[mediawatch] ObamaMania

The DomPost Monday led its World section with the headline ObamaMania: Cult-style fervour and fainting at Obama rallies comes under fire.. Big above-the-fold placement with lots of art, it was presented as a big deal and worthy of serious attention. Looking a little closer, it just started to look like a beat-up.
It’s a Sunday Telegraph story – you can read the original online – subedited to about two-thirds the original length but keeping the original’s tone. The guts of the story is in the lede:

…for a growing number of Barack Obama sceptics, there is something disturbing about the adulation with which [he] is greeted as he campaigns for the White House – unnervingly akin to the hysteria of a cult, or the fervour of a religious revival.

It goes on to present evidence that the Obama campaign is on the brink of becoming a cult. Among this damning evidence:

• large numbers of people wait in line to see him!
• sometimes people rush the stage!
• people chant his slogan and it sounds rhythmic!
• sometimes people faint!

Yep, that sounds like a scary cult to me. Or perhaps any rock concert ever. And let’s look at the people expressing concern in this article, in order of appearance:

• Joe Klein (a Clinton-linked “fake liberal“)
• “a senior Obama official, who would talk only on condition of anonymity” (mm-hmmm)
• “Dr Sean Wilentz, a Princeton historian and stern critic of the current administration of George W.Bush” (according to Wikipedia, a family friend of Bill Clinton – see also this and this)
• “New York Times columnist David Brooks” (who is always wrong)(see also this)

It doesn’t come to much. This is an attempt to spin enthusiasm into a scary “cult of personality” charge, using lots of loaded terminology like “messiah” and “hysteria”. And is it really that hard to think of reasons why voters would be enthusiastic about Obama – say, the fact that for the last 20 years every PotUS has been either family Clinton or family Bush? Or, the fact that Obama made his name standing against Bush and the war in Iraq when hardly anyone else was making noise? Or, just the fact that he isn’t another in a very long series of white guys?
Even the weirdest-sounding bits in this piece are just noise.

“…volunteers are schooled to avoid talking to voters about policy, and instead tell of how they “came” to Obama, just as born-again Christians talk about “coming to Jesus.”

This sounds dramatic but it’s absolutely unremarkable marketing.

A brilliant speaker, Mr Obama often uses the rhetorical trick of rapidly repeating words and slogans and using catchy phrases that tend to attract young Americans, while having very little substance.

Every politician in the US wishes they could do the same – and besides, catchy slogans can sit alongside sound policy easily enough.
Finally, 700 words into the 1,000 word piece we get someone offering the sensible counterpoint:

In Mr Obama’s defence, Robert Caro, historian and biographer of President Lyndon Johnson, said: “Today, attacks on the cult of personality seem really to mean attacks on the ability to make speeches that inspire.”

Overall it’s a pretty rubbish article. The pity is that it’s been so eagerly propagated all around the world, and of course to the usual sewer.
The author, William Lowther, is no political shill – witness this revelation of a Cheney administration attempt to spark war with Iran. But I just don’t buy that this story emerged out his journalistic instinct. He was handed a story on a plate by someone wanting to get this message into circulation. The ‘catchy slogan, no substance’ bit is perfectly on message for the Clinton campaign. Dollars to donuts this is a Clinton staffer’s PR angle.
Lowther wrote a stupid article. It certainly shouldn’t have made it into prominence in the DomPost. We deserve better from our newspaper than this nonsense dressed up as current affairs journalism.