Obama the 'Magic Negro'

[GaryC 7]

Personally speaking, I don't think any of these examples (including the OP article) are worth the "outrage" personally. People like to talk about the evils of political correctness – but are prepared to embrace it here when discussing comments in an editorial piece. It is understandable if this was someone in high office or directly in the public eye – but even then the kneejerk reaction often goes above and beyond what was actually said.

The “outrage” as I see it is little more than a distraction from the real issues - surely its more important to be concerned about a candidates background and election promises than it is about what commentators say about them...

I wholeheartedly agree with that. My big beef is the uneven way the media portrays these things. If a conservative makes a stupid comment the media and the left are calling for heads to roll but if a left leaning person says something similar it's given a by. I would rather see both ignored. It distracts from the real topic at hand.

[eau_xplain 2]

yea I agree, the word is obsolete now..

"Niggardly" is a word of Scandinavian origin and has absolutely nothing to do with "***".

It's related to "nygg" (Swedish dialect of the Old Norse hnøggr / Old English "hneaw" meaning "stingy").

Right. People still get offended by it though. An assistant to the DC mayor even resigned after using the term some years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local.../district27.htm

Sometimes words carry so much sociological baggage that everything else gets ignored.

I'm guessing that phonetic similarity between Obama and Osama is going to cause Barack some problems.

Maybe it's because I didn't grow up here (in the US) and we only get to read about the racial issues, but I don't understand how you can confuse "niggardly" with the word "***" especially since they are obviously of very different origins. Reactions like that gives the impression that racial issues are being taken to ridiculous extremes and takes away from more serious and real racial concerns.

As for Obama, perhaps he will become the flashpoint for more voters to start educating themselves about candidate platforms and political track record. When I say political track record, I don't mean how long they have been in office and what offices they've held but I refer to the political decisions and stands that they took. Okay, maybe that's too much to hope for ... but hey, who knows?

[Jenn! 918]

what's wrong with obama anyway? could someone please tell me what's so bad about him?

See the post above yours.

That's a crappy response. You just don't want to explain yourself huh?

At least Gary's answer had substance. Thank you Gary I appreciate that response.

I think Robor's post was sarcastic. He meant that for many people the problem with Obama is simply that he is a democrat.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. My big beef is the uneven way the media portrays these things. If a conservative makes a stupid comment the media and the left are calling for heads to roll but if a left leaning person says something similar it's given a by. I would rather see both ignored. It distracts from the real topic at hand.

I wouldn't even say its uneven to be honest - but it is common. Believe it or not I actually watch Fox News a fair bit, and have noticed that a lot of the commentators on those shows jump on similar statements made by celebrities, activists and even other journalists. There's no shortage of "outrage" every day about statements made by college professors and campaign contributors. Just last night O'Reilly was picking apart a statement made by an anti-war activist questioning her "patriotism".

[GaryC 7]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. My big beef is the uneven way the media portrays these things. If a conservative makes a stupid comment the media and the left are calling for heads to roll but if a left leaning person says something similar it's given a by. I would rather see both ignored. It distracts from the real topic at hand.

I wouldn't even say its uneven to be honest - but it is common. Believe it or not I actually watch Fox News a fair bit, and have noticed that a lot of the commentators on those shows jump on similar statements made by celebrities, activists and even other journalists. There's no shortage of "outrage" every day about statements made by college professors and campaign contributors. Just last night O'Reilly was picking apart a statement made by an anti-war activist questioning her "patriotism".

Fox is changing things. I know that a lot of people here hate fox but they do tend to show both sides a lot more often than the rest of the media. I will have to dig it up but the other day I read a poll about Fox News watchers. A very large majority of viewers identify themselves as either moderate or liberal. Only a small percentage identify themselves as conservative. They are getting a bum rap in my opinion.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. My big beef is the uneven way the media portrays these things. If a conservative makes a stupid comment the media and the left are calling for heads to roll but if a left leaning person says something similar it's given a by. I would rather see both ignored. It distracts from the real topic at hand.

The problem is that this article is not a "stupid comment", its not Anne Coulter calling John Edwards a "**". Its an article using the term "Magical Negro", which is a well defined term in pop culture. I still fail to see why there would be any outrage, as I have yet to see anything similar that the left have been "outraged" about.

Its not like the left has a monopoly on "outrage" though is it? See for example the reaction to John Kerry's fluffed joke, which otherwise intelligent right wingers to this day refuse to believe wasn't anything other than malice. Talk about blinkered.

Fox is changing things. I know that a lot of people here hate fox but they do tend to show both sides a lot more often than the rest of the media.

OK its my turn: You're joking right?

Edited March 20, 2007 by dr_lha

[GaryC 7]

OK its my turn: You're joking right?

Not even a little. The far left hates fox because they have taken over the cable news world. They have taken over because they show both sides rather than just spouting the lefts point of view while ignoring the other side of the coin. You can't argue with the results. They speak for themselves.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fox is changing things. I know that a lot of people here hate fox but they do tend to show both sides a lot more often than the rest of the media. I will have to dig it up but the other day I read a poll about Fox News watchers. A very large majority of viewers identify themselves as either moderate or liberal. Only a small percentage identify themselves as conservative. They are getting a bum rap in my opinion.

To be honest with you I don't really like their reporting - in fact I don't like any US network news reporting – outside of perhaps NPR. There seems to be a trend among the major networks that all you have to do to ‘balance’ a story is to show one person from one side of the argument and another from the opposite side – and your job is done. It just buys into and feeds a generally polarized culture that can’t approach any issue without first politicizing it and fitting it (however uncomfortably) into one side or other of the partisan divide.

[GaryC 7]

Fox is changing things. I know that a lot of people here hate fox but they do tend to show both sides a lot more often than the rest of the media. I will have to dig it up but the other day I read a poll about Fox News watchers. A very large majority of viewers identify themselves as either moderate or liberal. Only a small percentage identify themselves as conservative. They are getting a bum rap in my opinion.

To be honest with you I don't really like their reporting - in fact I don't like any US network news reporting – outside of perhaps NPR. There seems to be a trend among the major networks that all you have to do to ‘balance’ a story is to show one person from one side of the argument and another from the opposite side – and your job is done. It just buys into and feeds a generally polarized culture that can’t approach any issue without first politicizing it and fitting it (however uncomfortably) into one side or other of the partisan divide.

Your right, I have always said I would prefer to just get the facts without the bias. But because of the 24 hour news cycle we are forced to endure the endless pontification of every subject. So if I have to sit through that to get my news I would rather hear both sides rather than just one point of view. That is where Fox has the upper hand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your right, I have always said I would prefer to just get the facts without the bias. But because of the 24 hour news cycle we are forced to endure the endless pontification of every subject. So if I have to sit through that to get my news I would rather hear both sides rather than just one point of view. That is where Fox has the upper hand.

True - but you're still stuck with the assumption that every argument can be distilled down to 2 opposing points of view. Its not always possible - and the wider debate suffers from that simplification of the issues.

[Dr_LHA 3]

To be honest with you I don't really like their reporting - in fact I don't like any US network news reporting – outside of perhaps NPR.

Agreed, I personally hate CNN and Fox pretty equally right now. Even NPR is way to parochial for my liking.

There seems to be a trend among the major networks that all you have to do to ‘balance’ a story is to show one person from one side of the argument and another from the opposite side – and your job is done.

I've noticed that NPR has started doing this also, having right wing "commentators" say their piece as if that somehow gives the story balance.

It just buys into and feeds a generally polarized culture that can’t approach any issue without first politicizing it and fitting it (however uncomfortably) into one side or other of the partisan divide.

Or that you can't report the news without giving opinion. Biases are always going to sneak into reporting, but the fact is that news these days is all about "I think" and talking heads. I'd love a station that just reports the damn news. For a few minutes that was CNN Headline news, but that's been polluted now by ####### like Nancy Grace and Glen Beck.

Where is that 24 hour News Station the BBC was promising us in the USA a while back? Eh?

[GaryC 7]

Or that you can't report the news without giving opinion. Biases are always going to sneak into reporting, but the fact is that news these days is all about "I think" and talking heads. I'd love a station that just reports the damn news. For a few minutes that was CNN Headline news, but that's been polluted now by ####### like Nancy Grace and Glen Beck.

On that we agree.

[almaty 19]

i hope obama does not make it as the dems canidate..i like him to remain in illinois as the junior senator and represent us