Dinesh D’Souza has responded to my, uh, criticism of his smear piece that, shamefully, made the cover of Forbes with its claims that Obama is directed by a “Kenyan, anticolonial” worldview (as Newt Gingrich succinctly summarized it) that comes from his dad, whom Obama met once.
(White House Press Secretary Robert) Gibbs fired a second salvo a few days later, asking, “Why didn’t Forbes hire a fact checker…did they simply not care about the facts?” Gibbs offered no facts of his own, however. He merely linked to two web posts–one in the Columbia Journalism Review, one on “The Fourth Branch”–that disputed the article. The Columbia Journalism Review piece was high on invective (“the worst kind of smear journalism–a singularly disgusting work,” blah blah blah) but simply quoted large segments of the article as if they were self-evidently appalling–which of course they are to all confirmed Obamorons, who are only satisfied with hosannas and genuflections before the Anoined One.
Well, I did a lot more than quote it as if it were self-evidently appalling. Go read it yourself.
But I’ll admit I pulled up a bit on it. I could have written another 5,000 words dissecting D’Souza’s baloney. So here’s some bonus criticism.
Here’s D’Souza and Forbes:
Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: “Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling.” Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling—but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama’s backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro—not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.
I pointed out the other day one reason this was one of the most moronic paragraphs ever to appear in Forbes (which is saying something!).
Oil is fungible, dude. But also, the point of the Ex-Im loans, which were approved by Bush officials, is that they finance our exports. We lend foreigners money to buy our stuff and create jobs here. We do it all the time.
Oh yeah, and “Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.” That’s the Ex-Im Bank president writing last year in response to the fact-twisting Wall Street Journal editorial D’Souza cites.
In the paragraph immediately following that one, D’Souza pushes to break his own record in the annals of Forbes nonsense:
Obama railed on about “America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.” What does any of this have to do with the oil spill?
Hmm. We need lots of oil, so we keep going further afield to drill for it. When you drill in two-mile-deep water, it’s hard to plug a well. And so it gushes for three months. Is it really that hard to understand?
The next graph is just plain ignorant:
Obama’s Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed’s “stress test” was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.
See, there’s this thing called bank regulation. You have to keep a certain amount of capital to remain in good standing. Some banks didn’t have enough capital and posed risks to the entire financial system. Also, every bank that’s wanted to pay back their TARP funds has been allowed to do so. This is what happens when you rely on The Wall Street Journal editorial page—and a year-and-a half-old piece by a Fox anchor at that!—to find your arguments
And the next paragraph:
The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%.

So let me get this straight: mentioning the race of the subject makes the piece racist? Then Dreams from my Father is a racist work as well: it is heavily-laden with a discussion of Obama's own racial struggle.
The bottom line is you disagree with D'Souza's analysis of the book, so obviously you are going to find that he "completely misrepresent[s]" it.
Agree to disagree, or at least focus on facts, not opinion, and get on with it.
#1 Posted by Joe L-E, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 02:17 PM
"We need lots of oil, so we keep going further afield to drill for it. When you drill in two-mile-deep water, it’s hard to plug a well. And so it gushes for three months. Is it really that hard to understand?"
-Ryan makes a great case for drilling closer to the shore. Thanks Ryan!
The point D'Souza makes, which is valid, is that in Obama's speech on the oil spill he'd basically made a non-sequitor that was nothing more than an excuse to criticize America's reliance on those big bad fossil fuels. It was inappropriate on top of being nonsensical. Because in Ryan's world, he's surprised oil spills don't happen every day. He wishes they did happen every day, so we could close them down, lay off oil rig workers, and move to a society that relies on free love to energize us.
Sorry, Ryan,
#2 Posted by Oil Exec, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 02:41 PM
Kudos, Ryan. Another excellent piece debunking that horrendous piece of work. You seem to be the only journalist with the business reporting chops to go beyond the "Kenyan anticolonial worldview" smear and address the wealth of outright falsehoods in the piece. Do me a favor, find a way to keep these pieces together. I have a feeling we'll be debunking all these lies for a long long time to come, what with Gingrich commanding his national platform to peddle this swill.
The popcorn's nice, too!
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 02:44 PM
It's not a non sequitur when ever increasing oil demand is driving the pursuit of oil supply and the corruption of the regulation process which is supposed to oversee it.
If oil politics hadn't been a factor in overriding environmental alternatives, negligent regulation officiating, underwhelming climate change response, revenues for terrorist and radicals, and more than a couple of wars and coups to guarantee fuel access, then I guess you'd have a point. But oil politics has done all of that and allowed a preventable disaster to take place in the Gulf of Mexico and the reason why Oil Politics has so much power is because of "America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels".
If we don't address the cause of these problems, we cannot prevent them.
But hey, let's hear it from the pres for full context and see if Dinesh has a point from his ex-hindu radical world view.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill
"So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.
For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.
The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.
We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny."
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 03:04 PM
Only Thimbles would link to an Obama speech like it was the paragon of truth. LOL
You guys keep missing the point of D'Souza's article. Obama craps on oil and gas exploration in the U.S., but then guarantees loans for an offshore project in Brazil. That's the whole point.
#5 Posted by Jim Bo, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 03:18 PM
Uh, if you post under multiple names and get obscene and spam my inbox with literally 500 emails, you're deleted and banned, just fyi
#6 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 03:30 PM
Hey Ryan, you DO know that Obama, Jr. learned a great deal about his father second-hand through his relatives, right? You may not know this, but in other countries, particularly the poorer one's, there is a thing called the oral tradition. We learn about people and life through these stories we're told about our elders; especially our fathers and grandfathers. It's an effective way of mythologizing a person and romanticizing their lives. A person wouldn't have to be physically alive for us to gain respect, admiration, and, later in our lives, to make that person into an "inspirational hero".
To be sure, Obama saw his father in a well-rounded light, warts and all. But when you hate your father, you don't take on and absorb their political ideology as your own, as Obama has done. You usually do the exact opposite. Obama definitely has some kind of an ideological kinship with his father. Anyone with a foreign background can relate (which means, you have no idea what I'm even talking about). That's the whole problem: white liberal guilters like Ryan who can't read Obama properly but profess to be experts.
#7 Posted by Aziz Sharaway, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 03:42 PM
Oh yeah, and “Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.” That’s the Ex-Im Bank president writing last year in response to the fact-twisting Wall Street Journal editorial D’Souza cites.
So let’s see if we can keep this story straight because we have several different stories all converging into one. The Obama administration had nothing to do with the initial loan from the Ex-Im Bank, it was a holdover from the prior administration. Even if it wasn’t, the Ex-Im Bank is a non po0litical creature and wasn’t involved in the decision anyways. But these loans guarantees are a good thing because they support US manufacturers, so why is anyone complaining? Then why Ex-Im Bank, now run by Obama appointee Fred Hochberg, try to squash a loan guarantee to Milwaukee based Bucyrus, which could have cost up to 1000 jobs, just to renege later when Wisconsin dems pressured the White House? Oh, that’s right, the whole “environmental standards” thing. And if pressure on Obama Wisconsin dems caused the Ex-Im Bank to reverse its Bucyrus decision couldn’t it also be used to stop the deadly and environmentally unfriendly deepwater drilling that Obama has banned in the US? So why then has the Ex-Im Bank, under Obama appointed leadership this time, loaned $1 billion in 2009 and another $1 billion in 2010 to PEMEX for several deepwater drilling projects? Doesn’t deepwater drilling conflict with that whole “environmental standards” thing that the Ex-Im Bank citied in its reasoning for killing the loan guarantee for Bucyrus? Didn’t the Obama administration place a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the United States?
What we have here is an administration that’s has financed deepwater drilling in Brazil, as more loan guarantees have been made to Petrobras since April of 2009, as well as while placing a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the US (claiming it was a recommendation of the deepwater drilling commission he set up, when no such recommendation was made) and making it significantly more difficult to drill on land in the US.
I’d say while D’Souza didn’t have the specifics of the case he cited, the overall pattern he demonstrated is far closer to the truth than anything Mr Chittum cribbed from Media Matters.
Hmm. We need lots of oil, so we keep going further afield to drill for it. When you drill in two-mile-deep water, it’s hard to plug a well. And so it gushes for three months. Is it really that hard to understand?
Then why is the Obama administration underwriting the practice in Mexico? Cognitive dissonance much? Don’t get me wrong, there’s a whole host of reasons that we should support PEMEX, not least of which being the collapse of the Mexican government it PEMEX doesn’t reverse its declining production, but doesn’t this all smell a shade hypocritical?
See, there’s this thing called bank regulation. You have to keep a certain amount of capital to remain in good standing. Some banks didn’t have enough capital and posed risks to the entire financial system. Also, every bank that’s wanted to pay back their TARP funds has been allowed to do so. This is what happens when you rely on The Wall Street Journal editorial page—and a year-and-a half-old piece by a Fox anchor at that!—to find your arguments
Wasn’t the rationale behind having all banks receive TARP funds, regardless of whether or not they needed the liquidity, was to provide a blanket of anonymity to all the banks? Otherwise if only the banks that really needed the money took it, they would signal to their depositers that they were in far worse shape than it appeared further undermining their position. The banks that didn’t need the money took it as part of this agreement, but this wasn’t a contractual agreement, was it? Were they
#8 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 03:45 PM
Mike, i think it would probably be easier for Ryan if he just admitted he voted for Obama and gets deranged whenever He gets the slightest bit of criticism.
#9 Posted by Aziz Sharaway, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 04:07 PM
This tweet by Chittum is particularly foul and ignorant: "anticolonialism is anti-American? tell that to Washington, Jefferson, Payne, Madison, et al, Mr. D'Souza."
Chittum doesn't understand the difference between anti-colonialism in developing countries in the 20th century and the anti-British sentiment of colonials in the 18th century. The man isn't simply ignorant, he's Palin-like.
#10 Posted by Aziz Sharaway, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 04:47 PM
Mr. Chittum: Regarding the Ex-Im bank topic -
While I believe most Forbes readers understand the stated role of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the "nonbinding preliminary commitment of $2 billion in financing" is fairly unusual. Indeed, based on their own press releases, the Bank only mentioned three such "Preliminary Commitments" from 2000 to 2008:
1. $20 million for Malden Mills - 2003
2. $5 billion for Westinghouse Electric - 2005
3. $400 million for Boeing - 2006
In contrast to these three previous "Preliminary Commitments" the news release for the Petrobras commitment does not specify any specific U.S. exporter or group of exporters: "Ex-Im Bank anticipates that this preliminary commitment will give Petrobras the opportunity to identify potential U.S. exporters for its projects over the next two years."
In early 2010 another $ 1 billion "Preliminary Commitment" was approved "to help finance the sale of goods and services from various U.S. exporters to Ecopetrol S.A., Colombia's national oil company."
Contrast these speculative commitments for potential business to the initial rejection of Export-Import Bank financing in June 2010 for Bucyrus International's $400 million export sale to India which will support 1,000 jobs in Wisconsin.
You can draw your own conclusions, but I do think the guarantee to Petrobras was a bit unusual. Capital is fungible, just like oil.
My reading of the article is that he was contrasting $2 billion in preliminary financial support for deep water drilling at a depth of 4,460 meters by a foreign nationally owned oil producer with the lack of support for U.S. based companies.
#11 Posted by kbny, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 05:44 PM
You know, the question that comes to my mind as we talk about Brazil's off shore oil industry in the face of the TWO oil platforms that have crashed and burned in recent months is why do they have better regulations than the US?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64C64N20100513
I mean, if America can't get its crap together good enough to go half a year without a break down or a blow up in the petrol industry, never mind the coal mining industry, never mind the hydraulic fractured produced natural gas industry, then man - maybe it's best if the energy sector is "off shored" in places like Brazil since the America can't seem to pass nor enforce decent regulations because much of one party is beholden to business interests and the other has insane "tea party fever" against any regulations at all.
How many times and how many way is this dysfunctional system going to allow itself to get bested by third world countries on the rise?
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 07:36 PM
Ryan:
I believe you missed the other fine piece of journalism from this issue of Forbes. It's a "Fact and Comment" piece by the Editor-in-Chief himself called "Lenin's Lesson", and it appeared in both the print and online editions. The (photoshopped) photo Steve chooses to run with this is an old photo of Lenin and Stalin sitting together, with Stalin's head replaced by Obama's. Real "jumping the shark" type of stuff.
Which of course leads me to this question for all of those here who are defending D'Souza's ridiculous trash piece: Would you please also justify Mr. Forbes' use of this image in a magazine of supposedly national significance? And yes, you may use the word "nepotism".
Online article: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-lenin-lesson.html
Image of print article: http://copyranter.blogspot.com/2010/09/steve-forbes-photoshops-obama-into.html
#13 Posted by Benedict@Large, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 05:31 AM
Hey Mike H.
Did you ever hear of paragraphs?
#14 Posted by barney kirchhoff , CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 08:47 AM
barney, my formatting get screwed up.
#15 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 10:14 AM
I'm sadly amazed at how few of the comments here address the actual facts asserted in the Forbes piece. Instead, most verbiage here is about the commenter's opinions and feelings about Obama. On a journalism website, that is particularly unfortunate.
Judged on a standard of accuracy and truthfulness, the Forbes piece is full of assertions that just aren't so. Mr. Chittum pointed that out, twice, in detail. The article wouldn't have passed the first level of copy-editing at the most podunk of papers I ever worked for.
I realize facts are treated as inconveniences in the current political dynamic, but that doesn't make them any less important.
#16 Posted by Carrespondent, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 10:35 AM
Carre I couldn't agree more. These comment board seem to be the 21st century equivalent of playground taunts. Are too! Are not!
We are definitely living in a post-fact age. The idea of two sides of a debate agreeing on the facts and then discussing the interpretation seems to have died. (Kbny, you must be an old timer--where is your juvenile vitriol?) The state-of-the-art in politics right now (exemplified by other posts above) is to make the argument about the facts themselves. To my mind, much of our current dialog boils down to each side saying the same thing: you don't know the facts! Nuh uh! Uh huh!
It the dark hours of the night I wonder about the next Bush v. Gore type election when one side says they won and the other responds, no, you didn't.
#17 Posted by Mike T, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 11:35 AM
Carrespondent....Chittum has a profound lack of foreign culture. It completely negates his ability to properly address any of D'Souza's contentions. You want a proper critique of D'Souza? Check out Cashill's article at American Thinker. Chittum is a small town podunker from Oklahoma and Huntsville, AL who is trying to ingratiate himself with his UWS mates.
Questions: how does a guy who has never run a business in his life, never made a payroll, never employed people, never provided insurance for people, never worried about overhead -- how does that guy write about business journalism in a manner where I'm supposed to take his qualifications seriously? He's a hack and it shows.
With regards to his critique of D'Souza, I ask again, how do I take Ryan Chittum seriously?? Have you guys ever lived abroad? Lived in the middle east? Have you ever been exposed to anticolonial attitudes in a developing country? Have you ever come face to face with a cleric trying to convert you to Islam? Have you ever interacted with a Muslim where they looked at you as one of their own and not as a white person?
Until you can address these things, you're really in no position to make serious critiques of anticolonialism or Obama's world view. You're just hacks who've read things out of a book.
Mr. Chittum has stated nothing that credibly argues against D'Souza's peace. Chittum is basically an Obama apologist who feels the profound need to defend the man he voted for 2 years ago. Chittum was probably Obama's field director back in Oklahoma.
#18 Posted by Aziz Sharaway, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 12:14 PM
Years ago, when he was in college, D'Souza was known as "Distort D'Newza." It's somehow gratify to see that some things never change.
#19 Posted by CharleyM, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 01:25 PM
love the passion of your commenters, who evidently don't work for a living or have no regard for their bosses' time.
but what I want to know is, how do I get Anoined?
quoth da Dinesh:
"genuflections before the Anoined One."
#20 Posted by brooklyngal, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 01:49 PM
I agree with some posters that Ryan leans to the liberal side, and probably voted for Obama. But to defend such a one-sided, supposedly news piece (as opposed to opinion), is is pretty ignorant of the basic principles reporters are taught.
To say that Ryan goes berserk whenever someone attacks Obama is an exaggeration, and, in this case, not even close to the subject, which is a horribly written and edited story.
Shame on Forbes.
#21 Posted by kelley, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 02:02 PM
What I don't get is how you suddenly discovered that Forbes and its website push a right-wing ideology. They have done so for years, only this is the most visible and dramatic manifestation of the Forbes family's libertarian point of view. I don't see how anyone with a shred of conscience can work there.
Under Jim Michaels, at least, Forbes was noted for its investigative chops. Now that's gone, and we're left with the kind of polemics you have rightfully decried.
Only one suggestion: your latest post is a little overwrought. Tone it down a notch.
#22 Posted by Forbestinks, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 02:46 PM
But...but Aziz?
"Oral tradition" also includes "gee that guy was an a$$hole."
Oral tradition is not always complimentary. ex. the oral tradition of the Bosnians regarding the Serbs.
Ryan's read of Obamas book was that he thought of his father as -- I dunno -- failed and flawed. What was your read of the book?
Also, avoiding a counter-arguement by denying qualifications is supposed to be a classic liberal trick: "you don't have a PhD, so you don't know what you're talking about."
If only third-worlders can have a valid opinion about the third world, then why have we bothered with a State Department for 200+ years?
You seem to value "oral tradition" for everyone except "white" people (your assumption about all the commentors) in the U.S.
Where is your counter to any critique of the article?
#23 Posted by TimWB, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 03:55 PM
does anyone else think this whole NASA issue is actually quite legitimate? Spending time honoring muslim nations for their historical contributions to science and technology..yeah sure that's P.C. and warm and cuddly, but as Bolton's #1 and foremost directive? To do that? What about scientific discovery, the great frontier, what about SPACE?
I'm surprised at the lack of outrage.
#24 Posted by gabe, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 03:56 PM
does anyone else think this whole NASA issue is actually quite legitimate? Spending time honoring muslim nations for their historical contributions to science and technology..yeah sure that's P.C. and warm and cuddly, but as Bolton's #1 and foremost directive? To do that? What about scientific discovery, the great frontier, what about SPACE?
I'm surprised at the lack of outrage.
#25 Posted by Gabe, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 04:08 PM
Good question, Gabe. Thing is the "NASA issue" is wayyy overblown. NASA's top agenda is not Muslim outreach. Muslim outreach is a major component of NASA's outreach efforts -- not its overall mission. Huge difference.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/aug/01/michael-sullivan/michael-sullivan-says-nasa-administrator-said-main/
Besides, such outreach doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. It's worth noting that Muslim scholars gave us Algebra, along with other foundational elements of mathematics and science. If that helps peaceful interaction with 20-25% of the globe, I'm all for it.
#26 Posted by Carrespondent, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 05:16 PM
What is false about Obama's comment that Europeans think they are special? I guess if your a clever Columbia Journalist you can dance around semantically where others simply walk. The head of NASA was quoted on tape making the comment about Muslims. How is that disputable? Oh yeah, the clever semantists can help us realize that our eyes missed what we heard. Thank goodness George Orwell is alive an well in the liberal training grounds of Columbia.
When attempting to decipher Obama's theme the idea that he takes an anti colonialist filter to his decisions makes sense. Read the 'Orientalist" and see which side Obama falls.
#27 Posted by Elsworth T, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 06:25 PM
“I figured out D'Souza's problem, and he does have a problem. D'Souza still believes in the caste system, and he regards Obama, being black, to be of a lower caste. No doubt D'Souza got his caste mentality from HIS father.
"D'Souza was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, to parents from the state of Goa in Western India. ,,,
"The Harijans, or the people outside the caste system, had the lowest social status. The Harijans, earlier referred to as untouchables by some, worked in what were seen as unhealthy, unpleasant or polluting jobs. In the past, the Harijans suffered from social segregation and restrictions, in addition to extreme poverty. They were not allowed temple worship with others, nor water from the same sources. Persons of higher castes would not interact with them. If somehow a member of a higher caste came into physical or social contact with an untouchable, the member of the higher caste was defiled, and had to bathe thoroughly to purge him or herself of the impurity. Social discrimination developed even among the Harijans; sub-castes among Harijans, such as the dhobi and nai, would not interact with lower-order Bhangis, who were described as "outcastes even among outcastes". [Wikipedia]”””
#28 Posted by Maureen Meyer, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 07:47 PM
Chittum,
If you haven't pointed out that Obama was a member of a viciously racist church for nearly 20 years, had the vicious racist Van Jones on his staff, came to the defense of the racism of the racist Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and nominated a racist to the Supreme Ct., then you don't have any business even thinking about accusing D'Souza's article of being racist.
#29 Posted by Glen, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 11:08 PM
Forbes is a right-wing rag. What did you expect?
#30 Posted by giantslor, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 05:05 AM
"I'm sadly amazed at how few of the comments here address the actual facts asserted in the Forbes piece. Instead, most verbiage here is about the commenter's opinions and feelings about Obama. On a journalism website, that is particularly unfortunate."
You can't be serious?! The mainstream media (ie: j-school graduates) completely disregard the facts in almost every way. Which is why no one trusts the media anymore. They consistently use their opinions and feelings to portray the "news."
The fact that you do not know this is not only quite telling but incredibly unfortunate.
#31 Posted by Doug Johnson, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 05:19 PM
Good piece, Chittum.
I had thought that the source-free hatchet job on Palin in Variety was going to be the worst political piece to appear in a respectable publication this year, but now it's a tie.
D'Souza's is more intellectually pretentious, and at least Gross didn't pretend he was able to source his attack.
#32 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 06:56 PM
d'Souza should have run a hit piece on Sarah Palin in a glossy fashion magazine that used no named sources, and was repudiated by the people named in the story. Or used made-up documents against George W. Bush in re-hashing the oft-told Bush/National Guard story. Or alleged an affair by John McCain with a lobbyist, again with no named sources. Or produced an analysis that concluded that the case against those Duke lacrosse players for rape of a black woman was actually strong, thus adding to the racial hysteria against them. CJR and Ryan Chittum might have 'deplored' such journalism (the opposite of 'damning with faint praise'), but I doubt if CJR or Chittum would have had the guts to pronounce the stories 'disgusting' and 'smears' and run multiple denunciations of the motives of their authors and editors.
After the above efforts, doesn't anyone at CJR see that a piece like d'Souzas is not going to get much of anyone lathered up? That should be an argument that CJR takes seriously - particularly when the trustworthiness of the mainstream press has declined. (I also believe strongly that environmental scares such as global warming do not rate highly as voter concerns because of the steady credulity of the national press toward health/environment scare stories going back many years, but I've yet to see CJR admit that this might be a factor.) Yes, some conservative journalists have denounced the d'Souza piece in strong terms. That only highlights that the routine stuff slung at Palin, Tea Partiers, Limbaugh, etc., not only in 'the news media', but also in the entertainment culture which is closely tied to 'the news media' is not widely denounced by the 'gatekeepers' as symptomatic of how you cannot trust left-leaning writers, editors, and journals. The authors of the above-cited smears are not sanctioned by CJR or elsewhere in the mainstream media. Andrew Sullivan can allege that Sarah Palin gave birth to her daughter's child without arousing the anger of the all-too-predictables at CJR. You can say anything you want about people to the right of the Democratic Party, and CJR will not become angry. But attack The One in hyperbolic terms, and, boy, do the veins start popping out!
The effect? OK, be honest and tell me that you, even as liberals, are not going to be skeptical of the next unsourced accusation of adultery against a GOP figure, the next accusation of interracial rape in which the perpetrators are 'white', the next article alleging that Sarah Palin's friends 'really' hate her.
As long as CJR only gets angry at right-wing hit jobs, its credibility is going to be restricted to true believers in the Democratic Party. As Editor & Publisher learned, that's not good enough.
#33 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 09:32 PM
So let me get this straight Mark, you're agreeing it was wrong to attack "the one" in hyperbolic dishonest terms?
And a quick ps here, Palin, Limbaugh and others promote disinformation and smears regularly. When political figures discredit themselves, why should cjr get involved in their mudfights.
I'm happy that they don't join in on the gossip because these figures aren't news worthy, the same way Tom Cruise's tabloid problems aren't.
When Forbes goes full teabag and starts pushing neo-colonial innuendo about the president of the US, a guy who has governed conservatively after inheriting several fundamental crisises and an a hard right wing obstructionist bloc from the conservatives, that's a newsworthy venue attacking a newsworthy figure.
And when did Andrew Freaking Sullivan become a left leaning writer?
#34 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 11:58 PM
Thimbles, my point was that Ryan's reaction was disproportionate and based on his political partisanship, not based on any notion that what d'Souza wrote was unprecedentedly vicious or poorly-reasoned. I've repeatedly cited to you and others cases in which the supposedly unbiased news media have done the same, exact things to conservative figures that they go ballistic over when done to liberal figures. Sometimes you have acknowledged the individual cases, without acknowledging a longtime pattern, then you change the subject back to expressions of how much you hate Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.
Andrew Sullivan, late of JournoList, and part of Chris Matthews' amen chorus on one of the Sunday morning gabfests, has shifted from the center to the political left, whether really hardcore leftists writers want to admit it or not. Barack Obama has had no more enthusiastic supporter. You may argue that his politics are ad hominem - an attraction to personalities above issues - but the effect ('Which side are you on?', as the old left-wing organizing song put it) is the same.
Unless you are willing to argue that Democrats and their writers/editors are just too darn nice to engage in the same tactics they deplore in Republicans - this is politics, after all, and we live in the real world - then you have to agree that Ryan's heart only starts racing this way at attacks on liberals.
#35 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 19 Sep 2010 at 09:24 AM
Dear Ryan,
I laugh when the spawn of the Huddled Masses and Wretched Refuse -- you -- pretend to lecture us authentic Americans on manners.
Please take your parroted smears and leave "Columbia", meaning America, and return post haste to the ghetto that birthed your grandfather.
Your hate and resentment will, no doubt, be welcome there.
Cheers,
The Wrath of God
#36 Posted by Dies Irae, CJR on Sun 19 Sep 2010 at 10:47 AM
A letter I sent to the editors at Forbes:
To Whom it May Concern,
I have been receiving the Forbes Magazine for over a year now and for the most part have come to expect from it intelligent analyses and professional journalism. Upon reading the privileged position you gave to an (I am being kind) ignorant analysis of the president and his policies that is completely devoid of the most basic understanding of economics, world history, U.S. history and common sense, I would like to request you take me off your subscriber list. I am no longer interested in receiving any news or updates or magazine from you as my trust in your competence as editors and journalists has been broken.
In the future, if you wish to raise dollars by featuring so prominently such extremist propaganda, I think it wise to acknowledge this is what you are doing from the get-go. It would have been an amusing read had it been clear you were highlighting it only to illuminate us on the misunderstandings that circulate prominently due to the irresponsibility of other media, such as Fox News, etc. That was a lost opportunity... as is my business with Forbes.
Regards,
Sahar
#37 Posted by Sahar, CJR on Sun 19 Sep 2010 at 03:00 PM
Maureen,
You are awfully racist, aren't you?
Goatboy
#38 Posted by Goat, CJR on Sun 19 Sep 2010 at 08:57 PM
Is a Luo Tribesman of the 1950s the
Real Governor of the Obama White House?
by Anthony J. Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge
(21 Sept. 2010)
After the debacle of George W. Bush’s two-term presidency followed by the election of Barack Obama, the forces of the conservative revolution ushered in by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are becoming increasingly fragmented, disoriented and acrimonious. So outrageous is the racial stereotyping becoming in even core elements of the US Republican Party that David Frum, heretofore unheralded as a voice of moderation, is intervening dramatically in an effort to turn back the tide of conservative extremism.
Pointing directly at the recent actions and statements of conservative stalwarts, Frum writes, “here is racial animus, unconcealed and unapologetic, and it is seized by savvy editors and an ambitious politician as just the material to please a conservative audience.” Frum concludes, “That is an insult to every conservative.”
The ambitious politician to whom Frum refers is Newt Gingrich. A history professor whose Ph.D. thesis focused on the Belgian governance of Congo after the Second World War, Gingrich came to political prominence as Speaker of the US House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. Some have looked to this fixture of the conservative establishment as a possible candidate for the Republican nominee in the US presidential election of 2012.
Gingrich earned Frum’s ire because of his theory that the core idea allegedly animating Barack Obama’s presidency is “anticolonialism.” To support his theory, Gingrich cites an article, soon to become a book entitled The Roots of Obama’s Rage, by Dinesh D’Souza. A native-born son of India, D’Souza has become one of the most prominent voices in the well-funded industry of right-wing think tankery. As Gingrich sees it, D’Souza has come up with “the most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”
D’Souza sees the allegedly anticolonial views of President Obama’s economist father, Barack Senior, as the primary source of the current White House’s governing ideology. The now-deceased parent of the current US president is of Luo ancestry. The Luo are one of the Indigenous peoples of Kenya. “Incredibly,” D’Souza writes, “the US is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.”
As do I in my new work, Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism, D’Souza draws liberally from President Obama’s first book, Dreams From My Father. In this work of autobiography D’Souza finds evidence that Barack Obama Senior and Junior were both heavily influenced by the transformation in the 1960s of many Asian and African countries, including Kenya, from the status of formal colonies to nominally self-governing entities. This process of decolonization would result in a rough quadrupling of sovereign countries recognized at the United Nations from 51 in 1945 to 192 in 2010.
In an article in 2002 D’Souza lauds the imperial relationship of Western Europe to the rest of the world since 1492. “Colonialism,” the author argues, “was the transmission belt that brought to Asia, Africa and South America the blessings of Western Civilization.” The ethnocentric character of D’Souza’s Darwinistic worldview was earlier put on display when he wrote in The End of Racism, "the criminal and irresponsible black underclass represents a revival of barbarism in the midst of Western civilization"
In his new analysis of President Obama’s core ideology the author simply dismisses as old news the politics of over five centuries of empire building and its consequences. “Colonialism today,” D’Souza claims, “is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last colonial.”
The effect of this much-heralded anticolonial stance is that we now have
#39 Posted by Anthony J. Hall, CJR on Tue 21 Sep 2010 at 05:40 PM
I'm sorry, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Journalists, biographers, historians - they put politicians on the couch all the time. Surmising that Barack Obama thought about his absent, but 'public' father a lot - as young men will - is not a stretch. Connecting Obama's leftist politics to the social movements of which his father was a part is an attempt at unscientific correlation, not causation; speculative, but writers speculate all the time.
Would the article have been more palatable if it had been gushily positive? If it had been a product of The Nation magazine, cheering Obama for carrying on the spirit of his father and the 1960s, in which anti-colonialism was a big issue - even if it had been in a speculative manner? Would there have been as much anger at the 'shoddiness' of the journalistic quality? d'Souza may be completely wrong, but the president has now written two books about himself, and a certain obliqueness about the sources of his political thought remains; the books are journeys of self-discovery independent of politics.
Bill Clinton's behavior was often explained as a function of his lifelong dependence on strong female enablers. George W. Bush was explained in terms of his own father (interestingly, never his mother), though they seem like two very different people in manner. Nothing new here.
#40 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 21 Sep 2010 at 05:54 PM
"the wave of Islamophobia presently sweeping the United States..."
Wow, talk about having a god imagination! Lots of hyperventilation going on, without much to back it up.
Ryan, please point me to a single article at CJR that presented Bush in even a mildly positive light. Any article will do.
#41 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 22 Sep 2010 at 02:17 AM
After following the responses to D'Souza's article it is amazing how distorted reality has become in our society. Kevin Varney, Export-Import Bank Chief of Staff, responded directly to D;Souza and the amount of fact distortions he cites would earn any college, or even high school student for that matter, a failing grade. Reality has become whatever suits the moment...just like the rush to war with Iraq the facts never mattered before going to war and even less in discussions right after going to war and even less to this day.
#42 Posted by rc, CJR on Wed 22 Sep 2010 at 02:09 PM
JLD: "Ryan, please point me to a single article at CJR that presented Bush in even a mildly positive light. Any article will do."
After that, Ryan, could you please point me to an article that presents the theory that the moon is made of green cheese in a positive light? Any article will do.
#43 Posted by beejeez, CJR on Fri 24 Sep 2010 at 12:48 PM
Export-Import Bank Chief of Staff, responded directly to D;Souza and the amount of fact distortions he cites would earn any college, or even high school student for that matter, a failing grade.
Yeah but I already demonstrated that was a load of bullshit by shining some light on the PEMEX loans, additional Petrobras and the Bucyrus fiasco.
#44 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 24 Sep 2010 at 01:09 PM
Thanks for writing this piece.
When I saw that D'Souza is originally from India, I realized why he's spouting such incredible lies and insinuations. In 2008 I stayed with some very dear friends of mine while on vacation, people I've known for 30 years and love dearly. They're from India too. I was absolutely shocked when the man started telling me Obama was a Muslim and began begging me to help him by voting against Obama that November. This man was in a terrified panic about Obama. Nothing I could say would calm him or help him understand the FACTS.
We just don't realize how terrified some Indians are of Muslims, because of the long-standing tension between them back in their homeland.
#45 Posted by Sue, CJR on Mon 27 Sep 2010 at 01:09 PM
At least in this article you attempted to counter D'Souza's piece by actually dissecting some of the points.
You must have realized a racist, personal attack wasn't going to carry much weight. At the present pace of your exhibiting your analytical skills you can probably drag out your retort for the rest of the year. How about actually showing us where D'Souza's conclusions aren't drawn from the examples provided?
#46 Posted by Kizar Sozay, CJR on Wed 6 Oct 2010 at 07:58 PM
The attempts to refute D'Souza' assertions fail badly. Clearly, Ryan sees that D'Souza's premise is coherent and is amazingly consistent with Obama's string of actions as President such as--
a. Returning the bust of Churchill
b. Ignoring domestic unemployment in favor of START
c. Bowing to third-world heads of state, but dissing Queen Elizabeth
d. Turning over the majority of GM stock to the UAW
d. Focusing on an exit strategy in Afghanistan instead of a strategy for victory
e. Ignoring the motive for and appropriateness of the Cordoba mosque
f. Allowing Iran and North Korea to become nuclear powers
g. Trying to nationalize 1/6 of America's economy, and
h. Ignoring the majority of his own citizens as made manifest by domestic polls and later by the 2010 elections.
His Socialist principles grow from the assumption that Imperialism (of which the US is the worst offender in his eyes) is dependent upon Capitalism.
#47 Posted by BenzieBen, CJR on Mon 22 Nov 2010 at 08:32 PM
D'Souza is full of pseudo-intellectual excrement.
Whatever education he had must not have included rigorous logic or ethics, which is amazing, considering he is now "president" of. "The King's College", another Christian school masquerading as a rigorous academic environment with aspirations gravitas.
Could anything have hurt their aspirations more than D'Souza hit-piece and his continuing blather to spread his name? He sounds like any number of chronic barstool experts and mentally ill people I've known.
#48 Posted by ODan, CJR on Mon 14 Mar 2011 at 12:50 AM
Whatever education he had must not have included rigorous logic or ethics. Amazing, considering he is now "president" of. "The King's College", another Christian school masquerading as a rigorous academic environment with aspirations to relevance and gravitas.
Could anything have hurt their aspirations more than D'Souza's hit-piece and his continuing blather to spread his name? He sounds like any number of chronic barstool experts and mentally ill people I've known.
D'Souza is full of pseudo-intellectual excrement.
#49 Posted by Daniel O'Connell, CJR on Mon 14 Mar 2011 at 01:00 AM
The fact that this is coming from Columbia pretty much discredits it as setting the record straight.
#50 Posted by michelle, CJR on Thu 14 Apr 2011 at 12:52 PM
So how does one go about finding FACTS on Obamas' history...everything that would clear the birther argument is SEALED WHY what is so devastating? We all know taught him in college, his cronies and $$ backers. George Soros, Hungarian born USA made millionaire is a self-proclaimed communist. How do we get to the TRUTH when it's so securely $$$ hidden?
#51 Posted by Ann Nuccio, CJR on Sun 6 May 2012 at 03:36 PM
D’Souza betrays his Brahmin background, bestowed upon him by birth and reinforced by HIS father. They comsider themselves superior to ALL others, even American whites. Combine this with a good AMERICAN education, an identification with what he considers to be the ruling elite and you have person who can say anything, certain of its immediate acceptance and ultimate value.
He believes that by spouting the same caste-system, racist-based ideology, that he can gain a permanent seat at the table. He is selling his highest value to the 1%, which is his ability to write from his bully pulpit as a college president. He certainly is intelligent. But he's not very smart.
This is America, which for all of its greatness is a nation divided by race. He has chosen to cozy up to likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and that ilk to assure his on-going membership on the other side. But this is America and he will be tagged as soon as the average American sees him. "He's not one of us." Do you know what they call an Indian with a PhD and a college presidency in south Boston?: rag head, camel jockey...
And while D’Souza is sailing along doing what he's being told to do with the truth, his betters consider him to be a tool that is totally expendible. You know that, if his team is willing to take down the whole US economy worth billions, he is very flushable . Kings College will not be able to save him.
While we're checking the Presidents birth status, let's check D’Souza's citizen status, After all he is a REAL foreigner. Do you imagine that he would feel the same indignity at the question? It's hard to tell. He might like it.
Make no mistake. Racism is the engine driving the efforts to curb and destroy our "uppity" Black President. I hope D’Souza tries to run for some public office so we can dish up some special American treatment for him.
#52 Posted by tlb, CJR on Sat 26 May 2012 at 05:20 PM
Being of Indian Origin myself ,all I can say is that Dinesh Dsouza is full of hogwash. Some of the history of the USA having interfered time and again with other countries is true; his history of the colonial world is true also... but all this does not prove his theory of Obama being unfit to be President. At the same time the last post by TIB is unfair to the majority of Indian Americans who support Obama.
Dsouza is NOT a Brahmin. He is most likely a Christian from Goa trying to earn brownie points like a lot ow want to be whites in the USA.
#53 Posted by co, CJR on Thu 31 May 2012 at 01:56 PM
Whats with these Indian born racist, is this hinu Denesh losing his currie eating mind, Is he kissing up to his masters, This guy needs a oneway ticket back to diseased ridden India, the douche bag!
#54 Posted by Lee Green, CJR on Thu 31 May 2012 at 10:59 PM
This website proves that anyone can dispute anything at anytime for any reason, even if they are blatantly wrong and totally misinformed. The above piece is littered with misconceptions, falsehoods, and complete ignorance about the Obama administration. The writer simply worships Obama and it reflects in his idiotic ranting. Maybe he needs to write about something he knows about...like living off of the American taxpayers like he obviously does. Michelle was right when she said there were two kinds of people in America...those who sign the front of the checks and the Obama supporters who sign the backs...
#55 Posted by R Mitchell, CJR on Mon 16 Jul 2012 at 10:30 AM
Ryan, you and your liberal left-wing friends will never be able to think clearly, but try. First, you did catch the fact that D'Souza is not white but from India. That is a good start but then you failed to draw the conclusion that he could not be racist, according to your normal illogical logic, because he is INDIAN and you folks believe people of color cannot be racists. Oh of course you will flip that now for the sake of argument, but in your heart of hearts your kind believes only white folks can be racists, so your basic argument here against D'Souza is false. Furthermore, he does come from a foreign background and admits it, but he also embraces the American Dream and cultural values as Barack Hussein Obama does not (Oops, I slipped and used his full name, which is supposed to be an admission of racist thinking, in your warped view).
Dinesh D'Souza has an interesting analysis of this man who is our president. Your limited ability to see things in a balanced manner prevents you from seeing that. Go crawl back under your rock and think up something that is worthy of our consideration. You give Columbia Journalism a bad name.
#56 Posted by Don, CJR on Fri 3 Aug 2012 at 03:34 PM
Has America started outsourcing politics....??
#57 Posted by independent, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 11:18 PM