The Times does an article showing that there are a number of incorrect assumptions about Obama made by the elderly Jewish community in Florida. You would think that would be a good thing. They do a list of the five major misconceptions and then present the reality:
Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern's friends told him in Aventura. (He's not.)
He is a part of Chicago's large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy
Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama's children, asserted Violet Darling
in Boca Raton. (No, he's not.)Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale
(Incorrect.)Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is
keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns
frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)
So far so good. But now look at how the rhetoric changes when it comes to another misconception:
when the Times refers to a misconception about another bogus threat, note how it is treated:
Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan,
worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr.
Farrakhan.)
And so they just can't present the information with the same certainty, can they? No straight out it's wrong. No it's highly unlikely--and so they hold out the slim possibility that he might appoint an administration filled with followers of Louis Farrakhan!
Reminds me of his opponent, when asked if he were a Muslim: well, said Hillary Clinton, from everything he has said he's not and I have no reason to doubt him . . . . It just doesn't ring true, does it?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment