COLORADO — The so-called “birther” movement has emerged from hibernation, leaving media outlets this spring to figure out how best to handle the foul beast: starve it, feed it, or something in between?
Reporters in the Denver area were recently faced with a variation on that question, when an elected official challenged President Obama’s identity as an American, and tiptoed around the false “birther” theory, which holds that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
At a May 12 fundraiser in conservative Elbert County southeast of Denver, Rep. Mike Coffman, an incumbent Republican seeking re-election to Congress, said: “I don’t know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don’t know that. But I do know this, that in his heart, he’s not an American. He’s just not an American.”
Coffman’s comments, recorded by a supporter who posted them on Facebook, soon landed on the desk of Kyle Clark, an investigative reporter and co-anchor at KUSA-9News in Denver. Clark promptly ran with the story, reporting on both Coffman’s remarks and his partial backtracking—when Coffman’s staff realized 9News had the recording, the congressman and ex-Marine released an email apologizing and saying he “misspoke” at the fundraiser, though he added, “I don’t believe the president shares my belief in American Exceptionalism.”
Over the following week, the episode was fodder for local and national media, as well as for Coffman’s rival in the redrawn—and no longer safely Republican—6th Congressional District, Democrat Joel Miklosi, who trails Coffman in fundraising and in the polls. (Clark’s original story noted that the station was tipped off to the recording by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which apparently saw an opportunity to use Coffman’s words against him.) Clark, who broke the story, was among the reporters trying hardest to advance it. He made five requests with Coffman’s staff to talk to the congressman, to no avail, Clark told CJR.
“We made it very clear that our strong preference was to do a sit-down interview at a time and place of their choosing and talk about this issue in depth,” he said, “and we made it clear that if they didn’t want to do a scheduled interview, then we were going to do an unscheduled interview.”
That “unscheduled interview” happened Tuesday, nearly a week after the story broke. Outside a fundraiser in downtown Denver, Clark and his cameraman approached Coffman and asked him a series of questions about his comments in Elbert County. To each inquiry—there were five in all—the congressman responded, “I stand by my statement that I misspoke, and I apologize.” (Coffman and his staff did not respond to requests for comment from CJR.)
Coffman’s robotic response was widely viewed as a public relations bomb. But the continuing media focus on the story might also rekindle a long-standing debate among journalists and press-watchers: Should reporters minimize fringe perspectives, since media coverage gives them added credence and fluency, and possibly motivation? Or should journalists, as First Amendment sentries, vow to report on everything that happens in the public square, especially when the lead actors are elected officials?
Clark said he pursued the story because he believes voters deserve an explanation for why Coffman behaved so curiously—first stating the president is “not an American,” then quickly backpedaling and saying he misspoke.
“Who is the real Mike Coffman?” Clark said in a phone interview with CJR Wednesday. “Is it the thoroughly moderate guy that we see on camera all the time, or is it the guy who was caught talking to donors behind closed doors when he didn’t know someone was recording? I think that’s what voters need to know, because many of them are voting for or against him for the first time.” (Viewer reaction, measured in social media and “dozens” of emails, has run about 50-50, Clark said. “Everything from you’re a journalism hero to Channel 9 should fire you today.”)
I suspect most journalists would agree that 9News was obliged to air the story, and keep following it, as part of its basic job of illuminating public officials’ words and deeds.
- 1
- 2
"Should reporters minimize fringe perspectives, since media coverage gives them added credence and fluency, and possibly motivation? "
So fringe it forced the POTUS to release his long form? So fringe that almost half of registered Republicans believe the POTUS was not born in the US?
The fringe is the new right. Report it.
#1 Posted by Jeff In Ohio, CJR on Mon 28 May 2012 at 08:49 PM
Yes god forbid anyone hold the government or its groups/arms to the fire for information... that will prove embarrassing at the least.
If not like "well proven facts" aren't being taken apart everyday by people with FOI.
"Chubb on ANU: 'no death threats except when journalists picked up the story'
"For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story."
So is this a media beat up? Can we now assume that this means that during Chubb's watch as Vice Chancellor, which ended in March 2011 with the appointment of Ian Young, there were no death threats to climate scientists at ANU? If so, why are the ANU still insisting, through the ABC correction, that they did, in fact, receive such threats?"
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/chubb-on-anu-no-death-threats-except-when-journalists-picked-up-the-story/
It was "proven" that climate "scientists" were threatened with death repeatedly... of course until it was unproven by the truth coming out...but hey nothing to hide with obama...
#2 Posted by robotech master, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 01:54 AM
Coffman offered up the classic non-apology cloaked in birther code and whines that his own comments are a distraction from the real issues.
Since Coffman was recorded on video, his denial of ever questioning the citizenship of President Barack Obama is just plain false. Nor was Coffman truthful about his non answers to Clark in which he repeated the same rote answer as if he was testifying before a grand jury.
Coffman sends a veritable dog whistle by noting, "And I have said what I believe — that President Barack Obama is a natural born citizen." What dog whistle you ask? That would be the use of the phrase natural born. It seems everyone but birthers accepts that natural born really means native born. Coffman is still covertly claiming Obama is ineligible because extreme birtherism says both your parents must be US citizens to be President.
This same silly argument was used in court challenges in 2008 to Obama's candidacy. It was laughed out of court and the case was dismissed. Nonetheless, inside the mind of the birthers, the issue — like that of the birth certificate — has never been settled. The fact is those issues will never be settled with the birthers. Jesus himself could have personally filmed the birth of young Obama in that Honolulu hospital and the birthers would still claim the image was doctored.
#3 Posted by Dan Kurtz, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 09:23 AM
"inside the mind of the birthers"
Weird place that.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 11:09 AM
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN.
#5 Posted by Centurion, CJR on Sun 19 Aug 2012 at 04:03 PM