Would you vote for Barack Obama if you thought he had 
terrorist links? Of course not. So how can the presidential hopeful defend himself against this slur, should he sue the respected Washington Post for insinuating that he is a Muslim extremist who wants to overthrow the government?
I know politicians must have a thick skin, but instilling imagined fear in people’s minds over threats of terrorism is sinking lower than any sewer life.
Bob Cesca describes this technique as ratfucking, an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks, which is used to manipulate rumourmongering to cause fear.
This is what the WP said about Obama, a committed Christian who describes his beliefs here:
Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a “Muslim plant” in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year.
So how is it that in this article, Obama is quoted as saying he would “consider bombing the sacred places of Muslims in order to avoid a nuclear attack on his soil”.
Cesca points out that any first year journalism student knows that the phrase “despite his denials” implies a certain level of guilt, as if Senator Obama has been forced to repeat that he’s not an Islamic terrorist wherever he goes.
Should responsible newspapers repeat lies spread on the internet about politicians? I think Obama should sue the WP to squash these unfounded and malicious rumours, especially as they could have a significant effect on his chances. In an August poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 45 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate for any office who is Muslim, compared with 25 percent who said that about a Mormon candidate and with 16 percent who said the same for someone who is an evangelical Christian.
One aspect of our following blogs like this is that we’re reading less newspapers…
In a diminishing market newspapers have to cut costs whilst maintaining as much ad revenue as they can.
In the states this has meant that newspapers (even the handful with a good reputation) have cut back on investigative journalism, more expensive – less return, whilst maintaining, lower cost – higher ad value, fashion journalists.
Media in the US is also, predominately, owned by republican leaning people which might have a connection to Obama being rateffed by the WP!
Image consultant — the Washington Post is anything but a ‘Republican-leaning’ entity — and hasn’t been since before it broke the Watergate story… and that was 34 years ago.
Ellee, here’s what Rich Miller said this morning in the Capitol Fax Blog (a blog devoted to Illinois politics) about the Obama story:
* Meanwhile, in yet another clear example of the utter disgrace that is our national political media, the Washington Post ran a story yesterday that mentioned just about every single “Barack Obama is a Muslim� rumor without once noting that the rumor is completely false, except to print some denials from Obama’s campaign.
* The Sun-Times, on the other hand, took the journalistic route on one of Obama’s claimed strengths: Ethics…
[quoting from the Sun-Times story this morning]
Seven years ago, Sen. Barack Obama was on the board of a Chicago charity when his former boss, Allison S. Davis, came looking for money.
At the time, Davis was a developer represented by the law firm where Obama worked, as well as a small contributor to Obama’s political campaign funds. He wanted the charity to help fund his plans to build housing for low-income Chicagoans.
Obama agreed. He voted with other directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago to invest $1 million with Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners L.P., a $17 million partnership that Davis still operates.
It’s not clear whether Obama told other board members of his ties to Davis, whose family would go on to donate more than $25,000 to Obama’s political campaigns, including his bid to be president of the United States.
“Let me get back to you on that,� Obama presidential campaign spokesman Bill Burton said when asked about that two weeks ago. He never did.
Ellee, I followed the WP link and I cannot see anything he could sue about. It does not accuse him of being a Muslim or Muslim extremist; it merely reports rumours – damaging I grant you. The second article is from something called “The Post” – not the WP – I can’t figure out what it is. Surely if he were going to sue he would have to go to the source?
Sue? What part of free speech do you promote then?
He could sue for libel… if they accused him of something that was not true (and it harmed him, although his ‘public’ persona may invalidate that), but there is nothing non-‘factual’ that WP claims about Obama.
If you want to claim the rumors are untrue, then that’s good, they are untrue as far as anyone knows, but to report on a rumor (or rumors) is still reporting, not slandering
I share the same concerns as Cesca that focusing on claims that Obama is a Muslim, knowing it is harmful and damaging to his reputation, could be defamatory. I guess he has to keep denying it. Cesca is convinced it is a part of a dirty tricks campaign and the media should distance itself from this.
The newspaper article makes the writers for WP look worse. Spreading rumors is not journalism.