2011/05/06 at 4:23 am (magazine, politics)
Tags: Barack Narcissus Obama, I, National Review, Victor Davis Hansen
Victor Davis Hansen on the The First-Person Presidency. He does some cogitatin’ about Obama’s obsession with personalizing the Presidency, as illustrated by his constant use of first person singular:
Most of these first-person pronouns could have been replaced by either the first-person plural (our, we) or proper nouns (the United States, America). But they reflect a now well-known Obama trait of personalizing the presidency.
The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.
Two, there is the small matter of hypocrisy. The protocols for taking out Osama bin Laden were all established by President Bush and all opposed by Senator and then candidate Obama. Yet President Obama never seeks to explain that disconnect; indeed, he emphasizes it by the overuse of the first person. When the president reminds us this week of what “over the years I’ve repeatedly made clear,” does he include his opposition to what he now has institutionalized?
2011/04/23 at 7:40 am (magazine)
Tags: Atklantic Monthly, Atlantic Monthly, depression, obama, stigmas
Says the Atlantic Monthly : “Americans are quite pessimistic these days, and this gloomy photo of President Obama sitting with advisers in a dark room probably won’t cheer them up.”
2010/07/20 at 10:04 pm (magazine, media, newspapers)
Tags: John Judis, Jonathan Zasloff, Journolist, media, obama media, press
More crap dredged up from “JournoList“, reported by Daily Caller. “Journalists” think that the government should step in an squelch disagreeable free speech and pres:
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”
And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”