Misinterpreting President Obama
September 4, 2014
A few times during the last six years the Washington Pundit Corps (WPC) has led the charge in literally interpreting the words or context of words President Obama has spoken. Most recently, the President, in answering a reporter’s question about whether the administration would seek Congressional approval before bombing ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State) in Syria, indicated that approval should not be sought before we had a strategy. Pundits like Andrea Mitchell immediately jumped to the conclusion that the President meant we did not have a strategy for defeating ISIL.
A second example was the President’s response to another reporter’s question about Assad’s use of chemical weapons. The President replied that if it was proven that chemical weapons were used, his calculus [about Syria] would be changed. That statement was widely interpreted as Obama’s promise to intervene militarily in Syria if chemical weapon use were proven. Military intervention was certainly one response, but there were several other non-military responses. A third example occurred when President Obama said that business owners did not build their businesses by themselves. This was widely interpreted as an attack by President Obama on the free market system and a denigration of the entrepreneurial effort. In fact, a video of Senator Elizabeth Warren eloquently pointing out how individual success in the U.S. was always pre-conditioned on the contributions of the entire society had gone viral several days earlier. The President, apparently attempting to channel Senator Warren, did garble the message.
Why were the President’s words misinterpreted? A modicum of work by the WPC would have indicated what the President really meant. Perhaps ersatz news in the absence of something real to say suffices in today’s media world. Alternatively, perhaps the WPC heard words or contexts that were not there.
September 4, 2014
A few times during the last six years the Washington Pundit Corps (WPC) has led the charge in literally interpreting the words or context of words President Obama has spoken. Most recently, the President, in answering a reporter’s question about whether the administration would seek Congressional approval before bombing ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State) in Syria, indicated that approval should not be sought before we had a strategy. Pundits like Andrea Mitchell immediately jumped to the conclusion that the President meant we did not have a strategy for defeating ISIL.
A second example was the President’s response to another reporter’s question about Assad’s use of chemical weapons. The President replied that if it was proven that chemical weapons were used, his calculus [about Syria] would be changed. That statement was widely interpreted as Obama’s promise to intervene militarily in Syria if chemical weapon use were proven. Military intervention was certainly one response, but there were several other non-military responses. A third example occurred when President Obama said that business owners did not build their businesses by themselves. This was widely interpreted as an attack by President Obama on the free market system and a denigration of the entrepreneurial effort. In fact, a video of Senator Elizabeth Warren eloquently pointing out how individual success in the U.S. was always pre-conditioned on the contributions of the entire society had gone viral several days earlier. The President, apparently attempting to channel Senator Warren, did garble the message.
Why were the President’s words misinterpreted? A modicum of work by the WPC would have indicated what the President really meant. Perhaps ersatz news in the absence of something real to say suffices in today’s media world. Alternatively, perhaps the WPC heard words or contexts that were not there.
The “no strategy misinterpretation” imagines the President as ignorant, unable, and overly cautious. The failure to follow through on military intervention following the “chemical weapons” misinterpretation paints the President as unreliable. The “you-didn’t-build-it” misinterpretation colors the President as arrogant, hostile, and stupid (about business). Application of these and other pejorative descriptions have been used in the misinterpretation African American behavior for at least the last 60 years.
Allport and Postman (1944) in a study of rumor transmission asked whites to describe the behavior of the white and African American in the above cartoon. The actions of both men were systematically misinterpreted as the description was told and then retold. Eventually, the razor held by the angry white man who threatened a black man became a razor in the hand of a black man who threatened a benign white man.
In the next two years, if a normal human being, President Obama should misspeak again. Let’s see if there is a misinterpretation that fits the pattern established by previous misinterpretations
Allport and Postman (1944) in a study of rumor transmission asked whites to describe the behavior of the white and African American in the above cartoon. The actions of both men were systematically misinterpreted as the description was told and then retold. Eventually, the razor held by the angry white man who threatened a black man became a razor in the hand of a black man who threatened a benign white man.
In the next two years, if a normal human being, President Obama should misspeak again. Let’s see if there is a misinterpretation that fits the pattern established by previous misinterpretations