updated
Someone tell Matthew Yglesias it’s 2010. So, misattribution of a quote not Sect. Hillary Clinton’s really is so 2008. Besides, the Reuters headline didn’t even offer quotation marks on global threat. Reuters read: Clinton calls instability in Yemen a global threat. It should have tipped Yglesias off, but instead he used it as a Clinton quote:
It’s just words, but the idea, that instability in Yemen is a “global threat” seems obviously overblown.
Maybe, except Clinton didn’t say “global threat.” Not a minor point.
This is how our media works. Traditional media sloppiness seeping into new media, something to which so called progressive boy bloggers are far too willing to fall victim in order to take a cheap shot at Clinton, though she’s clearly not the only woman on the receiving end of this crap.
You didn’t see Sarah Palin getting credit from the left, however begrudging, though I gave her a deserved nod, for single handedly derailing the health care debate last August with “death panels,” which was dumbed down to one of the biggest lies of 2009. Correction: It was a whopper that worked, which can only be blamed on the lousy messaging from Democrats, something people don’t like to acknowledge, because it would give Palin a “win.” Can’t have that.
One Yglesias reader jumped immediately:
# joe from Lowell Says:
January 4th, 2010 at 6:40 pmHold on. Let’s not play Telephone here.
“Obviously, we see global implications from the war in Yemen and the ongoing efforts by al Qaeda in Yemen to use it as a base for terrorist attacks far beyond the region,” Clinton told reporters.
The term “global threat” – in quotations marks, no less – is from the headline writer at the Washington Post who claims, “Clinton calls instability in Yemen a global threat.”
Way to go, Joe. Clinton’s actual quote was: “Yemen is a threat to regional stability and even global stability.” Stability and threat are quite different terms, but even if you think they aren’t, “global threat” is still not what Clinton said.
Ironically, Yglesias published a book a couple of years ago entitled “Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.” He certainly proved the latter.
This is important, because it’s part of a picture, which Anne Kornblut is now trumpeting through her new book, “Notes from the Cracked Ceiling,” in which Ms. Kornblut pontificates about what it will take to elect a female president. As if she knows, something I’ve already covered in detail.
Whether it’s new media bloggers, especially so called progressives, or the traditional media messengers, but also including cable and traditional TV shows like “Meet the Press,” it doesn’t seem any media group wants to take responsibility for their own part in defining a woman’s role in politics downward. From Yglesias’s recent sloppy attribution to Clinton of a quote not her own (a mistake he’d likely never make covering Pres. Obama), to Kornblut’s previous years spent denigrating Clinton as she now flips to opine on how women can break through, while David Gregory has discussions on health care and abortion legislation without women on the panel (following the late Tim Russert in his all male panel shows, including when women’s issues are discussed), it’s hard to see how we stop this business as usual noise.
Yet on a bright note, last night on ABC News, Diane Sawyer had Martha Radditch reporting from Yemen, the only person on the ground in that country right now. (“The World Newswer” is the new blog.) Kate Snow did a separate report on the tragic losses of the CIA, which reminded me of the days before 9/11 when Ahmad Shah Massoud allowed a television crew into his sanctuary, only to end up blown to bits. That’s how big the Jordanian double agent story is today. And last night it was covered by a woman on ABC News, with a woman nightly news anchor as well. ABC, through Diane Sawyer, sending a message that foreign policy and national security is women’s work.
There are others too, of course. After a tortured start, Katie Couric finally blasted off when she dared to ask Sarah Palin, “Which newspapers do you read?” Not exactly Yemen, but it was a hell of a lot better than where Couric began. Meanwhile, Andrea Mitchell, anything but a natural on TV, struggles mightily at 1 pm eastern daily on MSNBC, talking foreign policy, among the trivial. But still, Mitchell is reporting in the middle of the day on foreign policy and national security, a spot she likely had to fight to get, which is to MSNBC’s credit. With the queen of foreign policy still Christiane Amanpour on CNN, now on Sundays, with reports all day from female anchors. Lara Logan, an heroic foreign correspondent, never appearing often enough on CBS. Greta Van Susteren of Fox News Channel was a beacon of light during 2008, especially for Hillary Clinton, who couldn’t buy good coverage anywhere, but yet Democrats and progressives expected her to boycott the channel. That’s how clueless the left is on these things.
More women anchors and reporters are all positive signs, but we need women well beyond the famous Sect. Clinton on all the shows speaking about world issues every day in order to break the media stereotype that women don’t belong and get it wrong. Calling people out who cover them when they utilize words like “overblown” when misattributing a quote that never existed.
There will never be a female president if we don’t get the people who cover this stuff to take them seriously by at the very least quoting them accurately.
The other danger of sloppy reporting and media misogyny, as exhibited across the media world, new and traditional, is that it inadvertently plays into the hands of the less qualified female trying to make her mark, regardless of which party she represents. It’s how we could end up with the likeness of George W. Bush in a skirt. A sloppy media is the perfect set up.
We’ve got the likeness of George W. Bush in the White House right now, IMHO. Female or male, the problem isn’t gender, it’s political influence. When will we ever learn…when will we ever learn? Until the American people demand publicly financed elections, we will never rid ourselves of these meddlesome priests of high places.
No one–male or female–gets into the White House these days without first passing the test of the Ruling Oligarchy Elite Chosen Few who rule this country from their high perches of privilege. And, we’re the ones who let them get away with it all. Oh, yes, we do.
Shame on Yglesias, but he’s really the epitome of “irrelevant” if he thinks Yemen isn’t a serious threat to global stability.
You’re absolutely right to call him on it; and absolutely right about the blatant misogyny from our “mainstream media” [and I would add, the vast majority of progressive bloggers, who are no different from wingnut bloggers when it comes to Hillary Hate.]
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not a Hillary Cultist. She’s wrong–dead wrong–on some issues I’m very passionate about, like the Middle East. But I’ll take her experience, her work ethic, and her personal integrity any day over the likes of the Oligarchs running this country right now. Sheesh. There’s just no comparison! And if there was a better candidate in this country for Secretary of State–right now–I’ve not seen them.
There’s an intentional “blame Hillary” meme going around right now regarding the terrorist attempt out of Yemen. I link it to the recent poll showing Clinton polling as the most popular politician; more popular than Obama. Obama advisors may think it’s not transparent, but it is. And, it reflects badly on the administration. They may want to re-think this if it is deliberate, because it will not reflect well on the White House.
Calling the threat emanating from Yemen “overblown” is simply ludicrous in light of the geo-political impact that Yemen has by virtue of location alone. Yglesias risks making himself a laughingstock–in my opinion–by minimizing it. But to do it in order to mock Clinton is really stupid. Yemen–as a spark–could well cause a conflagration, so Yglesias would do well to consider that before he blithely dismisses its possibility.
Sigh~but it is baffling to me why anyone would consider CUBA a terrorist threat under the new TSA rulings too. Eugene Robinson is so right on this one. The Khost double-agent who killed the CIA agents is a JORDANIAN, but no one seems to notice that JORDAN isn’t on the new TSA watchlist, but somehow CUBA made the list. CUBA? Al-Qaeda in CUBA? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Okay, rant over. Fire away.
Agree that the Yglesias quotes are (slightly) sloppy journalism, but Sec. Clinton’s remarks were overblown, with Clinton proclaiming yet another poor mountainous country as a “threat to…global stability.”
Clinton, in a Jan. 4 press conference: “The instability in Yemen is a threat to regional stability and even global stability, . .”
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/134671.htm
So, to be picky, Yglesias should have penned “instability in Yemen is a threat to global stability” instead of “instability in Yemen is a global threat”, a distinction without a difference, I think.
The main point here is that Clinton’s remarks WERE obviously overblown, as Yglesias asserted. The idea that the mighty US — which has invaded and rocketed how many nations now? It’s hard to keep track — should call instability in this tiny nation a threat to global stability is farcical.
I have absolutely no quarrel with the need for more women in the public sector. The US suffers a drug problem — too much testosterone — when more estrogen is needed. But the current crop of female politicians with their male-wannabe acts doesn’t cut it. They’re not even good at it.
Damn them for trying to survive in the world that is instead of the world they wish it to be.
A misattribution is not simply “sloppy” journalism. Clinton didn’t say it. Period.
One assumes someone could can make the point without misattribution, but Yglesias didn’t. The misattribution was the gateway, therein the tell. Though it should be said that he’s not alone in this trick to discredit Clinton.
I seriously doubt he’d ever misattribute a quote to Pres. Obama.
When she earns criticism let it fly. Just do it honestly.
Besides this is the stuff progressives always charge the right-wing as doing. It doesn’t get a pass when we do it to our own, even if it is Hillary Clinton.
Let’s not give a pass to women just because they’re women–OR Democrats. Let us be honest about what is happening right now. We are being hijacked on Health Care Reform:
“The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history.” — Nancy Pelosi
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/05/2006_flashback_pelosi_says_dems_will_have_most_honest__ethnical_congress.html
Senate’s Proposed Health Care Tax Isn’t Aimed at the Rich, It’s Aimed at You
By Bob Herbert, The New York Times Posted on January 3, 2010, Printed on January 5, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/144909/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/05/hiding-health-bills-behind-closed-doors/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/04/democratic-leaders-plan-secret-health-reform-deliberations.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/
Is global instability a global threat? Could Yemen’s insability cause worldwide instability? Hillary’s entire premise is flawed and illogical. Is Hillary’s inability to comprehend that what she says and how she says it has a direct impact on the safety of US citizens helpful? Hillary has made these ‘mistakes’ in the past. That makes her tendency to misspeak a pattern. A very dangerous pattern. Peace
Damn them for trying to survive in the world that is instead of the world they wish it to be. Maybe they should stop playing the hand that’s dealt them………….wonder what would happen if they played the mythical hand that should be?
A “threat to… global stability” is a “global threat.” Not sure how one can argue to the contrary with a straight face. But more to the point, I don’t care who — Clinton or someone else entirely — espoused the view. They are right, and Iglesias is wrong.
ogenec, huh??? “They” is right about what? And Iglesias is wrong about what? Peace
djjl, leadership is all about leading. That means that you sometimes have to make a new reality. Anyone who is simply trying to survive the situation that they’ve been thrust into is not a leader. They are a dumbass. And they will generally end up as a ‘dead duck’ dumbass. Peace
Imhotep says:
05 January 2010 at 11:54 am (Edit)
Is global instability a global threat? Could Yemen’s insability cause worldwide instability? Hillary’s entire premise is flawed and illogical.
Now that’s something that can be argued and is of importance, as Ogenec’s point raises. But you don’t need a misattribution to do it, as both of you have also proven just in your short comments above.
Imhotep says:
05 January 2010 at 12:09 pm
_________________
Surely you know. I’ve not been shy about saying this. The problem of Yemen, writ large, is the problem of failed states as a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalists. I’ve argued that Islamic fundamentalism is a cancer that it metastizing and spreading through the rest of the Middle East, down into Northern Africa and, increasingly, further south into sub-Saharan Africa.
This assessment is accurate, although I know many will recoil from it because they will see it as justification for invading yet another country. That’s not what I’m advocating. I’m saying there are increasing numbers of disaffected Muslim men with no place to turn than to terrorism. We need to offer them a viable economic alternative. “More micro loans, fewer drones” is the phrase I used over at The 44 Diaries:
http://the44diaries.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/obamas-speech-on-afghanistan/
No a dumbass is one who refuses to acknowledge the reality that exists. You obviously don’t understand what may be necessary to lead one into a new reality. Actually, I don’t think you want to understand anything that quivers against your preferred perception.
It isn’t about anyone declaring yet another poor mountainous state as a global threat – it is about another failed state serving as a breeding ground for terrorists as ogenec explained.
ogenec~
While i agree with your assessment that terrorism is metastizining around the world in “failed states” and I agree that we need to take a different approach from the aggressive “bombing and invading” approach, I’m not sure micro loans are the answer.
I love the concept and practice of micro loans but reporting from organizatons involved with them state that when these loans are given to men they are much less successful than when given to women. Women use them to improve the lot of their children,men use them for tobacco,alchohol,and other such things.
Lake Lady
I have long read of those reports. Sad…..
Take a look at this – off topic – but I think you might be interested:
http://www.heifer.org/site/c.mmKTJbNUJrF/b.5462741/k.40A/Exhibits_at_Heifer_Village_in_downtown_Little_Rock.htm
http://www.bettyladuke.com/
Click abive to listen to NPR’s Hear & Now interview with Betty LaDuke titled “Heifer International Through the Eyes of an Artist.”
Lake Lady says:
05 January 2010 at 12:52 pm
_____________
LL, “More micro-loans, fewer drones” was just my way of trying to make the point that economic relief is just as important as boots on the ground. I’m agnostic as to who gets the loans or other economic assistance. If the women are better recipients, let it go to the women. I just want money circulating in these areas so people can earn a living and don’t fall under the spell of the fundamentalist crowd.
Lake Lady,
Actually, there are numerous studies that show that women are just plain better managers then men because of superior intuition, sensitivity, etc.
suggest you Google: (1) study women better managers
(2) study men better managers
Taylor Marsh @ 10:41AM
“There will never be a female president if we don’t get the people who cover this stuff to take them seriously by at the very least quoting them accurately.”
How about this twist: There will never be a female President until there is full gender equality and women gain the moral right to decide what to do with their bodies. This would include a full portfolio of pregnancy rights which enables women to make truly free choices whether to end a pregnancy as opposed to men dictating these rights, and exercising ultimate control over women’s bodies.
This is the final battle for true equality.
Ramsgate…hell yes!
Thanks djjl…I love the heifer project.How great that this demonstration came to your town. My younger brother and I are both contributors. I have tried to get my whole family to go together a do something big like a cow but they always beg off saying they have their own favorite charities. I think it is more political than anything else. My younger brother and myself represent the crunchy,granola wing of the family.That is the way they look at it anyway.
I’m afraid that full equality is fanciful in a fundamentalist Christian country. The Bible told me so.
Don Bacon @ 4:51 PM
Well Don, you may be correct. In a fundamentalist Christian country we can never have a female President.
Unless we submit to our constitution and separate church and state, it will always be beyond our reach.
Eph.5:22-24 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” etc.
Don Bacon says:
05 January 2010 at 5:52 pm
Ahem, we are more like the Saudis than we know.
I recall hearing a Catholic theologian discussing the Apostle Paul. he commented that “we don’t really know if St Paul was ever married. We do know that if he were married, it surely wouldn’t have been for long.”
That anybody is still paying any attention at all to what the Old Testament said is a problem. The Old Testament begot the New Testament which begot the Koran. Said another way: the Christ movement or Christianity was the reformation of Judism and Islam was the reformation of Christianity. What we need now is the reformation of Islam. That cannot be accomplished by using 100,000 man armies and airplanes or drones dropping bombs and firing missiles. Those are the tools of the secularists who have no knowledge or understanding of the religious mindset. Peace
Misinformation seems to be the rule of the day now, and both sides are guilty of it. Hillary’s comment is just the latest. Three other great examples:
1) Palin did NOT say “…Russia from my House”. commedian Tina Fey did. Palin DID use Alaska’s proximity to Russia as an attempt to qualify herself as capable of handling foreign affairs. For THAT she deserved slapping down – but not Tina’s ‘line of the decade’.
2) McCain was constantly berated for saying we could be in Iraq for 100 years, as if he meant with occupying troups when he was actually just comparing Iraq to Japan and the fact we would probably always have a base and embassy there – which is undoubtedly true.
3) Napolitano was – and continues to be – castigated for her “system worked” comment. It’s getting pretty bad when Dana Perrino has to come on Fox and defend her, noting that Napolitano actually said ‘AFTER the event went down, the system worked’. Napolitano certainly could have found better words to make her point, but she was NOT referring to the obvious failures. When Fox News is the only one to point this out – that’s pretty sad.
I’m starting to miss the days when there were only three TV channels. *sigh*
Thank you pmichael. What is really sad is the “citizens” who intentionally keep the distortions alive when they know better.
Agreed, djjl – especially “citizens” that work in the world of political radio
and tv and the blogs – they do it – they know it – they search for the lowest common denominator.