General Discussion

alp227

(32,016 posts) Fri Sep 7, 2012, 02:48 AM Sep 2012

The Guardian portrays Obama as "pleading" for votes...WTF?

In Google Reader I saw the headline of the article in British newspaper The Guardian summarizing President Obama's DNC acceptance speech. My first reaction upon seeing "Barack Obama pleads with voters to let him finish the job" by Ewen MacAskill: PLEADS? PLEADS? That's the kind of word I'd expect reading something like the Daily Caller, Washington Times, or New York Post. Seems that the headline feeds into the right wing narrative that Obama is "desperate" for re-election and has nothing to run on. And as I point out later the Guardian didn't portray Romney or Bush as "pleading for votes".

Contrast the Guardian title with these other headlines:
- "Obama Makes Case for 2nd Term: 'Harder' Path to Better Place" (NY Times)
- "In Democratic convention speech, Obama vows 'our problems can be solved' - with more time" (Washington Post)
- "'Our challenges can be met': Obama asks for 'common effort, shared responsibility'" (Charlotte Observer, the local newspaper where the DNC took place)

Meanwhile, Fox News wasn't as harsh as the Guardian, with a headline, "Obama presents himself as 'tested' leader in convention speech, says 'hope' still alive".

However, other right wing news sources were sure to put in the anti-Obama spin in the headline, like the Washington Times (whose owner Sun Myung Moon recently died), adding the subtitle "President accepts  party nomination  with promises of 2008 yet to keep" under the headline "Obama appeals to voters for more time". The Daily Caller went even crazier: "[link: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/07/obama-convention-speech-promises-broad-government-role-in-americans-lives/|Obama convention speech promises broad government role in Americans’ lives]". Drudge Report linked to the NY Times story with the headline "I'M NOT DONE YET".

As for the Guardian, last week Ewen MacAskill titled his article about Romney's RNC acceptance speech a rather neutral "Mitt Romney acceptance speech: I'm the real hope and change". The front page of the Sept. 3, 2004 edition of The Guardian had the headline "Bush: war on terror will not cease" (followed by an online-only article "Bush vows to protect America&quot . And on Sept. 5, 2008, MacAskill wrote this article for the Guardian: "US election: Let's work together to fix America's problems, McCain urges".

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Guardian portrays Obama as "pleading" for votes...WTF? (Original Post) alp227 Sep 2012 OP

They're trolling for readers. It's what newspapers do. nt phasma ex machina Sep 2012 #1

Respond to the Guardian directly... and-justice-for-all Sep 2012 #2

Well, HubertHeaver Sep 2012 #3

it could be one of these lost in translation things, i can see why they would say plead if someone a loli phabay Sep 2012 #4

It's not that uncommon in their headlines muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #6

yup thats what i infer when i see the word plead, as i said i think its a difference in language loli phabay Sep 2012 #7

The Guardian is no longer a progressive newspaper; it's full-out neocon, now. leveymg Sep 2012 #5

Where have you got "out in front of the charge toward a wider war in the Mideast" from? muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #8

phasma ex machina

(2,328 posts)

1. They're trolling for readers. It's what newspapers do. nt

Reply to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 02:50 AM

Sep 2012

and-justice-for-all

(14,765 posts)

2. Respond to the Guardian directly...

Reply to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 02:55 AM

Sep 2012

write them and tell them how wrong they are.

HubertHeaver

(2,522 posts)

3. Well,

Reply to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 02:55 AM

Sep 2012

he did ask for our votes. I guess a Limey could interpret that as pleading. He would be wrong, of course.

loli phabay

(5,580 posts)

4. it could be one of these lost in translation things, i can see why they would say plead if someone a

Reply to HubertHeaver (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 02:57 AM

Sep 2012

asks for something, it dosent neccessarily mean to beg but can be to ask.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,306 posts)

6. It's not that uncommon in their headlines

Reply to loli phabay (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 06:26 AM

Sep 2012

Greek PM pleads for more time, but told to wait
Syrian regime pleads with Russia for economic aid
Cameron pleads for coalition unity
Noam Chomsky pleads with Hugo Chavez to free judge in open letter
Spain's prime minister pleads for help from EU and ECB as yields climb
World Bank boss pleads with rich nations to dig deep and help poor
UK pleads with US to offer greater cuts in emissions at Copenhagen
Disabled peer pleads against legalising assisted suicide
Barack Obama pleads with Congress to pass historic climate change bill

Typical primary dictionary definitions (apart from the legal meanings) are:
"To make an earnest appeal, entreaty, or supplication; to beg, implore." (Oxford Eng Dict)
"to make an impassioned or earnest request or appeal to somebody" (Penguin Eng Dict)
"to appeal earnestly to them for it" (Chambers 21st Cent Dict)
"to appeal earnestly or humbly (to)" (Collins Eng Dict)

"Earnest appeal" is the common meaning. I don't think too much should be read into this headline.

loli phabay

(5,580 posts)

7. yup thats what i infer when i see the word plead, as i said i think its a difference in language

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #6)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 06:29 AM

Sep 2012

earnest appeal is a good descriptor.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

5. The Guardian is no longer a progressive newspaper; it's full-out neocon, now.

Reply to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 05:19 AM

Sep 2012

Tragedy, really, as it was once one of the finest voices of the Left-green opposition before coming under new editorial control. Now, it's out in front of the charge toward a wider war in the Mideast, and apparently has taken the Netanyahu line on Obama.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,306 posts)

8. Where have you got "out in front of the charge toward a wider war in the Mideast" from?

Reply to leveymg (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 06:42 AM

Sep 2012

Here, for example, is their latest editorial on Syria: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/syria-long-war-ahead-editorial

Nothing there advocating war. Here's their commentary on Syria, both editorials and individuals: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/syria

I can't see anything there about a "charge toward a wider war". They seem consistent in calling for dialogue and cooperation between countries in the region.

Here's their commentary on Iran: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree+world/iran

"Taken the Netanyahu line on Obama"? No, far from it:

Barak's case for an airstrike now is peppered with inconsistencies – not least the calculation that if Israel attacked, Iran would be rational enough not to retaliate against US military targets in the Gulf and hence the regional war everyone feared would not materialise. This confidence is not shared by his military chiefs. But to take Barak's war-gaming at face value, if Iran were rational enough to contain its response, it would prove that deterrence works for a state Netanyahu continues to describe as an irrational actor motivated by messianism. If Barak is right, the deterrence of mutually assured destruction would work all the more if Iran acquired a bomb, particularly as Israel has several hundred of them.

Loud talk of an impending airstrike could be no more than an attempt to twist Washington's arm. If it is, nothing should stiffen Barack Obama's resolve to prevent it happening more than the thought that Netanyahu is not just playing politics in his own country but in America too. Netanyahu foolishly dares Obama not to cast his veto, because if he did, Mitt Romney his Republican challenger would make hay with the idea that the Democat in the White House endangers Israel's security. This lever will no longer work after the election, hence the November deadline. Even as bluff it is dangerous, and eminently combustible in a tinder-dry Middle East.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/14/israel-iran-game-of-bluff-editorial

Reply to this discussion