Google+

Media Blog

NRO’s MSM watchdog.

A&E Reinstates Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson



Text  



Details here, but this is nothing but a full cave for A&E and a loss (at least a public one) for GLAAD and Jesse Jackson.

This reminds me of this Bugs Bunny bit, except the end result is “A&E Season”:

 

Jesse Jackson vs. Phil Robertson/A&E



Text  



ABC News reports that the guy who accused then candidate Obama of “telling n****rs how to behave” is unhappy with Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson:

In an interview with Drew Magary, the “Duck Dynasty” star said the Nazis needed Jesus, that he never saw the mistreatment of African Americans while growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era and that homosexuality was a sin.

A&E has already suspended Robertson, but Reverend Jackson, his Rainbow PUSH Coalition and GLAAD are demanding to meet with network execs, along with Cracker Barrel’s CEO, to discuss the future of all “Duck Dynasty” memorabilia or content.

“These statements uttered by Robertson are more offensive than the bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, more than 59 years ago,” Jackson said in a statement obtained by ABC News.

“At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law. Robertson’s statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.’”

The release, dated Dec. 23, requests a meeting within 72 hours with A&E and Cracker Barrel execs and urges the network to uphold Robertson’s suspension.

So, that 72 hour deadline has passed. Will we be hearing more from Reverend Jackson? (Or perhaps A&E and Cracker Barrel have found some other means to appease him?) 

ADVERTISEMENT

The Similarities Between GLAAD’s Response to Duck Dynasty and Alec Baldwin



Text  



Over in the Corner, Mark Steyn posted on GLAAD’s ”next step” for Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty:

Having leaned on A&E to suspend their biggest star, GLAAD has now moved on to Stage Two:

“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.

Actually, “the next step” is for you thugs to push off and stop targeting, threatening and making demands of those who happen to disagree with you. Personally, I think this would be a wonderful opportunity for the GLAAD executive board to sit down with half-a-dozen firebreathing imams and learn about their values, but, unlike the Commissars of the Bureau of Conformity Enforcement, I accord even condescending little ticks like the one above the freedom to arrange his own social calendar.

The spokesman in the quote above is Rich Ferraro. What gets interesting here is that Alec Baldwin made basically the same point about GLAAD and Ferraro after his suspension for the now infamous exchange with a photographer last month as Steyn does in his post.  Here’s Baldwin in an interview with Gothamist calling out Ferraro and GLAAD:

“Martin Bashir’s on the air, and he made his comment on the air! I dispute half the comment I made… if I called him ‘c**ksucking maggot’ or a ‘c**ksucking motherf***ker’… ‘fa**ot’ is not the word that came out of my mouth. That I know. But you’ve got the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy—Rich Ferraro and Andrew Sullivan—they’re out there, they’ve got you. Rich Ferraro, this is probably one of his greatest triumphs. They killed my show. And I have to take some responsibility for that myself.”

And here’s Ferraro’s response to Baldwin. Note the similarities between what Ferraro wants from Baldwin and Robertson:

Alec Baldwin’s team has not been open to turning this incident into an opportunity for public education and that’s unfortunate.

It’s a weird world when Mark Steyn and Alec Baldwin see the same villain. 

One thing Mark left out, however, is that GLAAD is facing a backlash over their position on Robertson:

In the fallout over Wednesday’s suspension of “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson by A&E for anti-gay and racist remarks, GLAAD is experiencing record levels of backlash.

“In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments,” the media watchdog organization’s vice president of communications Rich Ferraro told TheWrap.

He said those reactions range from those who simply believe as Robertson believes to those who feel that GLAAD and A&E’s actions limit the reality star’s free speech.

“I don’t think this is about the first amendment,” Ferraro said. “I feel it’s more about the America we live in today. That is one where Americans, gay and straight, are able to speak out when people in the public eye make anti-gay and racist remarks.”

Maybe it’s time for GLAAD to take the “next step” and and sit down with people with opinions similar to Phil Robertson and “learn about their lives and the values they share?” I hope GLAAD doesn’t miss this “opportunity.” 

Touré’s Favorite Holiday Movie is A Christmas Story



Text  



Except Touré confuses a Red Ryder BB gun with a ”shotgun.” Video here

é

(Note: Santa is white in the movie)

Reality TV Is Designed to Profit off of ‘Cultural Tension’



Text  



This is a great post from the Los Angels Times’ “Show Tracker” blog on how reality TV will inevitably lead to situations similar to what happened with Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty. An excerpt:

Once again, TV finds itself in another cultural hot zone. The “Duck Dynasty” situation recalls last summer’s uproar over celebrity chef Paula Deen, who lost her Food Network gig and many sponsorship deals after she admitted she had “of course” used a racial epithet in the past.

TLC pulled an episode of “Cake Boss” in 2012 after “Cousin Anthony” mocked a transgender guest. Similar flare-ups damaged the careers of radio host Don Imus, Oscar winner Mel Gibson and actor Isaiah Washington after they were accused of using racially insensitive or homophobic speech.

These cases reflect larger rifts in American life — call it a split between progressives and traditionalist values.

But the particular problem for the TV industry is that it’s trying to profit off the same cultural tensions it’s exploiting. That inevitably leads to problems such as the current one engulfing “Duck Dynasty.”

The reality programming trend in recent years has made stars out of everyone from bakers to pawnbrokers to catfish-wranglers. That these “authentic” people have opinions and values that don’t always jibe with those of the media elite in New York and Los Angeles isn’t necessarily surprising.

But it means that the executives and PR handlers have had to get very good at backpedaling away from uncomfortable realities. That’s most likely what is happening now on “Duck Dynasty.”

“A&E has been very careful in editing and presenting this family, being careful not to show any potential controversial views,” said Robert J. Thompson, professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University. “But they can’t control what they say outside of the show.”

“Channels like A&E program ‘regular’ people mostly to make curiosities out of them,” said Jeffrey McCall, a media studies professor at DePauw University. “The programmers want to manage every aspect of their ‘reality’ commodities, but that isn’t really possible.

“If A&E wants the Robertsons to make money for the channel by being authentic, then at some point A&E has to accept that reality stars will be real human beings,” McCall added. “If A&E didn’t like the Robertsons as they are, then why did they give them a weekly platform?”

That’s the question A&E will have to answer as nothing Robertson said in the GQ interview is different than anything they haven’t heard — or edited out of broadcasts — before.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Hypocrisy of A&E



Text  



A few updates to my post yesterday on the suspension of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson.

The Robertson family has released a statement, concluding with:

We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.  We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.   Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

Here’s the thing: Season 4 is basically done filming, so we’re  talking about the future of the show. Although the above says “we are in discussions,” that we includes the family’s agents, William Morris. They may play rednecks on TV, but they’re playing the Hollywood game as well as any.

Video has surfaced of other controversial statements by Robertson on gays from before A&E hired him to star in Duck Dynasty. In other words, A&E knew what they were getting. And if they knew about his past, I want to see how his contract was written that allows A&E to suspend him over Robertson basically playing himself on a “reality” show. 

And if you’re on Twitter, do check out the feed of TMZ’s Harvey Levin, who has some choice words to say about A&E’s actions.

One final point to make about A&E, they’re still running Duck Dynasty episodes. A lot of them

Like I wrote yesterday, this is, at its heart, a contract matter and it looks like A&E needs Duck Dynasty much more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E. Stay tuned for what comes next.

 

The Pajama Boy Has Been Indentified



Text  



Charlie Spiering over at the Examiner has identified the Obamacare ”Pajama Boy”: Ethan Krupp.

Krupp works for OFA and Spiering has collected a variety of social media posts to give us a little more information on the now infamous Obamacare spokesmodel.

 

 

 

Conservatives Are Afraid of Pajama Boy



Text  



So argues Noreen Malone at The New Republic in response to Rich’s piece today in Politico:

Conservatives Mock Obamacare’s Pajama Boy Because They’re Scared of Him

An excerpt:

Lowry goes on to connect what he characterizes as an immature version of masculinity with a liberal’s overreliance on a paternalistic government. “Pajama Boy’s mom probably still tucks him in at night, and when she isn’t there for him, Obamacare will be,” he writes. Millennials and Democrats just love their mommies too much! But while this is a ritual mockery that’s ostensibly about Obamacare, what it really reveals is a long-boiling, deep-seated fear on the right of the moment when a more beta-appearing man becomes the mainstream notion of masculinity.

There’s plenty of evidence that moment is upon us. Hanna Rosin’s 2012 book, The End of Men, was the capstone of a growing tower of cultural works on the curious gender-role reversal. Just in the past few years, we’ve also been hit with cultural historian Michael Kimmel’s Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men, conservative scholar Kay Hymowitz’s Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys, and media socialite Dan Abrams’s Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else” (“everything else” presumably including book-title-choosers).

In an economy that is increasingly influenced by women (in all but three of the 2,000 largest metropolitan areas in the country, in the aggregate, single childless women under 30 are out-earning their male counterparts), the men who seem to be reaping the clearest rewards are those who seem to comfortable with the adjustments of a world that’s 40 years into second-wave feminism (and one in which, for that matter, gay culture is no longer fringe culture). The chest-thumping alpha males of yore now take their social cues from men who have worked out a more subtle way to assert themselves in the world. Metrosexuals aren’t a new, urban category any more; people who might have been referred to that way ten years ago are now just called dudes. (Of course, even men who work at liberal magazines and live in Brooklyn find this transition complicated.) But if Pajama Boy is nothing out of the ordinary—which I’d argue he isn’t—then that means conservatives are losing several culture-war battles, and thus a great deal of valuable electoral ammunition.

Who knew a single, moronic tweet from a 501(c)(4) would signal the end of conservatism?

Gov. Jindal Weighs in on A&E Suspending Duck Dynasty Star



Text  



Here’s a press release from the governor:

BATON ROUGE – Governor Bobby Jindal issued a statement this morning following the news of Phil Robertson being suspended by A&E from the show Duck Dynasty. 
 
Governor Jindal said, “Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV.  In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views.  In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended “

Governor Jindal framed this as a First Amendment issue in the tweet accompanying this release. But it’s a contract issue, not a Constitutional issue.

The most relevant example that illustrates Robertson’s suspension as a contract issue is Don Imus, who was fired by MSNBC and CBS Radio under similar circumstances. Imus, remember, was fired for a comment deemed racially insensitive, but the comment that got Imus fired wasn’t any more insensitive than his many other insensitive remarks from over the years. Imus sued CBS and eventually settled for a $20,000,000 payout arguing that he was wrongfully terminated because his contract specified that he make controversial remarks.

Which brings us to Phil Robertson. Robertson’s Christian beliefs were well known to A&E when the network started the show. Did A&E not think those beliefs might, at some time, conflict with a politically correct view of the world? There was even a controversy from earlier this year where Robertson accused A&E of editing out of the show references to Jesus as well as adding “bleeps” to give the impression that he and his family were cursing, a charge Robertson denied. 

I don’t think we know everything yet that went down between Robertson and A&E, nor do we know of all the bad blood between the network and Robertson. But of interest to me is his contract and what exactly it prohibits him from saying in public because what he said in the GQ interview wasn’t that out of line from things he’s said in the past. We also don’t know how the other cast members of Duck Dynasty will react. Are they fine with filming the show — and cashing A&E’s checks – without Robertson? That’s to be determined.

It’s also important to note that Duck Dynasty is more than just a show to A&E. A quick search on ToysRUs.com, for example, shows that Duck Dynasty is now a brand, not just a television show. And however much I think their suspension of Robertson was short-sighted and stupid, A&E believes that this move offers the best protection for their corporate interests.

P.J. O’Rourke Joins The Daily Beast



Text  



Details here.

Katie Couric’s Creepy Pics from Gracie Mansion



Text  



Ummm. . .

And. . .

Why is she drinking wine on the tour?

Media Matters Still at War with Fox News



Text  



Here’s a partial-screenshot from their homepage this morning:

Quite a lot of “Fox News” stories for a war that’s supposedly already won.

 

It’s Finally OK to Joke about Michelle Obama



Text  



If, of course, you’re a member of #BlackTwitter. And from reading this column by Jonathan Capehart, it looks like the jokes about the Michelle Obama, if made by #WhiteTwitter, would have been deemed racist. But if you’re a credentialed member of #BlackTwitter, joke away! Capehart’s opener:

Praise the comedy gods.

We’ve finally reached the moment in Barack Obama’s presidency where we can make fun of him and his family without looking over our shoulders, worried that we’ve inadvertently insulted the president in front of polite company.

Really, this moment arrived the night sketch comedians Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele introduced Catendra, a loud, demanding, neck-rolling, bad-weave sporting counterpart to the president’s anger translator, Luther.

But it really became clear Tuesday, when #BlackTwitter had a field day with a series of photos from former South African president Nelson Mandela’s memorial service, the first being President Obama’s now-infamous selfie with British Prime Minister David Cameron and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

Click here for the rest, including a Twitchy-esque collection of the funniest from #BlackTwitter.

I do not share Capehart’s view, however. I believe in one, united Twitter. To paraphrase then Senator Obama from the 2004 Democratic Convention, “There’s not a #BlackTwitter and #WhiteTwitter and #LatinoTwitter and #AsianTwitter; there’s just #TwitterTwitter.”

Jay Carney’s Semantics at Today’s Press Briefing



Text  



Yesterday, the AP dropped a bomb on the Bush and Obama administrations alleging that Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent who disappeared in Iran back in 2007, was actually on an authorized mission for the CIA at the time of his disappearance. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have long said publicly that Levinson was in Iran as a private citizen.

When asked about Levinson and the AP story in the briefing today, Carney made it clear that when Levinson went missing in Iran, he was not an “employee” of the United States government. When asked later if Levinson was a “contractor,” Carney refused to elaborate.

What I find interesting is that Team Obama thinks that there’s a substantive difference in this case between an ”employee” and a “contractor.” The DOJ doesn’t seem to see much of a difference, at least when it comes to prosecuting U.S. companies for using a third party or contractor to pay bribes to foreign officials in an effort to win business, etc. 

And I don’t get why Carney thinks not acknowledging Levinson’s true mission at this point helps keep him safe. Now that this story is out there, why not pressure Iran to prove to us he’s alive?

Bloomberg News Won’t Report on Michael Bloomberg



Text  



CNN:

When Michael Bloomberg retires as New York’s mayor in January after 12 years in office, it’s unclear what exactly he’ll do (beyond claiming a desk back at Bloomberg LP, the financial data giant he founded). Whatever he does, he’s sure to keep making news.

You can count on him to keep fighting for new gun-control laws. He could well continue to push his public-health initiatives against sugary drinks and smoking. And he’s certain to make headline-grabbing charitable gifts: He’s worth an estimated $31 billion, and gave $350 million just in 2013 to Johns Hopkins (bringing his lifetime total giving to his alma mater over $1 billion).

But there’s one place you won’t read about any of it: Bloomberg News. Since the creation of its journalism arm in 1990, Bloomberg LP — 85% owned by Mike (as he is referred to at the company and will be referred to here to avoid confusion) — has banned coverage of the company and its owner on the grounds that it would be a conflict of interest. Bloomberg News made a limited exception for covering Mike’s official actions as New York’s mayor. But his return to private life will bring an end to all that.

That’s the result, Fortune has learned, of a decision by Bloomberg News editor-in-chief Matt Winkler to reject an internal recommendation urging the company to change its policy. “I see no reason to change a policy that was conceived at the inception of Bloomberg News, and has served us well,” Winkler told Fortune in late October, during an interview for an in-depth report on Bloomberg LP.

The rest here.

Media Matters Declares Victory in its War Against Fox News



Text  



Their argument is that although Fox News’s ratings are still tops in the industry, the influence of Fox News has dropped over the years — thanks to them. Via the HuffPo:

“The war on Fox is over,” said Media Matters Executive Vice President Angelo Carusone. “And it’s not just that it’s over, but it was very successful. To a large extent, we won.”

According to its strategic plan for the next three years, a copy of which was provided to The Huffington Post, Media Matters envisions shifting its focus to new, increasingly influential targets, including Spanish-language media, social media streams, alternative online outlets and morning and entertainment sources. It will enhance its state media and issue-based monitoring, as well as continue its focus on right-wing radio and legacy outlets.

“We’ve always said, ‘Media Matters watches Fox, so you don’t have to,’” said Bradley Beychok, the group’s president. “That remains true. Fox News isn’t going to stop lying, so we’ll stay on that beat. But, our success regarding Fox News means that our talented team will carry out our mission in different ways consistent with a new strategic vision responsive to the transforming media environment.”

[. . .]

Media Matters argues in its strategic plan that Fox News is no longer the gatekeeper it once was, now that social media has proliferated and many of the network’s personalities have moved elsewhere. Former host Glenn Beck, for example, now has his own digital news operation.

And they’re even taking credit for Sean Hannity moving from 9 p.m.:

Host Megyn Kelly has since taken over the 9:00 p.m. time slot that had been occupied for years by Sean Hannity, who is known for being more vitriolic and partisan than Kelly. Carusone argued that financial pressure, created in part by Media Matters, forced that shift.

“That was in large part because it’s hard to ignore when your financial stakeholders are beginning to express concerns,” said Carusone. “They’re a business, after all. They act like a political operation, but they’re still a business.”

Still, he added, the group has its eye on Kelly.

Yes, they have their “eye on Kelly” with a front-page story today on her recent segment on Santa and Jesus. Here’s an excerpt from the Media Matters piece, that sounds to me like a contradiction of everything they just said regarding their victory over Fox:

Kelly’s warfare on behalf of her own culture taps into broader power dynamics that are at play throughout the media. As Media Matters has documented, broadcast and cable news is disproportionately the home of white men. And particularly in the arena of nightly television news, it is the dominion of highly paid elites who have the ability to set the agenda.

So it’s important to look at the stories that don’t get covered.

Megyn Kelly’s rejection of a non-white Santa was one of 13 references to Santa Claus on major cable or broadcast news programs that night, according to Nexis. And the reasoning behind her discussion, Kelly explained on air, was that “somebody wrote about it.”

The same justification could have been given for a discussion about homeless children. Yet by contrast, there were three references to homelessness that night. One of those came from a Fox host complaining that a Duck Dynasty star had been mistaken for a homeless person at a Caribbean hotel.

None of those segments told the story of Dasani, an adolescent homeless girl who formed the center of “Invisible Child,” a New York Times expose by Andrea Elliot on homelessness in New York City running this week. According to Nexis, Dasani’s story was the focus of only a single segment during evening and primetime news this week.

Both Byron York and John Podhoretz have suggested their move to end its war with Fox is more about pleasing Media Matters’ donors than anything else.

 

Some Follow-Up on the ‘Fake’ Interpreter at the Mandela Memorial Service



Text  



We’ve all seen the story flying around the Internet, but here’s a little more background. 

Via, the BBC, Wilma Newhoudt, South Africa’s “first deaf female MP” tweeted this during the live telecast, which was then reported in the MSM at large:

Newhoudt, who is also the “National Vice Chairperson” of DeafSA, pointed to this Facebook post that details the interpreter’s errors:

Press statement on the Fake Interpreter

The so called “interpreter” who interpreted at the Official memorial service for late former president Nelson Mandela at FNB stadium has been dubbed the “fake interpreter” and the Deaf community is in outrage.
This man is not in fact a recognised, professional South Sign Language Interpreter. He is not known by the Deaf Community in South Africa nor by the South African Sign Language interpreters working in the field. 
To the best of our knowledge he has not undergone any formal training in South African Sign Language or Interpreting offered by any recognised institution which offers these training courses.
The following is an explanation of the grammatical errors made by the ‘fake interpreter’:

The Interpreter did not make use of facial expressions, In South African Sign Language, facial expressions are an important part of communication. The facial expressions you use while doing a sign will affect the meaning of that sign. Facial expressions are an example of a set of behaviors called “non-manual markers.” Non-manual markers include facial expressions, head tilt, head nod, head shake, shoulder raising, mouth morphemes, and other non-signed signals that influence the meaning of your signs.
Facial expression plays a very important part in the meaning of a sign. The same exact hand-shape and movement can totally change meaning because of the facial expression that is used to accompany it.
Not only the hands, but also the face, the eyes, and the whole body work together to communicate in sign language. 
From the aforementioned explanation it is clear that the interpreter is not in contact with the Deaf Community to see how non manual markers are used. 
The signs (self invented signs) the interpreter used are not used in South African Sign Language and it is a total mockery of the language. The interpreter did not use the established, recognised signs for President Mandela, President Zuma, President Thabo Mbeki and South Africa amongst many others. This proves that he is not involved in the Deaf community and doesn’t know South African Sign Language. In linguistic terms, sign languages are as rich and complex as any oral language, despite the common misconception that they are not “real languages”. Professional linguist have studied many sign languages and found that they exhibit the fundamental properties that exist in all languages.

Sign languages are not mime – in other words, signs are conventional, often arbitrary and do not necessarily have a visual relationship to their referent, much as most oral language is not onomatopoeic. While iconicity is more systematic and widespread in sign languages than in spoken ones, the difference is not categorical. The visual modality allows the human preference for close connections between form and meaning, present but suppressed in oral languages, to be more fully expressed. This does not mean that sign languages are a visual rendition of an oral language. They have complex grammars of their own, and can be used to discuss any topic, from the simple and concrete to the lofty and abstract.

The interpreter was not able to use South African Sign Language from English into , meaningful semantic units. 

Handshapes used were meaningless and basic distinctions between signs are made in terms of Handshape (or Handform), Orientation, Location (or Place of Articulation), Movement, and Non-manual expression.

No classifiers were used and classifiers are common linguistic features of many sign languages are the occurrence of classifiers, a high degree of inflection and a topic comment syntax More than oral languages, sign languages can convey meaning by simultaneous means, e.g. by the use of space, two manual articulators, and the signer’s face and body. 

This ‘fake interpreter’ has made a mockery of South African Sign Language and has disgraced the South African Sign Language interpreting profession. The organisers of the memorial service, and indeed any event, should have contacted organisations who coordinate South African Sign Language interpreting services to secure a professional, trained experienced interpreter.

Sincerely,

Bruno Druchen
National Director

For more information, Ms. Newhoudt is answering questions on the matter via her Twitter account.

 

MSM Media Critics at the Mandela Funeral



Text  



First up, Dylan Byers from Politico complaining about “new media’s” focus on the Obama-Castro handshake and the Obama/Cameron/Helle Thorning-Schmidt funeral selfie:

I guess Byers’s bosses at Politico don’t share his disdain of selfie coverage:

PoliticoPresident Obama takes selfie with world leaders

And next up, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd is in disbelief that Fox News would do an entire segment on the Obama-Castro handshake:

Ah, yes. Because MSNBC would never pander to its audience. Ever.  

Well, maybe they might pander to the end-the-Cuban-embargo crowd. MSNBC.com headline: Handshake makes history at Mandela memorial, with video of the handshake. 

I expect next from Byers and Todd we’ll have some commentary on why speculation of 2016 races is ridiculous and should never, ever be taken seriously at this early date. 

 

Spanish Journalists Kidnapped in Syria



Text  


No, Obamacare Isn’t Racist



Text  



Here’s MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry from this weekend on how the term Obamacare is racist. Via Talking Points Memo:

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry kicked off her weekend program with a monologue on what she called the “derogatory” implications of the term “Obamacare,” the colloquialism for the Affordable Care Act.

“It’s a word that has been with us for years. And like it or not, it’s indelibly printed in the pages of American history,” she said. “A word that was originally intended as a derogatory term, meant to shame and divide and demean. The word was conceived of by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man. To render him inferior and unequal and to diminish his accomplishments.”

But Harris-Perry said that despite the efforts of President Barack Obama’s opponents to reduce him to that one “disparaging word,” he President embraced the moniker.

No, Obamacare isn’t racist. It isn’t even derogatory. It’s just the nature of politics that legislative proposals become attached to particular individuals. Doubtless, the kids over at MSDNC consider “Hillarycare” sexist (or szomething). But recall that during the 2008 primaries, Slate used ”McCaincare” and Ezra Klein used “Giulianicare.”  

This is nothing new, and it’s a construction liberals embrace for their own purposes, i.e., President Obama’s use of “Romneycare,” “the Bush tax cuts,” “Reaganomics,” “Bush’s war in Iraq,” ”Libbygate,” etc., etc., etc. 

Pages

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review