Per the Washington Post yesterday:
[A] Washington Post journalist on the scene confirmed…
Consider, for a moment, all the possible endings to this sentence. Go on, newspaper romantic! This is coming from the house the Grahams built! The birthplace of Woodward and Bernstein! Think urgent news—historic, even!
Now, here’s the actual rest of that sentence, as it appeared yesterday in the “politics and policy” section of washingtonpost.com:
.the first lady, who’s made a cause out of child nutrition, ordered a ShackBurger, fries, chocolate shake and a Diet Coke while the street and sidewalk in front of the usually-packed Shake Shack were closed by security during her visit.
Also? “According to nutritional information on Shake Shack’s Web site, the meal amounted to 1700 calories.”
Now, the Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates read this as the “dumbest news story ever written in human history” (also, apparently, the “most popular” news story for a time yesterday on the Post’s site ) but let’s not forget the Post’s exclusive report from the summer of 2003 that “First Lady Laura Bush, who’s made a cause out of family literacy, watched back-to-back Full House re-runs on the East Wing TV.” (Ok, not really.)
Coates and others have already written smart things (invoking Jay Rosen, even) explaining exactly why the Post’s First Lady Eats Burger report was less than well done journalism. Such as this, from The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer:
On the scene! Yes, this is incredibly dumb—but it’s a symptom of a journalistic culture that values catching a political figure in an act of hypocrisy far more valuable than evaluating the impact of their actual political views. The former, as Jay Rosen might put it, allows the reporter to maintain “innocence” because they’re attacking a pol for a nonideological sin, while dealing with the facts of policymaking might actually force a reporter into “taking a side” on whose version of reality more closely resembles planet Earth.
With the serious media criticism already spoken for (except, I don’t concede, as above, that this was an actual “act of hypocrisy” on Mrs. Obama’s part, in that she promotes healthy eating, not, um, never eating anything unhealthy eating) I am left to ferret out the highlights in the press coverage of Shake Shack-gate to date.
Fox & Friends, alone among cablers, picked up the news of Mrs. Obama’s Less Than Lean Lunch this morning.
Tease number one, delivered by Fox’s Steve Doocy:
The First Lady promotes healthy eating, so why is she loadin’ up her plate with nearly 1600 calories worth of burgers, fries and a shake?
Doocy’s second tease, a few minutes later:
The First Lady gives us a lesson in healthy eating: a big juicy burger, fries and a shake to the tune of nearly 1600-calories. [Laughter]
And, the “story,” in its entirety, moments later—and accompanied by this image:

1700! That was how many calories were in this meal Michelle Obama ordered from the Shake Shack down in DC. She got a burger, fries, shake and Diet Coke. The First Lady said treating yourself occasionally to a big meal like that is okay as long as you do it in moderation .
.Other people said that scarfing down a big meal like that is not okay—hog-like, in fact—even in moderation. Nah, Fox didn’t include that last bit. But ABC News did!
ABCNews.com today advanced the story of the First Lady’s Fatty Fatty Food Run, reporting :“Michelle Obama’s Shake Shack Burger Indulgence Defended by Nutritionists.” (Except for one expert ABC News found who offered this “via email” condemnation: “Shake OR fries OR burger, not all 3 at once!”)
“Most experts,” though, told ABC News that an occasional indulgence is fine and also that “the first lady’s lunch is being unnecessarily scrutinized” and also, added one expert sensibly, “She ordered it, but we don’t know how much she ate” and, also, as ABC News reminded itself:
The first Lady told ABC News’ Robin Roberts last year, “I love burgers and fries, you know? And I love ice cream and cake. So do most kids. We’re not talking about a lifestyle that excludes all that. That’s the fun of being a kid. That’s the fun of being a human.”

Maybe the story is 'dumb', but about an hour ago I got a front-door canvassing visit from some nice kids working for the local PIRG outfit, one of Ralph Nader's old subsidiaries. They wanted me to sign a petition protesting subsidies to 'agribusiness' in the name of rescuing children from - wait for it - childhood obesity. There are loads of stories like this attempting to show 'hypocritical' behavior on the part of political figures, so I didn't think Michelle Obama's calorie-busting lunch was all that out of line.
Conservative pundit Laura Ingraham correctly noted this morning on 'Today' that if she lit a cigarette during her interview with Matt Lauer, all sorts of alarms would go off and other fussiness would occur. I can't think of anything the Left regards as 'non-political', so I'd be interested in why journalists on the Left make exceptions for their own side - it happens regarding sexual and economic behavior all the time.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 12 Jul 2011 at 08:18 PM
You sure don't see Michelle Obama tweeting her B.M.I. tallies after her workouts with the personal trainer she flies in from Chicago a couple of times a week (dumping a few tons of atmospheric CO2 in the process).
But maybe her vegetable garden lets her take some carbon offset credits, huh? And the CO2 will certainly make the cucumbers grow faster..
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 12 Jul 2011 at 08:32 PM
I think everyone is forgetting the fact that the Shake Shack is delicious and practically irresistible. The FLOTUS is human after all and isn't completely impervious to Danny Meyer's culinary charms.
#3 Posted by CJN, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 01:05 PM
I have to disagree with Mark on this one .. who cares what the FLOTUS does, she isn’t the president and I think the presidents family should be ignored for reasons of privacy and irrelevance to policy. But I cant help recalling the dearth of articles from CJR when "mainstream and respectable" journalists were ejaculating over thier keyboards writing about the Bush daughters being caught drinking.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 01:14 PM
I agree with Mike H, and one up him. Every foible of the Palin family does not constitute a news story.
It's a soap opera. Keep it off the news.
PS. Stories like this get the Drudge/Breitbart links:
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2011/02/hudnall-lash-under-fire-for-political-cartoon/
so stories like these will continue to be printed.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 12:18 AM
I don't generally care what the First Lady does, except to the extent that it affects public policy:
"In signing a new law today to improve the quality of school lunches, President Obama paid joking tribute to its most prominent supporter: first lady Michelle Obama.
"Not only am I very proud of the bill," the president said, "but had I not been able to get this passed, I would be sleeping on the couch."
Mrs. Obama, whose major issues include fighting childhood obesity, laughed and said, "let's just say it got done, so we don't have to go down that road."
The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a $4.5 billion measure, provides more free school meals to the pool, and gives the government more power to decide what foods can offered in those meals, as well as in school vending machines and fundraisers during school hours."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-signs-law-requiring-healthier-school-meals/1
Noting the Obamas' typical "let them [not] eat cake" liberal hypocrisy is fair game.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 07:38 AM
Where's the perspective. If you're going to focus on what a person consumed, looked at the entire food cycle for the day. What was consumed for breakfast, lunch and dinner. What was the agenda for the day? Did she slump out of bed, go to the burger joint, eat, and then return back to bed? Did she have a busy day? Was this burger "breakdown" planned? Was it a "reward"?
There are more pressing things in the lives of everyday Americans. So, if you jump on the bandwagon, lay out the entire wagon to give perspective on the caloric consumption for the entire day.
#7 Posted by Michael Douglas, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 11:51 AM
Where's the perspective?
If you're going to focus on what a person consumed, looked at the entire food cycle for the day.
What was consumed for breakfast, lunch and dinner?
What was the agenda for the day?
Did she slump out of bed, go to the burger joint, eat, and then return back to bed? Probably never.
Did she have a busy day? Likely yes.
Was this burger "breakdown" planned? Was it a "reward"?
There are more pressing things in the lives of everyday Americans. So, if you jump on the bandwagon, lay out the entire wagon to give perspective on the caloric consumption for the entire day.
#8 Posted by Michael Douglas, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 11:54 AM
The question isn't whether Michelle Obama "deserved" a burger lunch, or whether the lunch blew her diet...
The point here is that when Michelle Obama wanted a ShackBurger, shake, fries and a soda for lunch... She went and got it...
A choice she wants to prevent others from having.
Typical liberal hypocrisy..
THAT is the point.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 02:40 PM
Unlike the good old days when President Reagan's administration decided that ketchup could be classified as a vegetable when determining whether school lunches were sufficiently nutritious, right? Nothing wrong with that picture.
I find this type of reasoning - "There are loads of stories like this attempting to show 'hypocritical' behavior on the part of political figures, so I didn't think Michelle Obama's calorie-busting lunch was all that out of line." - to be insipid. To put in in simple terms, two wrongs do not make a right.
#10 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 12:52 PM
I agree with Aaron..,
The typical Liberal scene of "fairness" equals "hypocrisy"
The way Michel Obama went and snatch 1700 calories delicious fatty sandwich from the Burgers King does not stop her from preaching about "stay healthy".
lifestyle to the rest of us.., of course this is only after she is done with her Tasty Fatty Lunch....:)
#11 Posted by Health Remedies Solutions, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 11:18 AM
Americans dont want anyone telling how to live and that includes the first lady as well
#12 Posted by Spurwing Plover, CJR on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 04:44 PM