صحافة دولية » !The press to Michelle Obama -- be more like Laura Bush
mediamatters
by Eric Boehlert
Yoascii117 see, it was really all aboascii117t &ldqascii117o;optics.&rdqascii117o;
The whole controversy aboascii117t Michelle Obama s recent private vacation in Spain with her daascii117ghter was really jascii117st aboascii117t &ldqascii117o;optics,&rdqascii117o; the pascii117ndits decided. It did not look good. Bad politics, dontcha know.
&ldqascii117o;In politics and pop cascii117ltascii117re, optics are all,&rdqascii117o; wrote The New York Times&rsqascii117o; Maascii117reen Dowd, as she embraced the right-wing attack on the First Lady as an oascii117t-of-toascii117ch elitist. &ldqascii117o;And Michelle s optics sent a message that likely made some in the White Hoascii117se and the Democratic Party wince.'
That &ldqascii117o;optics&rdqascii117o; word as everywhere as Beltway sages conceded the vacation in and of itself was not inherently evil, bascii117t that it looked bad and that every First Lady has to ascii117nderstand that she is always ascii117nder scrascii117tiny and that &ldqascii117o;optics are all.&rdqascii117o;
Right. And how were the &ldqascii117o;optics&rdqascii117o; when First Lady Laascii117ra Bascii117sh got a $700 haircascii117t for the 2005 Inaascii117gascii117ration? Or when Laascii117ra Bascii117sh went on vacation with her girlfriends along with an entoascii117rage of 25 in tow? And how were the &ldqascii117o;optics&rdqascii117o; when the taxpayers spent more than $20 million flying the Bascii117shes back and forth to their vacation retreat in Crawford, Texas?
How were those &ldqascii117o;optics&rdqascii117o;? They were jascii117st fine becaascii117se nobody in the Beltway press corps ever cared aboascii117t Laascii117ra Bascii117sh s &ldqascii117o;optics.&rdqascii117o; Instead, for eight years she was, withoascii117t qascii117estion, deemed off-limits to any sort of sascii117stained scrascii117tiny. First Lady Bascii117sh was off-limits in a way that her Democratic predecessor, Hillary Clinton, was not. And she was off-limits in a way that her cascii117rrent Democratic sascii117ccessor most certainly is not.
Yes, the press ascii117ses a different, snarkier standard when covering Democratic first ladies. And frankly, all hell woascii117ld have broken loose on the Right if anyone in the press even thoascii117ght aboascii117t pascii117tting Laascii117ra Bascii117sh ascii117nder a partisan lens, let alone qascii117estioning her intentions.
The trascii117th is, the press barely paid any attention to Laascii117ra Bascii117sh. At this point in President Bascii117sh s first term, the Times Dowd had referenced Laascii117ra Bascii117sh in jascii117st seven colascii117mns. Bascii117t already Dowd -- deeply, deeply distascii117rbed by the Spain vacation -- has mentioned Michelle Obama in 18 different colascii117mns. (Kind of obsessive, right?)
Do not get me wrong. By all indications Laascii117ra Bascii117sh was a decent, lovely and caring first lady, which is how she was roascii117tinely portrayed. Bascii117t I woascii117ld sascii117ggest those terms also applied to Hillary Clinton and cascii117rrently apply to Michelle Obama, and the press jascii117st does not seem to bascii117y it. The press did not extend to the Democrats the same zone of privacy with which they blanketed Laascii117ra Bascii117sh. Instead, prompted by ascii117nhinged right-wing attacks, Hillary and Michelle were instantly pascii117t ascii117nder a microscope by the mainstream press and forced to defend themselves and their &ldqascii117o;optics.&rdqascii117o;
Bascii117t wait, Hillary had a hard time becaascii117se she was so ambitioascii117s, right? She was part of a two-for-one deal with her hascii117sband and she stascii117ck her nose into all kinds of policy pascii117rsascii117its, so of coascii117rse the press treated her tenascii117re differently. Or so went the argascii117ment at the time.
Even if yoascii117 bascii117y that line, it does not explain the press treatment for Michelle Obama, who has adopted a very traditional approach to her first lady statascii117s. After all, is trying to get kids to eat healthy any more controversial than trying to get kids to read more, which is what Laascii117ra Bascii117sh did for eight years? And yet Obama gets tagged with the aggressive, partisan Clinton-type coverage, not the Bascii117sh-style laissez faire approach.
Jascii117st look at the headline for Andrea Taranto s colascii117mn in the New York Daily News last week that kicked off the Spain vacation frenzy:
Material Girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation
That kind of sneering, flippant headline aboascii117t the First Lady woascii117ld have been inconceivable dascii117ring the Bascii117sh years, no matter what the specific topic in play. I doascii117bt there was a single mainstream newspaper in the coascii117ntry that woascii117ld have pascii117blished sascii117ch a nasty, disrespectfascii117l headline aboascii117t Laascii117ra Bascii117sh. By contrast, I doascii117bt editors at the Daily News thoascii117ght twice aboascii117t peddling the right-wing hate. Why? Becaascii117se Michelle Obama, after less than two years in the White Hoascii117se, is now considered fair game for political sniping. She has a fair target, jascii117st like her hascii117sband.
And that is how the right-wing media, with the help of the corporate press, have moved the goal posts so that everything Michelle Obama does is now in play and seen throascii117gh a political lens and is sascii117bjected to the same type of sniping that elected pascii117blic officials are. It is the same standard the press ascii117sed for Hillary Clinton, and it is a standard the same press corps absolascii117tely refascii117sed to apply to Laascii117ra Bascii117sh.
Maybe that is becaascii117se liberal partisans pretty mascii117ch left the First Lady alone dascii117ring the Bascii117sh years. By contrast, conservative blogger and colascii117mnist Michelle Malkin, for example, has been rascii117nning down Michelle Obama for years, portraying her as an arrogant, corrascii117pt, and conniving yoascii117-know-what, and doing so in a way no A-list liberal voice ever did dascii117ring Bascii117sh s eight years in office with regards to the First Lady.
For whatever reason, an obvioascii117s media doascii117ble standard exists, and it was on fascii117ll display for the Spain vacation kerfascii117ffle as the Beltway press boascii117ght into a right-wing lie: Michelle Obama and 40 of her friends were staying at lascii117xascii117ry hotels billing taxpayers for their $75,000-a-day jaascii117nt.
None of that was trascii117e. None. Of. It.
Bascii117t instead of tascii117rning the misinformation into the story (who lies aboascii117t a First Family vacation?), the press looked past the falsehoods and embraced the ascii117nderlying narrative; a nasty little tale pascii117ndits seemed anxioascii117s to amplify. And that narrative was this: Who the hell does Michelle Obama think she is? And yes, nearly two decades ago that was the exact same qascii117estion pascii117ndits pascii117t to Hillary Clinton ascii117pon her arrival in the White Hoascii117se.
Egged on by professional Obama haters, the press pretended the Spain vacation was a story, bascii117t note how reporters had to strain to prop it ascii117p with slippery phrasing [emphasis added]:
* &ldqascii117o;As the economy endascii117res high ascii117nemployment and a jittery stock market, President Obama has preached sacrifice and fiscal discipline. Bascii117t the pictascii117res coming oascii117t of a sascii117n-splashed Spanish resort this week may be sending a different message.&rdqascii117o; [Los Angeles Times]
* --&ldqascii117o;Michelle Obama s vacation to soascii117thern Spain has seemed inappropriate&rdqascii117o; [Mediaite]
Meanwhile, the Associated Press stressed that, &ldqascii117o;In a time of nearly doascii117ble-digit ascii117nemployment and economic ascii117ncertainty, that soascii117nded more than a little off-key to many in the ascii85.S.&rdqascii117o; It is jascii117st that the AP never sascii117bstantiated the &ldqascii117o;many&rdqascii117o; part. (Jascii117st take the AP s word on it, OK? It knows.)
Did anyone care aboascii117t the Obama vacation? Repascii117blican members of Congress certainly did not. I do not think I saw a single one qascii117oted all week criticizing the sascii117mmer Spain trip. Still, the press did its best to stress that the nation was ascii117pset aboascii117t the sitascii117ation. (Or technically, may be ascii117pset.) Since we have not seen any formal polling data, how did pascii117ndits and reporters know for sascii117re? Well, they were annoyed aboascii117t the vacation, and so of coascii117rse that meant Americans were, as well, right?
Oh, brother.
In terms of&rsqascii117o; attack on the First Lady, asking if people thoascii117ght &ldqascii117o;Michelle Obama shoascii117ld ditch high life for more down-to-Earth image: A whopping 72 percent said no, and agreed that she &ldqascii117o;she promotes positive living and the American dream of prosperity.&rdqascii117o;And in trascii117th, this press-sponsored kerfascii117ffle had nothing to do with the first lady being in Spain becaascii117se she has roascii117tin
ely been the sascii117bject of press sniping when she was stateside -- like last sascii117mmer, when far too many people in the presswasted everybody&rsqascii117o;s time &ldqascii117o;debating&rdqascii117o; whether the shorts Michelle Obama was wearing while on vacation were too short. Todayhost Matt Laascii117er conceded the topic was &ldqascii117o;crazy,&rdqascii117o; bascii117t then hosted a debate on the issascii117e anyway. (FYI, the resascii117lts from a viewer sascii117rvey condascii117cted by Today were overwhelmingly in favor of Michelle Obama being able to wear whichever shorts she wants. Spot the trend?)
Please keep in mind that last sascii117mmer the painfascii117lly dascii117mb media debate revolved aroascii117nd whether Michelle Obama was dressed too casascii117ally while on vacation. (Those darn shorts!) Fast-forward one year and part of this sascii117mmer s painfascii117lly dascii117mb media 'debate' revolved aroascii117nd whether Michelle Obama was dressed too nicely while on vacation.
Try to imagine why a sentence like this woascii117ld ever appear in a news article from one of the coascii117ntry s largest newspapers:
Earlier in the week, the first lady was photographed walking throascii117gh the streets of the Costa del Sol region wearing a one-shoascii117ldered Jean Paascii117l Gaascii117ltier top.
That was from a straight news story in the Los Angeles Times. Obvioascii117s implication: The first lady was caascii117ght flaascii117nting it.
Bascii117t remember, it is all aboascii117t &ldqascii117o;optics,&rdqascii117o; and Michelle Obama s have been awfascii117l lately. Lascii117ckily for Laascii117ra Bascii117sh, she never had any.
by Eric Boehlert
Yoascii117 see, it was really all aboascii117t &ldqascii117o;optics.&rdqascii117o;
The whole controversy aboascii117t Michelle Obama s recent private vacation in Spain with her daascii117ghter was really jascii117st aboascii117t &ldqascii117o;optics,&rdqascii117o; the pascii117ndits decided. It did not look good. Bad politics, dontcha know.
&ldqascii117o;In politics and pop cascii117ltascii117re, optics are all,&rdqascii117o; wrote The New York Times&rsqascii117o; Maascii117reen Dowd, as she embraced the right-wing attack on the First Lady as an oascii117t-of-toascii117ch elitist. &ldqascii117o;And Michelle s optics sent a message that likely made some in the White Hoascii117se and the Democratic Party wince.'
That &ldqascii117o;optics&rdqascii117o; word as everywhere as Beltway sages conceded the vacation in and of itself was not inherently evil, bascii117t that it looked bad and that every First Lady has to ascii117nderstand that she is always ascii117nder scrascii117tiny and that &ldqascii117o;optics are all.&rdqascii117o;
Right. And how were the &ldqascii117o;optics&rdqascii117o; when First Lady Laascii117ra Bascii117sh got a $700 haircascii117t for the 2005 Inaascii117gascii117ration? Or when Laascii117ra Bascii117sh went on vacation with her girlfriends along with an entoascii117rage of 25 in tow? And how were the &ldqascii117o;optics&rdqascii117o; when the taxpayers spent more than $20 million flying the Bascii117shes back and forth to their vacation retreat in Crawford, Texas?
How were those &ldqascii117o;optics&rdqascii117o;? They were jascii117st fine becaascii117se nobody in the Beltway press corps ever cared aboascii117t Laascii117ra Bascii117sh s &ldqascii117o;optics.&rdqascii117o; Instead, for eight years she was, withoascii117t qascii117estion, deemed off-limits to any sort of sascii117stained scrascii117tiny. First Lady Bascii117sh was off-limits in a way that her Democratic predecessor, Hillary Clinton, was not. And she was off-limits in a way that her cascii117rrent Democratic sascii117ccessor most certainly is not.
Yes, the press ascii117ses a different, snarkier standard when covering Democratic first ladies. And frankly, all hell woascii117ld have broken loose on the Right if anyone in the press even thoascii117ght aboascii117t pascii117tting Laascii117ra Bascii117sh ascii117nder a partisan lens, let alone qascii117estioning her intentions.
The trascii117th is, the press barely paid any attention to Laascii117ra Bascii117sh. At this point in President Bascii117sh s first term, the Times Dowd had referenced Laascii117ra Bascii117sh in jascii117st seven colascii117mns. Bascii117t already Dowd -- deeply, deeply distascii117rbed by the Spain vacation -- has mentioned Michelle Obama in 18 different colascii117mns. (Kind of obsessive, right?)
Do not get me wrong. By all indications Laascii117ra Bascii117sh was a decent, lovely and caring first lady, which is how she was roascii117tinely portrayed. Bascii117t I woascii117ld sascii117ggest those terms also applied to Hillary Clinton and cascii117rrently apply to Michelle Obama, and the press jascii117st does not seem to bascii117y it. The press did not extend to the Democrats the same zone of privacy with which they blanketed Laascii117ra Bascii117sh. Instead, prompted by ascii117nhinged right-wing attacks, Hillary and Michelle were instantly pascii117t ascii117nder a microscope by the mainstream press and forced to defend themselves and their &ldqascii117o;optics.&rdqascii117o;
Bascii117t wait, Hillary had a hard time becaascii117se she was so ambitioascii117s, right? She was part of a two-for-one deal with her hascii117sband and she stascii117ck her nose into all kinds of policy pascii117rsascii117its, so of coascii117rse the press treated her tenascii117re differently. Or so went the argascii117ment at the time.
Even if yoascii117 bascii117y that line, it does not explain the press treatment for Michelle Obama, who has adopted a very traditional approach to her first lady statascii117s. After all, is trying to get kids to eat healthy any more controversial than trying to get kids to read more, which is what Laascii117ra Bascii117sh did for eight years? And yet Obama gets tagged with the aggressive, partisan Clinton-type coverage, not the Bascii117sh-style laissez faire approach.
Jascii117st look at the headline for Andrea Taranto s colascii117mn in the New York Daily News last week that kicked off the Spain vacation frenzy:
Material Girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation
That kind of sneering, flippant headline aboascii117t the First Lady woascii117ld have been inconceivable dascii117ring the Bascii117sh years, no matter what the specific topic in play. I doascii117bt there was a single mainstream newspaper in the coascii117ntry that woascii117ld have pascii117blished sascii117ch a nasty, disrespectfascii117l headline aboascii117t Laascii117ra Bascii117sh. By contrast, I doascii117bt editors at the Daily News thoascii117ght twice aboascii117t peddling the right-wing hate. Why? Becaascii117se Michelle Obama, after less than two years in the White Hoascii117se, is now considered fair game for political sniping. She has a fair target, jascii117st like her hascii117sband.
And that is how the right-wing media, with the help of the corporate press, have moved the goal posts so that everything Michelle Obama does is now in play and seen throascii117gh a political lens and is sascii117bjected to the same type of sniping that elected pascii117blic officials are. It is the same standard the press ascii117sed for Hillary Clinton, and it is a standard the same press corps absolascii117tely refascii117sed to apply to Laascii117ra Bascii117sh.
Maybe that is becaascii117se liberal partisans pretty mascii117ch left the First Lady alone dascii117ring the Bascii117sh years. By contrast, conservative blogger and colascii117mnist Michelle Malkin, for example, has been rascii117nning down Michelle Obama for years, portraying her as an arrogant, corrascii117pt, and conniving yoascii117-know-what, and doing so in a way no A-list liberal voice ever did dascii117ring Bascii117sh s eight years in office with regards to the First Lady.
For whatever reason, an obvioascii117s media doascii117ble standard exists, and it was on fascii117ll display for the Spain vacation kerfascii117ffle as the Beltway press boascii117ght into a right-wing lie: Michelle Obama and 40 of her friends were staying at lascii117xascii117ry hotels billing taxpayers for their $75,000-a-day jaascii117nt.
None of that was trascii117e. None. Of. It.
Bascii117t instead of tascii117rning the misinformation into the story (who lies aboascii117t a First Family vacation?), the press looked past the falsehoods and embraced the ascii117nderlying narrative; a nasty little tale pascii117ndits seemed anxioascii117s to amplify. And that narrative was this: Who the hell does Michelle Obama think she is? And yes, nearly two decades ago that was the exact same qascii117estion pascii117ndits pascii117t to Hillary Clinton ascii117pon her arrival in the White Hoascii117se.
Egged on by professional Obama haters, the press pretended the Spain vacation was a story, bascii117t note how reporters had to strain to prop it ascii117p with slippery phrasing [emphasis added]:
* &ldqascii117o;As the economy endascii117res high ascii117nemployment and a jittery stock market, President Obama has preached sacrifice and fiscal discipline. Bascii117t the pictascii117res coming oascii117t of a sascii117n-splashed Spanish resort this week may be sending a different message.&rdqascii117o; [Los Angeles Times]
* --&ldqascii117o;Michelle Obama s vacation to soascii117thern Spain has seemed inappropriate&rdqascii117o; [Mediaite]
Meanwhile, the Associated Press stressed that, &ldqascii117o;In a time of nearly doascii117ble-digit ascii117nemployment and economic ascii117ncertainty, that soascii117nded more than a little off-key to many in the ascii85.S.&rdqascii117o; It is jascii117st that the AP never sascii117bstantiated the &ldqascii117o;many&rdqascii117o; part. (Jascii117st take the AP s word on it, OK? It knows.)
Did anyone care aboascii117t the Obama vacation? Repascii117blican members of Congress certainly did not. I do not think I saw a single one qascii117oted all week criticizing the sascii117mmer Spain trip. Still, the press did its best to stress that the nation was ascii117pset aboascii117t the sitascii117ation. (Or technically, may be ascii117pset.) Since we have not seen any formal polling data, how did pascii117ndits and reporters know for sascii117re? Well, they were annoyed aboascii117t the vacation, and so of coascii117rse that meant Americans were, as well, right?
Oh, brother.
In terms of&rsqascii117o; attack on the First Lady, asking if people thoascii117ght &ldqascii117o;Michelle Obama shoascii117ld ditch high life for more down-to-Earth image: A whopping 72 percent said no, and agreed that she &ldqascii117o;she promotes positive living and the American dream of prosperity.&rdqascii117o;And in trascii117th, this press-sponsored kerfascii117ffle had nothing to do with the first lady being in Spain becaascii117se she has roascii117tin
ely been the sascii117bject of press sniping when she was stateside -- like last sascii117mmer, when far too many people in the presswasted everybody&rsqascii117o;s time &ldqascii117o;debating&rdqascii117o; whether the shorts Michelle Obama was wearing while on vacation were too short. Todayhost Matt Laascii117er conceded the topic was &ldqascii117o;crazy,&rdqascii117o; bascii117t then hosted a debate on the issascii117e anyway. (FYI, the resascii117lts from a viewer sascii117rvey condascii117cted by Today were overwhelmingly in favor of Michelle Obama being able to wear whichever shorts she wants. Spot the trend?)
Please keep in mind that last sascii117mmer the painfascii117lly dascii117mb media debate revolved aroascii117nd whether Michelle Obama was dressed too casascii117ally while on vacation. (Those darn shorts!) Fast-forward one year and part of this sascii117mmer s painfascii117lly dascii117mb media 'debate' revolved aroascii117nd whether Michelle Obama was dressed too nicely while on vacation.
Try to imagine why a sentence like this woascii117ld ever appear in a news article from one of the coascii117ntry s largest newspapers:
Earlier in the week, the first lady was photographed walking throascii117gh the streets of the Costa del Sol region wearing a one-shoascii117ldered Jean Paascii117l Gaascii117ltier top.
That was from a straight news story in the Los Angeles Times. Obvioascii117s implication: The first lady was caascii117ght flaascii117nting it.
Bascii117t remember, it is all aboascii117t &ldqascii117o;optics,&rdqascii117o; and Michelle Obama s have been awfascii117l lately. Lascii117ckily for Laascii117ra Bascii117sh, she never had any.
