A Washington, DC press photographer vents about the political wranglings in our Nation's Capital.
A press we blindly follow in a political stupor.
Published on November 30, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In Politics
In keeping with my last article, I've decided the following is a law of nature:

If you repeat something often enough, people will decide it's true. Even smart people. People like the reporters at the Washington Post, who reported yesterday Barack Obama is a closeted muslim.

THAT urban legend has made its rounds through the world wide web, even prompting brain- dead CNN to run a spot in January saying, No, Obama was not educated at a Madrassa school while living with his parents in Indonesia.

Originally, Insight Magazine, owned by the same company as the conservative Washington Times and a competitior to the Washington Post, reported the allegations. They based the story on "anonymous sources" at the Clinton campaign. CNN then investigated, found the story had no merit, and ran their piece in January. That brings us to yesterday, when the Washington Post published a story claiming Obama was a closeted muslim, based on rumors and, you guessed it, more "anonymous sources".

Where the hell is professional reporting? When I worked for my college newspaper, if I would have written an article based soley on sources I couldn't name, I would have been FIRED. And, the Retriever, isn't exactly the Boston Globe. Do these people just sit at their desk and make this crap up? Incidentally, the Post's website today makes no hint of their own story.

Even if Obama was a Muslim, have we become so racist that we can't see the difference between fanatical anything and religion? I'm not suggesting America is ready to elect a black, muslim President: I am suggesting that even if a person is a practing Muslim that makes them no less scary in my mind than any other fundamentalist religion -- let's say -- EVANGELICALISM. But all this doesn't matter -- Obama isn't muslim. Period.

Facts, once again, have no meaning in people's brains. They hear what they want to hear, believe what they want to believe, and facts be damned.

I'm not even an Obama supporter. More and more this democrat likes McCain. I'm not fond of Obama because of his liklihood to withdrawl troops prematurely from Iraq. That opinion is based on what Obama has said, not made up crap passed off as investigative journalism.

The Post should be ashamed.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 04, 2007
But the article is not the one you refer to, King Bee.


i just went to huffington's site and chased their link to horse's mouth where i found this:

Okay, the Washington Post reporter who wrote today's front page article on the rumors that Obama is a Muslim has now responded to all the criticism of the piece he's been getting from readers and elsewhere today.

oooh the outrage!

here's where ya go when you click on 'front page article':

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

it's the exact same article you'll find by following my link.

did the post publish 2 of these or has one been modified since original publication?
i got no clue. i can't imagine it would have gone unnoticed or unremarked.
on Dec 04, 2007
the first step in chucking the handlers who feed YOU YOUR talking points.


apparently my handlers are messin up bigtime by stuffin me so full of talking points i'm defending the post from criticism by the likes of huffington, moveon.org and...oh yeah...drguy.
on Dec 04, 2007
did the post publish 2 of these or has one been modified since original publication?


this shoulda read: did the post publish 2 different articles about the same thing or has this one been modified since original publication?

on Dec 04, 2007
apparently my handlers are messin up bigtime by stuffin me so full of talking points i'm defending the post from criticism by the likes of huffington, moveon.org and...oh yeah...drguy.


I never said handlers had to be smart.
on Dec 05, 2007
I'm sorry, I've been swamped with work. I think what I saw was an edited version of this in the freebe version of the Post given out on the Metro. The edited version (STILL A POST PUBLICATION, MIND YOU) left a far greater impression as I've described above than this 'extended version'.

My gripe remains, even with the 'extended version', that the Post seems to give equal weight to arguments "for Obama being a Muslim" as the arguments against. Even the opening sentece: "In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama's biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world." it leaves the impression there are actually connections to the muslim world.

There are none. That's my point. No connections other than the fact that Obama didn't grow up in the USA. Then the third paragraph continues, "despite his denials, rumors,...." which sounds suspiciously like coverage of Larry Craig.

Even reading this "extended" article (clearly the source of the dumb downed version I read which is even worse) I am disgusted with the post. What the hell was this doing on the front page????? Gotta run!
M
2 Pages1 2