Friday, May 18, 2012

Kenya: It's the Media Bias, stupid!

Breitbart.com has done it again, with yet another shocking find related to President Obama's past. I talked previously about the initial installment in Breitbart's "The Vetting" series. That piece focused in on a 1998 play in Chicago--The Love Song of Saul Alinsky--and a follow-up Q&A session with a variety of special guests, including then state senator Baraka Obama. Not Barack, but Baraka, a name that is more true to the Swahili language Barack derives from. As I noted then:
But prior to that, Obama went by the name "Barry" while in school. This Daily Beast story details the apparent transition from "Barry" to "Barack." Note that there is no mention of "Baraka" anywhere in it. And that's kind of perplexing, unless we allow that this poster (and press release) was some sort of aberration, that the name "Baraka" was an error (unlikely, though perhaps possible) or we allow that "Baraka" is something that needs to be buried.
The latest from Breitbart suggests it's the latter, that Obama was cultivating an image with the name "Baraka." For what has been uncovered by Breitbart is a booklet produced by Obama's literary agents in 1991--Acton and Dystel--that lists his place of birth as Kenya, not Hawaii:

(courtesy breitbart.com)

A principal at the President's current agency (Dystel and Goderich), one Miriam Goderich, claims to have been responsible for the "mistake":
"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me--an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more."
But it's a weird mistake to make, someone's nation of birth. And one would think that such a mistake would have been promptly corrected, for surely it would have been noticed. Are we supposed to believe Obama never even reviewed this bio of him? Because the basics of the bio--written when Obama was going to publish a book tentatively called Journeys in Black and White--were used by the agency until April, 2007. From an archived version of the agencies website, as uncovered by Breitbart:
BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.
Obama's birthplace was finally corrected at the end of April, 2007, just after he declared his candidacy for the Presidency.

In my view, there is little doubt that the Kenyan birth was an angle--a lie--being cultivated by the agency for purposes of promotion. And I think it unreasonable to assume Obama was ignorant of this; he must have known his place of birth was being misrepresented and he must have given tacit approval to that misrepresentation. It all fit a carefully crafted persona Obama was exploiting for personal and political gain, not unlike Elizabeth Warren and her (non) Cherokee heritage.

The thing is, stuff like this should have been out there years ago, given the anal exam most politicians are subjected to by the mainstream media, in its never-ending quest for scandals. But it wasn't. As I noted in another recent piece:
...Obama still enjoys widely favorable treatment from a great majority of the press. The process of vetting Romney has reached all the way back to 1965. Vetting Obama? We're lucky if the press goes back to 2009, now.
Negative stories abound on the past of conservative or Republican politicians like Romney, George Bush, and George Allen--mostly via heresay--yet the past of the current President remains very much a blank slate. This lie about a Kenyan birth was out there, right up through 2007, yet no one in the mainstream media stumbled upon it. And when people started claiming that Obama was actually born in Kenya, the mainstream media, the majority of political pundits, mocked them as "birthers," insisting that there was no evidence--zero--to indicate Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

Of course, there was such evidence, even if it was ultimately manufactured (for the benefit of Obama). And anyone seriously researching the President's past with the resources of a major news outlet could have found that evidence quite easily. But no one in the mainstream media came across these nuggets at Bretibart. Why not? The only reasonable explanation: they never made the effort, because--by and large--they're all too enthralled with the image of Barack Obama, an image that they ironically helped to create and still help to maintain. It's a sad commentary on the mainstream media, it really is. And it explains exactly why they're slowly but surely putting themselves out of business.

Cheers, all.

2 comments:

  1. "In my view, there is little doubt that the Kenyan birth was an angle.."

    And you build your argument from there.
    What is your criteria to believe any particular location to be Barry's birthplace?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's a birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii. I'm of a mind to accept it. I guess--if he were to release his school records--we'd have more info. There has to be a "place of birth" line on his Harvard application, I would think.

    But regardless, the media still has been giving him a pass since day one. This stuff was out there when Obama was a sitting Senator. Media peeps with major resources should have found it, long before now.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete