“Obnoxiously articulate?”

Hello, everyone!

For my post this month, I had originally intended to discuss issues in communication within higher education circles. But while I was drafting that post, I came across an Associated Press article that really got under my skin. So, subject change!

The piece, written by reporter Liz Sidoti, purports to examine the seeming omnipresence of President Barack Obama in the national media. The debate over how much Presidential coverage is too much has raged for months, even before Obama was officially ushered into office this year. And since Obama was inaugurated in January, the media–hell, the entire world, it seems–has followed his every move with a fervor that seems almost foreign to the American political realm. This nation, which so values its innate culture of instant-access news and entertainment, has latched onto Obama in increasingly vitriolic ways. If one media outlet is accused of being in Obama’s pocket, another is accused of finding fault with anything and everything that he does (including the effort to host the Olympics in this country). One talk-show host labels Obama a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred of white people,” while another proclaims that Obama is a “brilliant” politician who will bring the country together on its most pertinent issues. It just goes on and on, and for all Obama’s professed efforts to bring some semblance of unity to this country, the schism between left and right remains.

Much of the cause for this schism lies, as always, with preconceived political biases, which inevitably (and unfortunately) color the commentary of those entrusted to communicate decidedly unbiased analysis to the viewing public. But searching for a wholly unbiased portrait of Obama, let alone any President, is an exercise in futility. The office of President of the United States is sometimes unforgiving, sometimes unrewarding, and always the most difficult job one can take on in this world, and such a position naturally invites all manner of criticism, ranging from the well-deserved to the blatantly ludicrous.

Sidoti’s article raises a particular point of interest that, in my view, fits snugly into that ludicrous section of the critical scale:

“Put aside for a moment the question of whether government is actually intruding into people’s lives more than before. The point is that many people feel like it is — in part because Obama doesn’t stop talking about his goals. If President George W. Bush got slapped around for being inarticulate, is Obama obnoxiously articulate?“

Now, if I’m reading this correctly, Sidoti’s argument is that the President’s ability to convey his “goals” in a clear and articulate manner is actually working against him, as he risks losing public interest or, more notably, courts accusations of “government intrusion” (as Sidoti labels it) on private citizens through his constant updates on the progress of the country (through an admittedly inordinate number of press conferences, personal appearances, and speeches).

My question is this: since when is being overly articulate a BAD thing?

Not to delve too much into my own (yes, liberal) bias here, but after enduring eight years of a President whose communication abilities were (to say the least) poorly developed, is it too much to ask that our current President actually be able to intelligently and coherently break down and explicate his plans for the country’s future?

I’m curious as to what y’all think of this article. Does Sidoti have a point that I’m just not seeing? Are Obama’s pressing attempts to communicate his intentions to the public unnecessarily (“obnoxiously”) articulate on his part? Do we, as a nation, have issues with a leader who comes across as overly eloquent? Or is Sidoti simply reacting to the current debate between liberal and conservative pundits over the constant media circus surrounding the Obama presidency, taking sides with those who view Obama as being too ubiquitous on the national scene (if you even can be too universally present in his position)?

–Brandie (‘07)