Salon.com Article Backfires

Written by Tony

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Referring to this article, where the website doesn't allow you enough space to reply (1000 characters, yeah ok).

New heights of stupidity by Glenn Greenwald

My response to him and a few people on Facebook:

What kind of person running for President is calling people pigs and stinky fish? I guess that's how some people think a President is supposed to act or something. That's how Obama takes care of problems and we're supposed to ignore that they're saying. These candidates are interviewing right now for a job. People mess up job interviews with less than a bad joke. Any media outlet (cough... Salon) that points out things to ignore that a candidate says isn't biased or anything then, right? What??

This article says that this is a cliché that Obama said. What cliché is that, exactly? Not any one that I know of. The article left out the fact that the crowd started chanting "no more pitt bull!" when he mentioned lipstick on a pig. The crowd knew what he was referring to right away. For this article to say that this comment was just some unknown cliché that just happened to come out of Obama's mouth at this time by coincidence kind of says that what Obama says isn't carefully crafted with any thought but just random. So does this job candidate not know what he's saying or are we just supposed to ignore some of the things he says?

We're practically at the height of the election season - when any candidate coughs, it turns into news for 24 hours. Yeah, the media is worse than ever, but that's just expected at this time, right? Why would anyone be surprised by that? The media wants people glued to their TVs or website thinking that we just can't live without them so they get great rankings / traffic and sell more ads. It's all about the almighty dollar. The more outrageous, the better for them. The first step is to recognize this but unfortunately the media has too many people under their spell... to the point where we're told what parts of a job interview to ignore. Who do they think we are?

(chew on that a little) :-)

-T

Share this

Email this

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (8) Add Comment

Did you even read the article Tony?
written by James Rotering, September 11, 2008

Where do I even begin Tony? How about with the origin and history of the "lipstick on a pig" line. Personally I first heard this line around 1999 or so when I was working at Berbee - it was spoken by the head of Software Engineering, in reference to a software program that was ugly on the back-end, but had a nice attractive front-end/interface tacked on to it.

I've heard the phrase used dozens of times since then, and it ALWAYS is used in reference to things like policies, initiatives, projects, etc. It is NEVER used as a personal attack, and I would dare say that most culturally aware people understand this and knew that Obama was criticizing the way that McCain is now suddenly claiming an agenda of "change" (the lipstick) even though he has voted with Bush 90% of the time and offers pretty much the same tired old policies (the pig).

I don't fault you for not having heard this one before. But just because you have never heard it, don't go making the claim that it must be something new.

Here's John McCain himself using "lipstick on a pig" to discuss Hillary's health care plan last October: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=related
(That video is embedded in the article that you allegedly read and are critiquing. Did you not see it there?)

Here he is again saying it in May of this year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlIfOTS1c

And here is Dick Cheney using it to describe John Kerry's tough talk about the military: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2CJW2skP8U

If you need more examples let me know, I will provide them.

Now as to your claim that when Obama made this comment the crowd started chanting "no more pitbull!" I simply ask: can you prove this claim? I dare say you can not, because it is a lie. If it were true the video would be out there SOMEWHERE and SOMEONE would be reporting on it. "No more pitbull" produces zero results on youtube, and only a few google results - all of which are random comment threads where people are repeating the same false claim that you make, with no evidence. Come on, where did you get this from? Did one of Rush's callers say it was true? I seriously want to know how this garbage starts to spread.

I did read one person who said this chant did happen at an Obama event last week in Virginia (unrelated to any lipstick-on-a-pig comments). So maybe it was chanted somewhere sometime, but I seriously doubt that it happened the way you say it did. Prove me wrong and I will eat my words - otherwise I think you ought to adjust/retract this claim.

I'll stop here - I'm just really confused by what your point is in writing this. If you honestly think that Obama was calling people names, then I just feel sorry for you I guess. I'm sure it was different when McCain said it and Cheney said it. I can only conclude that the article "backfired" for you because you either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or you really think that Obama is foolish and vulgar enough to call a woman a pig in front of the national media. I'm not sure I want to know which one of those is the correct explanation.

Oops Again
written by Tony, September 11, 2008

Ok, well I suppose that's a real cliche but I did not say it was new - please don't misquote me like you usually do. I was asking which one it was and thanks for filling me in on that. Regardless, Obama strategically used it in response to Palin, who seems to be a threat to him right now - that's the point. A VP candidate is the biggest threat to a Presidential candidate... he is in trouble and he knows it.

Where did I get my "claim" that people said "no more pitbull?" Well, I heard it on a clip on the radio with my own ears - so thanks for calling me a liar since you're not able to find such a clip out on YouTube that doesn't cut that part off. That offends me. You've totally proved my point about how the media manipulates things to keep us attached to them and you have taken this personal right away this time. No foolling around. Nice.

Since you seemed to turn this comment back on me after thinking that I've lied, let me explain this more so that you understand my point. It's a real cliche, fine. I haven't heard it that much. It's not used too much with people I've hung out with. That's regardless because WHEN he decided to use it is what matters. If other politicians have used such a cliche in their life, then that's also regardless and not nearly the point. It's clear that the way Obama used it at that particular time (because Palin called herself a pitbull with lipstick - Hillary hadn't called herself anything like that I I don't think John Kerry wears lipstick - but I can't be certain) sunk him down to the level of name calling and the crowd instantly responded and knew what he said. That's NOT how someone interviewing for the most important job out there should act.

The way McCain used it was as a cliche. He used it right. Both times in your examples. Thanks for proving my point for me there, too.

Is that little clearer for you now?

-T

...
written by James Rotering, September 11, 2008

Okay so I didn't mean that you claimed it was "new" - I meant that it seemed by your wording like you were insinuating that it wasn't really a cliché ("What cliché is that, exactly? Not any one that I know of." and then saying that the Salon article had called it an "unknown cliché" - actually they said it was a meaningless cliché so there is an important difference there). I didn't build any argument off of claiming you said "new", so I don't really see the point of making an issue of it, but whatever that is fine.

If you heard this clip ("no more pitbull" chant) with your own ears, then surely it must exist somewhere on the Internet. The whole beauty of the Internet and sites like YouTube is that they bypass direct media control and allow individuals to post things. If someone played this clip on the radio - and assuming that it was legit and wasn't spliced together from two different events - then surely, surely it would exist on the web. But the only thing I can find is a whole bunch of random/anonymous commentors saying that they heard it - lots of second-hand hearsay, but no first-hand evidence. What show did you hear it on? If this were true and really happened, even if the major media tried to censor/omit this from the story, it would break on the Internet. Right? The fact that it is not out there anywhere that I can find makes me stick to my contention that this is false.

You can judge that Obama's intention was a deliberate double-entendre, and obviously you are convinced of that. I can't prove you wrong, and you can't prove you are right. So we will have to agree to disagree on that point I guess. But the ultimate point is that even if this was an insult, the real travesty of all of this is that McCain's campaign took it and ratcheted up the phony outrage and managed to connive the media in to making this the BIG STORY of the day. He cries and throws up his arms like a basketball player taking a ridiculous dive to get a foul called - and the media eats it up. When there are real issues to discuss. That is what makes me crazy.

I know I was kinda nasty with my tone last night and I apologize. I broke the #1 rule of correspondence that they taught me in high school - never write a letter late at night when you are emotional. I was already worked up about this issue all day yesterday, then I was up late painting my hallway... I should have waited for the new day to have a fresh mind. I'll try and abide by that policy from now on.

unedited video
written by James Rotering, September 11, 2008

Here is the unedited video

http://www.necn.com/category/32/18331

The crowd responds enthusiastically to his lipstick line - but not by chanting "no more pitbull". And then after 5 seconds or so he goes on, makes the other analogy (fish in newspaper) and then finishes his remarks.

My conclusion: the audio you say you heard was spliced together by someone with a clear agenda. And then broadcast by someone else with a clear agenda.

Do you have any other rational explanation? Or are you going to retract you statement (The article left out the fact that the crowd started chanting "no more pitt bull!" when he mentioned lipstick on a pig.)

I also would seriously look in to the credibility of whatever radio program broadcast this deceitful doctored audio, and think carefully before taking any of their content at face value in the future. That is pretty messed up and evil of them, don't you think?

Obama Still Not Presidential
written by Tony, September 11, 2008

Thanks for the reply, James.

You say: "If you heard this clip ("no more pitbull" chant) with your own ears, then surely it must exist somewhere on the Internet."

But what if I didn't hear it on the Internet? Since when does the Internet determine truth? Wow.

You say: "The whole beauty of the Internet and sites like YouTube is that they bypass direct media control and allow individuals to post things."

Ok, yes the Internet allows for instant world wide publishing. That's great. I know that really well because of what I do for a living. But when people are taking clips from a possibly biased media source and posting that online, how does that bypass media control? I don't get that point. All I see is a sound bite clip from CNN over and over again which doesn't even show Obama's next line about a smelly fish. Posting that same clip 100 times doesn't bypass anything but in fact reinforces the media and does quite the opposite. If there's some footage of the event from someone with a camcorder who was there and that was circulating around, then I'd see you point for sure, but you haven't offered any proof for your point. I won't call you a liar though.

On the liar thing again... it doesn't seem right that I'm guilty until proven innocent in your eyes. How we judge, we will be judged, remember. :-) I love ya, bro. Be careful.

You say: "You can judge that Obama's intention was a deliberate double-entendre, and obviously you are convinced of that. I can't prove you wrong, and you can't prove you are right. So we will have to agree to disagree on that point I guess."

You're right. That's totally subjective and we're listening to two different sources apparently - one that chops things up and one that show more. So you're right that we really can't agree - given those circumstances.

You say: "But the ultimate point is that even if this was an insult, the real travesty of all of this is that McCain's campaign took it and ratcheted up the phony outrage and managed to connive the media in to making this the BIG STORY of the day."

I guess if your ultimate point is that you want to concentrate on the mudslinging, then go ahead focus on that and play that game with the media and be attached to how they spin things. That's not MY main point - and to get my main point, you'd have to hear ALL that happened so we are indeed at a stand still: these candidates are interviewing for the most important job out there right now. To make that decision, we shouldn't be listening to the media or even commercials by campaigns, really. Look at the candidates and how they talk, their actual words - all of them. Palin pokes fun at herself - calling herself a pit bull. Obama is very thin skinned and there's a whole list of things that we're not allowed to say about Obama...

(Read below for more, this was too long to post)

Obama Still Not Presidential - Part Deux
written by Tony, September 11, 2008

(Continuing on...)

Even on one of these TV talk shows (I forget which one, please forgive me for that - I have other things to do than follow this rat race every second of the day) they had Michelle Obama on and the producers were given a whole list of topics to not mention. They had Cindy McCain on a week later or something and were surprised that there was no list like that for her. That tells ya something and it's not the headline of the day either, but could still be true - sorry.

Anyway, I'm about done with this. This will all be over in 2 months and I don't want to regret anything I've said during this whole process when that time comes - no matter who wins (sometimes the bad guy wins, that's life). I think integrity is very important. I would NEVER lie on purpose to make a point. Never. And if that's news to you, then you don't know me at all. So I accept your apology about your tone but still don't appreciate being called a liar (which goes a bit beyond "tone" to me). I don't get offended too often but put words in my mouth or question my integrity and I'll be that pit bull, defending myself.

-----

Regarding this last comment that came in - thanks for finding the whole thing. I appreciate that. And you're right, I do need to change what I said since I was also able to find what I heard. The "no more pitt bull" chant wasn't right after Obama said the pig with lipstick line but it was reported that the chant was being repeated by the crowd at the END of this little rally or whatever Obama had. So please forgive me for that. The chant was still said in response to what Obama said and so my main point is still in tact - you can clearly (without denial now) see how the crowd reacted here to Obama's timely and non-coincidental cliche. Context does matter - we all know that. For him to bring this statement up now in response to what happens in the McCain side of things (which Obama has been regularly doing - no denying that - good for him) is NO coincidence. Not at all. The people in the crowd knew it, you can see that. They stand up and cheer. So Obama was definitely referring to Palin as a pig instead of a pit bull and turning her line around - which makes him look like dufus. Seeing this video makes my point even more, so thanks.

Bringing up video clips of other candidates saying an apparently OLD cliche at some time in the past before Palin said her thing proves absolutely nothing (just grabbing at straws) and that's what the media was doing yesterday as some sort of defense. That's just weak. This Salon.com article did that, too, which is where I think things backfired in a way. That's what I was trying to say and I again apologize for not being glued to the mass media but rather looking directly at what a candidate said. Apparently we're not supposed to have original thoughts like that. My bad.

Now this point of view of mine is on the Internet, so maybe now it's also true.

-----

Anyway, have fun painting that hallway. I'm going to tackle two rooms myself next month. It'll keep me away from even more TV during those final weeks, so that's always good. :-)

God bless,
-T

a clarification and final thoughts
written by James Rotering, September 11, 2008

Thanks for the gesture of reconcilliation - maybe when this is all over we can get a coffee sometime and talk about ANYTHING BUT POLITICS! :-)

I certainly didn't mean "if it is true it must be on the Internet" or "if it is on the Internet it must be true". I suspect you know that and are just having some sarcastic fun with my words. My point is that there is *always* (okay, very-nearly-almost-always) someone with a camcorder or tape phone-cam or whatever these days, and that the really juicy stuff *always* finds its way to the web. So as a general rule, if someone says something happened at an event (now in 200 smilies/cool.gif

and you can't find any concrete evidence to back it up, that raises a major red flag for me.

Lastly, I want to go on record that I did not call you a liar, and that I do not question your character on that point at all. I called in to question a serious statement that you made - you cited as "fact"

[that the crowd started chanting "no more pitt bull!" when he mentioned lipstick on a pig].

Citing that as "fact" when it is demonstrably false is... well, it is a lie. That is a strong label to put on it but it is an accurate one. I stand by it. HOWEVER...

To me, calling someone a "liar" means accusing them of intentionally deception. I certainly don't think that of you, and therefore would never label you a liar. A person can utter a lie for various reasons (honest misunderstanding, lack of accurate information, etc.) without having malicious intent. I just hate seeing it happen, and I have a hard time staying silent when a false statement goes unchecked.

I think of you as a truth-seeker, Tony. I think of myself that way also. I also think that while some aspects of our world-views might be miles apart, that isn't a bad thing or something that should cause soreness or division between us. I know that I definitely have some work to do on my communication skills, to get to the point where I can challenge someone else's viewpoint in a respectful manner, without coming off as a hot-head or a jerk. Those are my take-aways from our discussions, I guess. So all in all it has been a worthwhile exchange - I hope you feel the same in the end.

James

All's Well That Ends Well
written by Tony, September 11, 2008

Thanks for your clarification about not calling me a liar. From what this post said:

"I simply ask: can you prove this claim? I dare say you can not, because it is a lie. If it were true the video would be out there SOMEWHERE and SOMEONE would be reporting on it."

It just seemed like I was being called a liar (since if you tell a lie, you're a liar) here with the Internet being a better resource than what I said I had heard. That's where I felt offended. It turns out I heard something a little different and, like you say, I was not deliberately trying to lie - although this didn't affect my main point in the least. The proof you had offered at this point in the conversation was not too credible since it was just a sound bite - although you did later dig deeper and found more, so thanks. I think you did a better job than this Salon.com writer.

This will all be over shortly although it will feel like a long time, I know. Someone will win and life will go on. Personally, I think the more Obama speaks, the worse shape he's in, so this oughtta be a bit entertaining from a certain angle. I guess I'd rather have things like this than having 2 boring candidates that nobody is excited about. It causes us all to think some more and that's a good thing. I just wish the media wasn't so involved. Hopefully the debates will be heavily viewed or if Obama can somehow be man enough to agree to a town hall meeting, that ought to be good, too. We'll see these guys as they are instead of through a filtered lense.

Yeah, we should get together sometime. That'd be cool. It's been a while.

-Tony