Last fall, the Washington Post published a story that discussed rumors about Obama being Muslim. The paper was criticized by the left, accused of lending credence to a smear.
Now a follow-up of sorts is being attacked by the right.
On the television in his living room, Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor’s house, at his son’s auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate’s background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
The reporter uncovers several examples, on the record, of such rumor-mongering.
“I think Obama would be a disaster, and there’s a lot of reasons,” said Pollard, explaining the rumors he had heard about the candidate from friends he goes camping with. “I understand he’s from Africa, and that the first thing he’s going to do if he gets into office is bring his family over here, illegally. He’s got that racist [pastor] who practically raised him, and then there’s the Muslim thing. He’s just not presidential material, if you ask me.”
To some conservatives, merely reporting what people say is elitist.
The WaPo article distills the elitist view of flyover country.
According to them, we’re supposed to genuflect before the God-fearing folk who inhabit “the Heartland,” even when they spew ignorance. Call it patronizing, or pandering, but it’s certainly dishonest.
Filed under: Obama, conservatism, journalism, partisanship
