August 5th 2008
Time To Fire Bob Herbert
T
he NY Times would have a big problem on its hands … if anyone watched MSNBC.
On yesterday’s Morning Joe show, the NYT’s star op-ed writer and Obama devotee Bob Herbert showed just how far off the deep end he has gone - to the point where all perspective and clear-headedness is gone. Now we normally would want perspective and clear-headedness from a major national columnist, but the NYT is going to ask itself: Is he us or is he bonkers? (I think the answer is “us.”)
Here’s the passage:
You guys have seen the ad a number of times I am sure, and I know you have it here in-house. First thing you see are a couple images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, right? [Wrong - Obama comes up first.] And we see an image of Barack Obama right after that. It comes quickly, right at the beginning of the ad, right?
Do you remember any other startling images right there at the beginning?
All right. There is an image right there at the very beginning of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and there is an image of the Washington Monument.
You look at the beginning of that ad again, and you tell me why those two phallic symbols are placed right there - POW! - right at the beginning of that ad. I really wish someone would answer the question, I think it’s really important. Why are these two phallic symbols in this ad run against Barack Obama, right after we see the images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton?
See the whole clip here.
The images, of course, are of the the Victory Column in Berlin’s Tiergarten Park, which dominated the background of the Obama rally.
Whoa! Wait a minute! Is that a white chick on top of that phallic symbol? Stop the presses!!!
Either Herbert is blinded by GOP-hatred and Obama-love and is interjecting symbolism without rhyme or reason, or he spent no time watching the ad he has campaigned written so passionately about. Neither alternative is satisfactory for the writer of a prominent national column … at least it hasn’t been since the death of Hunter Thompson. Columnists like Herbert are supposed to be more studied and careful, heck, more rational and less prone to hallucinations than this.
The NYT and Herbert have a real problem on their hands. Will they even acknowledge this farcical yet insightful error? Will there be a terse correction or a Herbert column in which he attempts to explain or justify this truly condemning error? Will the thing pass as if it never was said?
Any option is unpleasant. My recommendation: Time to fire Bob Herbert, or at least put him on leave for a month or two so he can get the help he needs. My guess: The NYT and Herbert will both blow it off.
hat-tip: NewsBusters
Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments » | 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
August 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 5:29 am
August 6th, 2008 at 11:53 am
August 6th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 2:42 am
August 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Comments
August 5th, 2008 at 6:27 am
I thought Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, the Victory Column, the Pisa Tower (crooked) and Obama were all phallic symbols in this ad. All of them were standing up. Were there any trees in this ad?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Oh this is classic! Thank you Laer, so much for starting my day with a big laugh. It’s reassuring to know you guys are paying attention.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
If necessary, some would find a phallic symbol even in a perfectly horizontal/flat/ even desert - the damage that Derrida’s deconstructionism brought upon universities.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Times already meet its quota this decade of firing a person who doesn’t look like presidents on the dollar bill for making things up? I don’t see it happening again, especially in the middle of its presidential campaign for the One.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Bob Herbert has lost all sense of fairness! He, along with Obama should let the Britney/Paris ad go. The McCain Campaign put a roundhouse hit right between Obama’s eyes. The first time I saw the Britney/Paris ad, I knew it would hurt Obama. When one believes one’s press clippings as Obama surely does, one is suceptible to being knock down. Obama, via Herbert, should stop crying like a wuss and get up off the canvass and become less of a celebrity and more of a candidate. As for Herbert, drinking from the cup of public ridicule is punishment enough.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Isn’t the real issue that the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad said (in images) the word “sissy,” which the Obama campaign fears a hundred times more than the N-word (which they could turn into a gold mine.) When I saw it, that’s the first thing I thought; Paris, Britney, Obama, three vacuous, self-obsessed, pathetic little girls. That’s why he didn’t want to be photographed in the vicinity of any actual troops when he went to Iraq. He looks much more presidential when the only other person in sight is Nicholas Sarkozy. If I were working for McCain, I’d put out an ad every week that said “sissy … sissy … sissy.” It worked against John Kerry, and he had a Silver Star.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Awesome post!
Quite a few people completely went off the deep end trying to find something racist in the the “Celebrity” ad.
Aren’t you worried, though, that the title of your posting is racist? You cannot use the name of a black man and the word “fire” in the same phrase, as the latter word conjures the notion of burning crosses.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Everything depends on perspective… when I saw the ad, first thing i thought of was that *call me* ad, aimed at Harold Ford.
White chicks, black guy.
Lots of vacuous black women, too, but putting them in, would’ve been overtly racist. It’s the subtle racism that does the trick.
But the bottom line, I’d prefer to see ads related to issues, rather than these blatantly ad hominem attacks. Obviously, though, the McCain Campaign doesn’t think they can win on issues, otherwise, McCain wouldn’t have flipped on running a personality-based campaign, which he said he wouldn’t run.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Herbert was “Hobson’s Choice” for editor-in-chief after the disgrace of Howell Raines. That says quite a lot about the depth, or lack thereof, of their “leadership cadre.”
August 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Ron, please look up “ad hominem” before using words you don’t understand. This was not a personal attack, it was an issues ad, just like you’re calling for. The issue is this: Obama is either an empty suit, a virtual unknown whose qualifications to be president are legitimately worth questioning, or he’s using the empty suit as a cover-up for something more sinister.
That, along with energy, is McCain’s winning issue. The ad was all about Obama’s celebrity status, his ego, his vacuousness. If you saw race and sex in it, then all I can say is you’re obsessed with race and sex.