I probably rely on The New York Times too much for my information. I’m already an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama so I should probably pick up an opposition publication. Even as an Obama fan, however, I have a sense that the Obama administration, with the complete compliance of the The New York Times, has successfully portrayed its foreign policy negotiations as much sexier than they really are.
For example, last October Turkey and Armenia signed an agreement to normalize relations, which have been tense ever since several hundred thousand Armenians died as a result of forced exile from Turkey (there’s a more concise word for these events, but it’s a little touchy). In The New York Times’ coverage of the negotiations, it was “a bracing taste of down-to-the-wire, limousine diplomacy” for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The article refers to Clinton’s role as “performing triage.” Consider this wording: “Sitting in a parked, black BMW sedan at a hilltop hotel here, with aides thrusting papers at her, Mrs. Clinton worked two cell-phones at once.” Were there explosions?
There was a similar excitement in reporting of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, which reads:
“Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret. The intrusion led to new talks that cemented central terms of the deal, American officials said.”
The image of Obama “bursting” into a meeting seems very Hollywood to me. Imagine Shaft handling geopolitics. One has to be suspicious given that Obama administration officials were the source. To The New York Times’ credit, it also quoted a Brazilian leader who wouldn’t say that Obama was uninvited.
Most recently, The New York Times’ reporting of negotiations between President Obama and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia over the “New Start” arms reduction agreement characterizes Obama as a tested and resolved world leader. The article describes a phone conversation that went poorly between the two, in which Obama effectively hung up on his counterpart. “Some of his advisors had never seen him so mad,” it reads. From there the Russian leadership is portrayed as devious, testing the young president’s nerve, “suspecting he was weak and certain it could roll over him.” Almost sounding like a movie trailer narration, the article continues, “they misjudged how far they could get him to bend.”
Later President Obama sounds increasingly like a casual commander, averting existential threats for dinner. In a conversation over monitoring each other’s weapons systems, the article reads:
“Let’s just do it on an annual basis,” Mr. Obama proposed spontaneously.
“I don’t see any problem with that,” Mr. Medvedev said.
Mr. Obama turned to his own advisers and asked, “You guys good with that?”
And fittingly the end of the piece presents President Obama both victorious and amiable:
“Ultimately, Russia backed down . . . By Friday, the two presidents set aside the discord underlying those statements. Speaking on the phone, according to an American official, they congratulated themselves on breaking through the mistrust. ‘If you want something done right,’ Mr. Medvedev began in English, and Mr. Obama finished his thought: ‘you do it yourself.”’
Cue music.
It’s obviously the administration’s prerogative to advertise an image of President Obama’s strength in foreign policy, but The New York Times is a very willing partner. I’ve personally singled out the publication, but I haven’t investigated whether other newspapers have been more skeptical toward the same events. It’s also important to note that all three articles have different authors, so there isn’t a New York Times reporter personally crafting Obama’s legacy.
As the complicity of the news media in 2002 with the run-up to the Iraq War has shown, journalists need to be critical. If there’s one leader I trust with too much power over the media, it’s Barack Obama, but I suspect that one day I’ll pick up a book about his presidency and find out how his foreign policy really happened.
Links to the three articles, in the order in which they are discussed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?pagewanted=2&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27start.html?pagewanted=all
After reading U.S. journalism on Armenian-Turkish relations since 2005, I find it's all overheated. Every year they tell me the border will open, and every year it stays closed.
ReplyDelete