COMMENTARY | Although presidential hopeful Mitt Romney may have spoken a bit awkwardly when he said he liked to fire people, the sound bite of his words (like that used in a report by the Associated Press) were quickly taken out of context and labeled a gaffe, not only by his Republican opponents but by a sound-bite driven media that have no problem pushing half-truths, lies by omission, and video-related disingenuousness.
But the problem isn't the fact that his political opponents (both Republican and Democratic) are spinning the former Massachusetts governor's words. The problem is that, coupled with so few in the media trying to clarify that the phrases being used against Romney were part of a set of comments that had to do with choice of insurance providers and the ability to fire those that were not providing adequate service, there are those who remain ignorant -- by choice, laziness, or indifference -- of the candidate's actual remarks.
The problem started later the same day the remarks were made. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who had been campaigning hard in New Hampshire in order to remain in the presidential race, told a group of reporters that Romney "enjoys firing people," attempting to capitalize on Romney's seeming slip-up and reinforce the message that Romney was and continues to be an indifferent businessman out of touch with the common American.
And it has not let up. Although Romney won the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday (Jan. 10) with 39 percent of the vote, he now faces the onslaught of his opponents pushing Huntsman's words (found to be mostly false by Politifact due to the words being taken out of context) and his own edited comments in commercials, ads, and speeches designed to derail or curb his campaign. But they're twisting and analyzing and trying to paint a unlikeable Romney picture.
Even Vice President Joe Biden, who will be part of the presidential team that might see Mitt Romney as the head of the Republican presidential contending duo, used Romney's words on Tuesday to rally the Democrats in New Hampshire, smartly noting that the former governor's words were taken out of context before adding that the words still reflected on the mindset of the man that said them.
"In fairness, that was probably taken a little out of context," Biden acknowledged, according to the Los Angeles Times . "But what isn't out of context is the basic point he was making. He thinks it's more important for the stockholders, shareholders and the investors, the venture capital guys do well than for the employees to be part of the bargain."
So why are so many bloggers, politicians, and pundits ignoring the context and running with the edited version of Romney's words? Ignorance.
But it is not the ignorance of the politicians, pundits, and the bloggers (most of the time -- because they know exactly what they writing or saying), but a dependance of these entities upon the ignorance of their target: the electorate. Opponents of Romney are depending on the media to not report or do an inadequate job of reporting the full context of Romney's words and the indifference and/or apathy of voters to not bother to research and discover if the allegations and the comments are true. They are depending on the ignorance of the average voter hearing the remarks, having a viscerally negative reaction to Romney's words, and never hearing or reading that the firing comments were taken out of context.
This, in order to gain political advantage for their own candidate(s) or ideology.
Romney's opponents gain where Romney looks distanced from the average American. His Republican rivals are trying to curb his momentum going into the South Carolina Primary (Jan. 21). With record unemployment and millions worried about their economic futures, a candidate that appears to side with corporate interests against the average American worker, who likes to fire people, might not be the average Republican's choice for a presidential contender or the average American's choice for president. In fact, most empathetic and sympathetic people would likely vote for someone other than Romney once having heard the sound bite that only reveals the part of his comments that reference firing people.
But even though he said those exact words -- "...I like being able to fire people..." -- he did not say them as they are being portrayed by many.
Reporting the full story is a failing of the media, which either has ignored Romney's entire set of comments or has treated them as an aside to the story at hand -- the brouhaha over Romney's supposed insensitive "gaffe."
Still, the information is in reports, articles, essays, and commentaries. Remaining ignorant of the full scope of Romney's words eventually becomes a failing of the uninformed electorate.
For those who wish to be informed:
"I want individuals to have their? own insurance," Romney said in New Hampshire Monday (via CBS News). "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.
"If someone doesn't give me the good service that I need," he continued, "I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."
In the end, the Romney "gaffe" about firing people is not about whether one is Republican or Democrat, or whether one espouses one political ideology over another. It is about keeping informed well enough to make a decision when it comes time to participate in the democratic process in order to provide a better government. It is the political operative that is at fault (whether that operative be a politician, an organization, or the media itself) when information is withheld, purposely misconstrued, or misapplied. It becomes the voter's fault when they allow themselves to be manipulated.
gabby gabby marcel the shell with shoes on ecu john wooden mirror mirror tanuki
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.