wishes Cheny would die, wishes of destruction to American troops. The association or endorsement by either of these will cost whomever they endorse. Fact.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If that blog is somehow related to Fox News, I'd like to see the connection.

Then want must be your master.

Now, please answer my questions. What, exactly, happens to the first amendment if I identify the opposition to Obama quoted there as racism, and in what way would I be wrong?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Some nut posting hate speech is a nut. In my mind it's not nearly as important as a candidate's pastor giving hate speech, because in the latter case, the two are connected by mutual agreement. I'm glad Obama split with Rev. Wright, personally, but it took him way too long.

If you're collecting hate speech, try the Huffington Post or Kaily Kos. Wishes Cheny would die, wishes of destruction to American troops. The association or endorsement by either of these will cost whomever they endorse. Fact.

I notice that you can identify "hate speech" without the first amendment disappearing in a puff of smoke. Whether you are "juvenile" or "wrong" I shall leave you to consider.

 

[varwoche]

I don't see it as racist at all. I'd hate to see the time when opposition to a candidate automatically presents a racial interpretation.

In what way do the incidents mentioned in the OP, or the Obama = islamist sleeper agent smear, have to do with "opposition to a candidate" in any reasonable sense?

Since I can't crawl into people's minds I can't know for sure their motivations. Racism? Islamophobia? I dunno. But I know an ugly smear when I see one, and this sort of speech shouldn't be defended as acceptable political discourse.