Midterm Paper

Ashlee Willis October 16, 2008 Ethics Capstone Patti Newberry Properly Covering the Improper: the Ethical Approach to Rumors and Gaffs in the 2008 Presidential Race It’s somewhat hard to believe that at one point in American politics presidential campaigns used to last for mere months instead of years. The 2008 election season actually began moments after the 2006 midterm and was covered by members of the media intensely from that time. Over nearly two years this historical race has dominated the news landscape across all mediums. With hours and pages for journalists to fill it was inevitable that coverage of rumors and gaffs would slip between reports of issues and platforms. Unfortunately, time that could have been used on stories about how candidates would react to the economy, war or the energy crisis has been packed with these superficial narratives because of their ability to draw audiences and readers. Two examples of this superficial dialogue are the coverage of rumors about Senator Barack Obama’s religion and Senator John McCain’s slip up during an interview with Politico.com. With constant focus on these types of stories journalists take an ethical risk. If they spend too much time on these stories, they aren’t reporting enough on stories that will properly inform voters before they go to the polls. Journalists, therefore, don’t live up to their duty of enlightening the public on those that potentially could lead them.

Some news organizations merely reported on these events in the context of the nastiness of the race, but others used these instances to comment on deeper issues of not only the campaign but of American society in general. Therefore, while it is easy to report too much on these frivolous stories some journalists are able to take them and mold them into meaningful pieces that upkeep their ethical responsibility. A rumor that has lasted throughout campaign season is that Obama is a Muslim. This storyline has dominated not only some media coverage but subsequently many conversations of voters. A July 15 Pew Research study showed that 12% of Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim.1 Republican rallies across the nation have been filled with supporters that call the senator an “Arab” and a “terrorist,” unrelenting to the point of McCain having to correct these chants. Despite the amount of time this rumor has been circulating and reports that prove that Obama is Christian, the story continues to be rehashed. While some organizations simply have regurgitated the story time and again, others have used it to comment about where the country is politically and socially. CNN’s coverage of the rumor has been full of contradiction. January 23, 2007, the channel took pride in “debunking” the myth that Obama had attended a Muslim school.2 For the story, CNN went to the Indonesian school and saw that the curriculum didn’t fit the image of Islamic radicalism that had been previously presented. The report declared the rumors “not accurate” and criticized rival Fox News for their willingness to accept the gossip as fact. It seemed that this would be an end to the controversy. However, more than a year and a half later, CNN still covers the rumor. One of the most confusing moments after the assertion that these rumors were fake was CNN’s interview between

Larry King and Jerome Corsi, the writer of “The Obama Nation.”3 The interview allowed Corsi to argue that Obama had lied about his upbringing and family with little intervention from King. Corsi even asserted that the Indonesian school was a radical school for Muslims, even though CNN, itself, had proven the argument false. By allowing Corsi on the channel, CNN gave a platform to an individual that is telling blatant lies that was proven untrue long before the broadcast. Instead of using this time to divulge on issues of the economy or foreign policy the channel wasted time that could have been used to inform viewers on candidate positions by spending it on an interviewee that only shared rumors and gossip that had already been verified as untrue. Newsweek also has reported on the rumor.4 Like the early CNN piece, writer Jacob Weisberg wanted to make clear in his reporting that he didn’t believe the story and went on to stress that he didn’t see why the story would matter in the election. However, the flaw in this piece is that Weisberg used the rumor to simplify societal values rather than to ask deeper questions about them. The writer goes so far as to argue that Obama “lags with [white working class voters] for a simple reason: the color of his skin,” instead of addressing the vast amount of issues and platforms that matter to this demographic. The writer asserted in the piece that if Obama loses it will say that as a country the United States hasn’t gotten past bigotry that targets blacks and Muslims. This not only speaks with the same assumptive language of the rumor itself but also makes allegations the might not necessarily be true. By presenting the rumor in this light, it would also say that if Obama wins racism is no longer an issue, which is obviously not true. While racial prejudice may be a factor on election day, it can’t explain why an entire electorate votes one way and not another. Putting

the rumor in these terms also begs ethical questions on whether the reporter is properly informing the public or merely presenting basic ideas that don’t provide a full picture. National Public Radio has used the Muslim question, however, to ask deeper questions about not only the 2008 race but also society in general. Rather than just rehashing the gossip, when NPR covers the rumor In an October 13 “Talk of the Nation” segment, host Neal Conan and Ted Koppel used Obama’s candidacy and issues raised by the Muslim rumors to discuss race relations in America.5 Conan and Koppel considered Obama’s historical nomination a step in the right relations concerning America’s history with race. They go on, however, to explain how the rumor still reveals a level bigotry that is underneath the surface but don’t go so far as to say that this would be the only factor that will affect Obama on election day. He raises the point that Obama has a “huge following among young people,” which could overwhelm groups with apparent prejudices. He also uses the rumor to discuss the “extraordinary bigotry that is growing in some circles in this country against Muslims” and America’s progression into different types of prejudice. While NPR didn’t discuss the rumor in a story directly about the campaign itself, it chose to take an issue that was circulating in the public and asked what the rumor meant about what race means in America. Koppel breaks the issue down into multiple layers ranging from Obama’s middle name, Hussein, to whether bigotry about Muslim is really codified bigotry about blacks in an age where prejudice against blacks is considered widely unacceptable. Like NPR, The Economist took on the issue and used it to question bigger issues that lie under the surface of the election and society. Instead of simplifying what the rumor means like

the Newsweek piece, the magazine expanded the issue to show cultural differences between Obama and the McCain. The article points out different aspects about Obama’s upbringing, such as his “odd name and exotic background,” made him easier to target. They also contrast McCain’s background and calls the differences between the conservative camp and liberal camp a deeper “culture war” than just racism as a whole. The coverage of the Obama rumor hasn’t gone away and probably won’t even if the senator is elected. The presidential candidates vaguely touched upon the issue in their final debate October 15 showing that the gossip is apparently having an effect. How the media covers this rumor is pertinent to how it will be perceived. If like CNN and Newsweek the issue is either given credibility by continual coverage or oversimplified it fails to truly inform citizens about the truth of the matter. However, if like NPR and The Economist it is considered as merely a piece of a larger puzzle and presented within that context it can be fully reported upon in an ethical matter. John McCain certainly had a story of his own that wouldn’t go away despite how hard he tried to ignore it. The senator made headlines after a slight memory lapse during an interview with Politico.com.6 McCain wasn’t able to recall the amount of homes he owned with his wife, Cindy, an heir to a beer distribution company. To be fair to McCain, the majority of his homes are in Cindy’s name, as she brings in the greater part of the couple’s fortune. Not to mention, candidates by this point had been on the election trail for a large amount of time with the unprecedented length of the primary season and had to have some level of both physical and mental fatigue. Despite this fact, many members of the media simplified the minor slip up. Politico’s coverage of the interview implied that since McCain couldn’t answer this question he was obviously “out of touch” with America as a whole. The article presents McCain

as living an “outlandish rich lifestyle” and highlighted the attacks from the Obama campaign on the issue. Politico gives no context to the McCain’s fortune nor do they break down what each house was used for, rather rental property or their own personal use. Instead, the article merely makes an assertion about the McCains and neither proves it entirely true nor gives much background that would support their argument. The San Francisco Chronicle also took on the McCain gaff and not only used it to comment upon the wealth of the candidate, as Politico did, but also extends these arguments to the Obamas.7 The article takes the assumptions of the Politico coverage and applied them not only to McCain but also Obama and politicians as a whole. Instead of taking the opportunity to throw out the “elitist” label all together, it is extended. The story somewhat explains the properties at the end of the piece but only as a footnote instead of investigating them all fully. Like Politico, The Chronicle gives coverage that cuts off more questions rather than answer them as journalists are expected. Some news organizations reported on the matter in a more interesting, worthwhile manner. Slate.com reported on the slip up mostly as a non-story, asking what this “level” discourse really meant for the campaign and politics as a whole.8 The attacks, according to Slate, were a part of a bigger issue of the amount of negative campaigning and attacks of this historical election. The “out of touch” argument is skimmed over and dismissed as being a part of modern politics that tends to breed wealthy politicians. The article criticized this type of campaigning and discussed what these type of attacks could be covering up in the matters of meaningful coverage that would otherwise take its place. The Washington Post presented the assumptions made about the gaff as “highly debatable” and analyzed Obama’s attacks resulting from it.9 The slip itself is considered less

important than another moment in which McCain commented that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong,” an assertion that would reap criticism when repeated later. The Post considers what the coverage of the gaff over this controversial argument means for the campaigns and if this is the best approach for the Obama camp. Like Slate, the paper considers the context of the gaff and the attacks over the news sources that only reported on the comment at face value. This slip-up did somewhat disappear into the landscape of attack ads and other superficial issues. With the tapping of Sarah Palin for the vice presidential spot McCain was for a good amount of time in the shadow of his running mate, who was prone to gaffs herself. While stories that merely addressed the gaff on its own are no longer relevant, those that reported on the context and more profound aspects of the moment still have some merit. Reporting on these types of issues shouldn’t be completely off limits, however, news organizations should aim to cover these trivial matters by offering context and asking what their prominence means in the election and society as a whole. By not offering up this take, journalists fail in their ethical duty to inform the public fully and merely fill time that could be used to focus on more important matters. Successful reporting of rumors, gaffs and other issues of this nature consists of exploring what they mean rather than just letting the public know they occurred.

1

“Belief that Obama is Muslim is Bipartisan.” 15 July 2008. Pew Research Center. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/898/belief-that-obama-is-muslim-is-bipartisan-but-most-likely-to-sway-democrats 2 “CNN Debunks False Report.” 23 January 2007 CNN http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/ 3 Controversial Book on Obama. 13 August 2008. CNN’s Larry King Live. 4 “Jacob Weisberg on Obama and Racism.” Jacob Weisberg. 23 August 2008. Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/id/155117/page/1 5 “‘Last Lynching Shows’ Racial Inequity, Advancement.” Ted Koppel & Neal Conan. NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95672737 6 “McCain unsure of how many houses he owns.” Jonathon Martin & Mike Allen. 21 August 2008. Politico.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12685.html 7 “If asked, would you know how many homes you own?” Zachary Coile. 22 August 2008. The San Francisco Chronicle. 8 “Hitting Him Where He Lives.” John Dickerson. 21 August 2008. Slate.com http://www.slate.com/id/2198381/ 9 “McCain is Painted as Wealthy, Clueless.” 22 August 2008. The Washington Post. \