By Mollie Hemingway
Friday, December 02, 2016
“Trump supporters bought bogus Obama conspiracy theory
peddled by Fox Business” was the headline over at the Washington Post. The piece is written by Erik Wemple, a media
writer who generally does a good job.
But this piece was not his best work. It discussed a
segment on yesterday’s CNN’s “New Day” program, where Alisyn Camerota moderated
a discussion with Trump supporters. One voter said that President Obama had
told illegal immigrants that they could vote.
You really have to watch
the clip to get the full condescension and loathing Camerota displays toward
these voters. It’s remarkable.
The voter says, accurately, that nobody knows how many
illegal immigrants voted. Camerota asks if she heard President Obama say
illegal immigrants could vote. Many of the Trump voters respond that they did,
and they tell her to Google it. Camerota Googles and finds a piece at Mediaite
that says “Fox Business Network used a deceptively edited clip of President
Barack Obama Monday to argue that the president encouraged illegal immigrants
to vote, when in fact he had done nothing of the sort.” She appears to
immediately and uncritically accept this version of events.
Wemple also wholeheartedly agrees with Mediaite’s
characterization:
Correct: Fox Business earlier this month
committed an astounding hatchet job against the president, who had done an
interview with Gina Rodriguez on mitú. Introducing the news, Fox Business host
Stuart Varney claimed that President Obama, in that interview, ‘appears to
encourage illegals to vote, and he promises no repercussions if they do.’
No such thing happened.
At this point I should mention that I completely missed
this story when it broke the week before the election. So my first encounter
with the entire brouhaha was Wemple’s column. Let’s go to the relevant portion
of the transcript of the original interview of President Obama by Gina
Rodriguez:
RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens
— and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are
fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they
come for my family and deport us?
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote,
you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls
somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity
of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have
a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason
to vote.
Wemple notes that Fox Business edited out the words
between “Not true” and “The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential.”
That is indeed a deceptive edit, even if it’s of the type that each and every
cable news outlet participates in by the hour. But here’s where I disagree with
Mediaite and Wemple. They say that this edit makes Obama seem to be saying
something he’s not.
Here’s Wemple: “‘When you vote, you are a citizen
yourself’ is a phrase that should forestall any attempts to twist the
president’s words.”
Let’s recap what actually happened. A journalist
interviewing the president of the United States redefined citizens to
specifically include illegal immigrants. Remember, she said, “undocumented
citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country —
are fearful of voting.” She asked if these “citizens” — by which she means
illegal immigrants — should be fearful of voting because immigration
enforcement can find out where they live and deport them.
The president doesn’t say: “Hey there, Gina, that almost
sounds like you’re encouraging voter fraud. Voter fraud is a horrible crime
against the people of this country and it should not be committed by anyone
under any circumstances. People should be terrified to commit it.” He doesn’t
say: “Let me stop you right here. If you come here illegally, you are not a
citizen, and you are completely ineligible to vote.” He doesn’t say: “Let me be
clear: Non-citizens do not have the right to vote and illegal immigrants are
breaking the laws of our land and should fear being held accountable for that.”
He doesn’t even say “By redefining illegal immigrants as citizens, you are
giving a lot of ammunition to those who want to pass voter ID laws. You’re
probably hurting your cause.”
He doesn’t challenge her redefinition of “citizen” at
all! So when he uses the language of citizenry in response, it is either an
incredibly inarticulate response to a question about breaking the law, or it
can be seen as encouragement of such redefinition.
I don’t think that’s what he meant, since he also says
“If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even
greater reason to vote.” Of course, that statement isn’t exactly a strong call
for rule of law in the face of lawbreaking, either.
The bottom line is that the media, from CNN to the Washington Post, think this is a great
example of “fake news” being promulgated. A critique of slicing the Obama
interview to remove some of its language is fair, if a bit overwrought. That’s
because even with that language included, this is a horrible example for
pushing the “fake news” narrative that media are clinging to in order to defend
themselves from their many failures this year.
The edited language did not include a condemnation of fraudulent
voting or of blatantly redefining citizenry to include people who are not
citizens and therefore ineligible to vote. I certainly hope the president
didn’t mean to encourage voter fraud, but he sure as heck didn’t come out
railing against it in the face of a brazen call for it.
In a media environment of unbridled hostility to
conservatives, one where everything Donald Trump says is taken with almost
autistic hyperliteralism, this is a good example of why the fake news excuse
will have little cachet outside of the echo chambers on the Left. It is a great
reminder of the over-the-top generosity the media has for President Obama and
other progressives. It shows the condescension that elite reporters have for
Americans who don’t share their views.
It is not an example of conservatives falling for a
“bogus conspiracy theory.” Far from it. This is an interesting media story, but
not the one that many reporters seem to think it is. And highlighting
Camerota’s condescension and unnecessary bias is not a way to get Americans to
regain trust with a media that should be trying desperately to improve its
reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment