MSNBC has serious discussion about Obama's name

Rick Moran
Mediaite points out that the "really deep" discussion dealt with the need to call him "President Barack Obama" every time a reporter mentions his name:

On Friday, MSNBC's The Cycle investigated the outrage directed at cohost Steve Kornacki, as well as other journalists, for referring to President Barack Obama simply as "Obama" after the first reference. Seriously and without irony, this happened. And the hosts of The Cycle performed this auspicious duty without screaming obscenities or throwing objects into the cameras. It is a feat that I doubt I could replicate.

Kornacki says he was inundated by angry emails and tweets from the president's supporters after he referred to Obama on the second reference as simply "Obama."

Rather than dismiss this nonsensical and embarrassing zealotry off hand, he engaged his detractors in a reasoned way. He explained writing style, and how reporters and opinion writers - including those at the New York Times - will most often only use formal titles in the first reference to an individual. Thereafter, the person is most often simply referred to only by their last name.

Kornacki noted that many of the individuals criticizing him were African-American, and he likened their pride in the president to the pride shared by Irish and Catholic Americans in President John F. Kennedy.

Krystal Ball said that it was understandable that Obama's supporters became incensed over the supposed slight by Kornacki because he has been so disproportionately disrespected compared to other presidents. She noted that she is also guilty of being overprotective of female officeholders, sometimes insisting that they be addressed by their full titles.

Has (President Barack) Obama been "disproportionately disrespected compared to other presidents?" Allah provides the necessary smack down on that ridiculous statement:

Ask Bill Clinton or George Bush about that. If I recall lefty blogging circa 2006 correctly, Dubya was some sort of chimpanzee who'd evolved into Hitler. If you ever watched five minutes of Olbermann, you know how "respected" the president was on this network; if you've watched five minutes of Matthews or O'Donnell or Martin Bashir, you know how respected President Romney would have been. (Here's a clue.) Strong partisans have been loathing presidents from the other party since forever, and they reliably develop amnesia afterward about just how much loathing there was. If calling Bush "Bush" is okay but calling Obama "Obama" isn't, then you're copping to a double standard for Bambi. And it's one that'll do him and other minority politicians who deserve equal treatment from voters more harm than good long-term.

Even sainted George Washington experienced a kind of loathing by Jeffersonians toward the end of his second term. Hatred by the opposition goes with the job and trying to quantify how miuch hatred is directed toward a particilar president compared to others is an exercise in absurdity.

Absurd Obama worship is right up MSNBC's alley.

 


Mediaite points out that the "really deep" discussion dealt with the need to call him "President Barack Obama" every time a reporter mentions his name:

On Friday, MSNBC's The Cycle investigated the outrage directed at cohost Steve Kornacki, as well as other journalists, for referring to President Barack Obama simply as "Obama" after the first reference. Seriously and without irony, this happened. And the hosts of The Cycle performed this auspicious duty without screaming obscenities or throwing objects into the cameras. It is a feat that I doubt I could replicate.

Kornacki says he was inundated by angry emails and tweets from the president's supporters after he referred to Obama on the second reference as simply "Obama."

Rather than dismiss this nonsensical and embarrassing zealotry off hand, he engaged his detractors in a reasoned way. He explained writing style, and how reporters and opinion writers - including those at the New York Times - will most often only use formal titles in the first reference to an individual. Thereafter, the person is most often simply referred to only by their last name.

Kornacki noted that many of the individuals criticizing him were African-American, and he likened their pride in the president to the pride shared by Irish and Catholic Americans in President John F. Kennedy.

Krystal Ball said that it was understandable that Obama's supporters became incensed over the supposed slight by Kornacki because he has been so disproportionately disrespected compared to other presidents. She noted that she is also guilty of being overprotective of female officeholders, sometimes insisting that they be addressed by their full titles.

Has (President Barack) Obama been "disproportionately disrespected compared to other presidents?" Allah provides the necessary smack down on that ridiculous statement:

Ask Bill Clinton or George Bush about that. If I recall lefty blogging circa 2006 correctly, Dubya was some sort of chimpanzee who'd evolved into Hitler. If you ever watched five minutes of Olbermann, you know how "respected" the president was on this network; if you've watched five minutes of Matthews or O'Donnell or Martin Bashir, you know how respected President Romney would have been. (Here's a clue.) Strong partisans have been loathing presidents from the other party since forever, and they reliably develop amnesia afterward about just how much loathing there was. If calling Bush "Bush" is okay but calling Obama "Obama" isn't, then you're copping to a double standard for Bambi. And it's one that'll do him and other minority politicians who deserve equal treatment from voters more harm than good long-term.

Even sainted George Washington experienced a kind of loathing by Jeffersonians toward the end of his second term. Hatred by the opposition goes with the job and trying to quantify how miuch hatred is directed toward a particilar president compared to others is an exercise in absurdity.

Absurd Obama worship is right up MSNBC's alley.