Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOnce again those intrepid investigative reporters at The New York Times are hard at work.This morning's above-the-fold, front-page expose: How much marijuana did Barack Obama really smoke in high school and college? Apparently, not enough.
After snooping around for classmates of Obama in high school and college, The Times seems concerned that the presidential candidate does not seem to have been as stoned out 30 years ago as readers of his book, Dreams from My Father, might have thought.
How's that for a hard-hitting revelation?
Writes The Times Serge Kovaleski: "Mr. Obama's account of his younger self and drugs ... significantly differs from the recollections of others. That could suggest he was so private about his (drug) use that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic."
Of course, it also could suggest that Mr. Kovaleski and The New York Times editors should consider doing some real reporting -- on real issues -- instead of ruminating mindlessly about what is a non-story to start.
Does The Times' brass really believe this kind of ungrounded guesswork is ethical reporting -- that this kind of Rupert Murdochian rumor-mongering belongs in a paper that once bragged it published only "all the news that's fit to print?"
Let's see. There must be something more newsworthy out there.
Perhaps The Times should try analyzng how the campaigns are positioning themselves for the final push in a Democratic primary campaign that is neck and neck. Perhaps it should look in depth at who is pouring all that money into the coffers of the rival campaigns. Or then again, it could re-examine other stories that regularly appear and disappear these days without resolution, stories such as whether the United States is continuing the covert practice of extraordinary rendition - kidnapping people off the street and whisking them away to prisons in third-world dictatorships.
But no. It seems Obama's reefer madness ... NOT ... is more important. Mr. Kovaleski digs deep. He notes that he interviewed three dozen "friends, classmates and mentors" from Obama's Hawaiian high school and Occidental College in Los Angeles.
Why he bothered, given Obama's own brief acknowledgement in his book of youthful indiscretion, is a serious question in itself. This very tired story already has led to the resignation of Hillary Clinton's campaign co-chair in New Hampshire for a snide comment about the drug connection and loud complaints about another prominent Clinton supporter for his remarks about Obama in South Carolina.
What's more extraordinary, however, is that after investigating this story and finding essentially nothing new worth writing about, The Times invented a theory, out of thin air and thinner evidence, that questions Obama's integrity. That, quite simply, is bad journalism. Really bad journalism.
Of course, Mr. Kovaleski couldn't have written this conjecture unless his editors had allowed him to. So let me ask them: Why would a man with aspirations to be president some day write a book in which he exaggerates his childhood drug use? Hmmm. Good question.
The answer: It defies logic.
But then, so does the entire premise of The Times article.
Jerry Lanson is an associate professor of journalism at Emerson College in Boston. He can be reached at jerry_lanson@emerson.edu.
24 Comments so far
Show AllSo, it's OK to have once been a long-term falling down shitface drunk and aficionado of coke but ooooooooooh, no, WEED?! Who cares if Obama smoked weed? Who cares if he inhaled? The God fearing, family values Republicans knew Bush was a heavyweight dipso and it didn't stop them from voting for him. Why should the blackshirt The New York Tombs care if Obama once got stoned? Because they want McCain to be the next Fuhrer. That's why.
If he touched drugs or even hung out with druggers without informing the police, then he has no place standing for president. This thing is not a "non-issue". The reason the Republicans are keeping quiet about it now is so that it doesn't become all talked out prematurely and therefore a "non-issue". If it's Obama v McCain in November, we can be sure that Obama's druggy iniquitous past will be given a lot of analysis by Fox TV and Drudge and the like. If it takes that to keep a man who had spliffs out of the White House then I can accept that. It's a shame because I see my self as a radical liberal and, much to my own outrage, I smoked a great deal of hashish in my youth.
as RichM alluded to above, with the seemingly endless months of campaigning ahead and serious discussion of most consequential events "off the table," this kind of crap will fill the public airwaves and consume oceans of ink, in an attempt to persuade people that their input is important.
Unfortunately, our politics here in the UK, have been filled with pathetic, purile articles such as this. We should surely be worried about more important aspects of a person's life, rather than forcing them to look back into their youth, and tell all, thereby risking alienation, or for them to invent stories, in order to make themselves popular with more "hip" people.
What does it really matter?
Australia 1983,with a federal election in progress,had the choice of an ineffective do-nothing Prime Minister,or a highly educated, ex head of the Unions of Australia.A confessed pisspot and womaniser,who told his story without bullshit and set a program for the future that in 2008 we are thankful for.Bob Hawke was his name and gained the respect of not only Australians but many other groups around the world.The American public would respond positively to an honest and intelligent politician,flaws and all.
Bush is dumb, lizard, and maybe nuts. He was conned by a bunch of smart, evil and definitely nuts people. The American people were conned into voting for him, basically because they had a knee-jerk reaction to Bill Clinton's and Monica's affair. Saw Clinton as a smart floozy and Bush as a dumb saint, and decided they'd rather have a dumb saint than a smart floozy for Pres. Wanted somebody to identify with, instead of lead the country. "Hey, I like this guy! He doesn't mess around with young interns, and neither do I. And he can't talk too good, neither, and I can't talk too good, either. And he even goes to church! I'm gonna vote for him!"
But Obama's not dumb, and neither is Hillary and neither is McCain. But maybe the people who vote for them are. Isn't that the real reason why we get the Presidents we vote for, because WE'RE dumb, and not them? If THEY were dumb, we'd be tricking them, but we're not, are we?
Dope heads are peaceful people. Alcohol and cocaine abusers (Bush) tend to be aggressive. If Obama were truly a dope head we could expect peaceful times, as we have had aggressive times with the alcoholic cocainemanous psychopath presently in the presidency. Obama is no dope head. He is aggressive and, as is the norm for winners of US presidential contests, not very bright. The fact that he's not very bright is the main problem. Hillary is probably more intelligent but not principled. McCain is downright obtuse, like most republican candidates. Overall, none of them have the intelligence required to solve problems creatively. They will use the same approach that exists now, with variations. The rest of the world will not do the same, and America will continue to fall behind in its quality of life. Already it is puzzling to see the US so far behind in health and knowledge, and increasingly hyperreligious. It seems it will only get worse.
Obama just said he smoked a little weed to get stoners and hippies to vote for him. It's to make him look cooler to the young people today because so many young people are hip to the whole liberal thing. Look at the top post; the first sentence says they would respect him more for smoking.
HaHaHaHaHa-------Once upon a time people runing for public office wold try to deny drug use (remmeber "I never inhaled")? Muckrakers would then go around trying to find out how much they really did. Now its front page news thqt Barack O really didn't! Looks like he failed the "regular guy test--can you really trust someone for President who didn't waste several years of his youth stined on drugs?
Let's all do the Hillary/Barack O Bush-Lite chant, "Tastes Great--Less Filling" Just keep shouting it at the top of your lungs till you feel nothing!
Looks like it's slow news season between the Superbowl and the start of baseball.
Thank you Rich M. for your insightful comments. Again the NYT is presenting editorial comment as news. A week ago their editorial page endorsed Hillary as the Democratic nominee, but this time they put it on the front page as news.
All those who truly believe in Barack Obama will reject this information mongering by the New York Times.
Barack Obama is for hope and change!!!
(Repeat 100 times)
Barack Obama is for hope and change!!!
What else do you need to know?
Maybe someone should investigate NYT "reporters" and "journalists" and find out what the hell they're smoking - clearly, the staff is filled with stoners and drunks, not just morons and puppets. Is this Serge Kovaleski a pothead? Has he ever been? Maybe he likes Vicodin and wine cocktails? A little snort in the bathroom when no one's looking? Let's out a few of them and see how well their careers proceed after that.
At least BO wasn't a failed drunk raising two kids until into his early forties...
I get it! Being a silver spoon addict and a liar and proven murderer is no hinderance to being appointed president, twice, but we can't be sure that a guy who may or may not have smoked some dope is presidential material. There is no human being, and few animals, who don't pass the mark set by Poppy and Mommy's favorite genetic discrepancy.
The New York Times used to be a love of mine. It seems like so long ago. I no longer see much use for it.
I don't know how old Obama was at the time, but who among us doesn't remember how BIG a deal it was when we smoked our first cigarette, or pot, took our first alcoholic drink, or had our first sexual adventure - especially if we were under fifteen when we did so? I still remember my firsts, and at seventy, they still remain A BIG DEAL in my memory bank, much greater, I'm sure than the actual act had been.
Does anyone with half a brain really care if someone smoked marijuana when they were a kid? Heck, I don't care if they still smoke marijuana.
I do care, however, if someone kills nearly a million people because they want the oil that's under the ground in the country those people live in, and if someone advocates torture and refuses to admit that global warming is a reality.
Simple support of the criminals in office who murdered 164,000 people in Iraq is a thousand times more heinious than smoking a splif. Parade these people's "choices" on the front page of your newspaper before going after the pot smoker. America's backward morality will be its downfall.
Aha! "OBAMA LIES ABOUT DRUG USE!" can be the headline. Readers will reach the desired conclusion.
Oh please! Smoking marijuana, underage beer drinking, having sex with the wrong person, staying up all night, sneaking out of the house to engage in whatever mischief one and one's friends can harnass up the courage to do, lying to your parent, dying your hair an odd shocking color, getting your ears pierced in defiance of your father, skipping class in high school or college is all part of growing up and learning about life in general. Hopefully, one, some or all of the above doesn't get you killed by your parents or someone else.
I would be mighty surprised if Senators Obama or Clinton had not done one or some of the above mentioned activities and probably ones even more interesting.
I frankly don't care. Youthful mistakes are not he same as indecency and certainly not a march backward. Just a part of growing up and maturing into an adult with some lessons learned.
If the Times were interested in publishing anything "fit" about Barak Obama and drugs, it would not be focussing on the narrative, truthful or embellished, of a young black man who "narrowly escaped" the typical fate of the young black man in America. It might have used its investigative resources to dig into Obama's record and views on the criminalization of marihuana and the draconian enforcement system that has resulted in the horrendous rate of incarceration of black men in our prisons and jails. Oprah or People Magazine can deal with this kind of personal narrative, as they go about the business of keeping our boobocracy entertained. We don't need the New York Times to do the same.
"TV shows must always have a robust respect and awe of the President. He must always be depicted as smart, tall, muscular, and handsome, and preferably shown riding a horse or driving an ATV through rugged terrain. Unless, of course, he is a weak-willed Democrat."
From "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual" just out from Three Rivers Press. A very funny -- and scary -- satire. The Department's motto: "We're marching proudly backwards to the future."
Check it out at www.homelanddecency.com
If a US presidential election is stolen in broad daylight, the NYT doesn't think it's news, and won't report it. Rather, their portrayal will be that "the system worked," democracy prevailed, & we should all move on without further ado.
If the US bombs another country based on lies about WMD, then it turns out that no WMD exist, the NYT doesn't find this to be particularly noteworthy, and turns its attention to other things. If the US tortures its prisoners, and the CIA destroys videotapes of some torture sessions, this, too, is not really newsworthy. The NYT will move on briskly, attempting to find a story more worthy of their attention.
If Enron cheats billions of dollars from the State of California, its employees & shareholders, and has the very closest ties to George W Bush & his entire cabinet, the NYT will docilely accept the White House line that "this was a business scandal, not a political scandal." No political repercussions should follow, by NYT logic.
If there is evidence that the president went AWOL from the Air Force, in 1973, the NYT will not consider this matter worthy of their investigative zeal. They'll help bury the story, & ridicule those who try to look into it.
If the NYT discovers that the president has been spying on Americans, in violation of the 1978 FISA law, it will sit on this information for over a year, causing Americans to vote in the 2004 election without knowledge of the crimes committed by the incumbent president.
But a blow job in the Oval Office, or a candidate who smoked weed when he was young -- now THAT'S NEWS!!
I would have more respect for Obama had he indulged more in his marijuana use. The Times article thus impacts my view of Obama by disappointing me in the discovery that he merely dabbled. I would like a President who really know what it is like to get stoned. He then might have more empathy for the hundreds of thousands--largely black--who are locked up for drug offenses in this country. Perhaps Obama's slight brush with smoking weed is enough for him to know what that is about, but I now have my doubts.
I'm 77. I smoked pot when I was in my 50s. I liked it. Made sex better too.
I guess I had better not run for the Presidency after all.