Good. Lord. That is appalling. I fear this is only the beginning of the field day Republicans are going to have with Ms. Obama.

Also, what happened to that "thank you Thursdays" Clinton post that was up just a minute ago? I was enjoying it, and then by the time I refreshed to see the comments on it, it had disappeared.

Can I make a request? I usually read this blog while at work where I can't watch video clips. I rarely remember to look again when I get home. Can you post a short transcript of the relevant exchange when you post clips? Usually it's only a couple of sentences. Thanks!

*boggle*

I guess I missed the outrageousness committed by Fox.

What I heard was a discussion about the limits of acceptable political debate involving Michelle Obama (or wives in general), who has taken on a role in her husband's presidential campaign as more than just his wife.

If the subject of an ad by Republicans is the content of her speeches, this is fair game, but any personal attacks would not be acceptable.

I find it demeaning to her that her speeches would be "off limits" from criticism simply because she is his wife.

It is unclear the provenance of the phrase in the scroll below the picture, but at no time did anyone from Fox utter the phrase.

Why focus on an unclear reference on the screen for a few seconds when the 4 minute interview was about something else?

Wow, that's pretty offensive.

It surprises me how much racism there is in the world today. It's a good thing that there are non-biased, honest polls like http://www.votenic.com. This poll is 100% non-biased, and does weekly polls for both the Election and Vice Presidents.

I guess I missed the outrageousness committed by Fox.

...

It is unclear the provenance of the phrase in the scroll below the picture, but at no time did anyone from Fox utter the phrase.

It was up numerous times during the discussion. While the discussion wasn't offensive, the caption most certainly was.

Why focus on an unclear reference on the screen for a few seconds when the 4 minute interview was about something else?

If the interview was about something else, why can't we discuss Fox News' offensive decision to run that caption with that loaded phrase?

There are really no words-oh wait-bigoted, sexist, racist, insulting, conniving, hypocritical, and, of course, typical ...

One reason, Orchid, to raise hell about a caption like that is that it's appallingly racist and sexist.

Another reason is that Fox News is broadcast in public places like bars, airports, waiting rooms, etc. often without volume or at low volume, so the captions are most of the verbal information that people get.

Last, that interview seemed like a setup for Fox to be able to repeat over and over the things Michelle Obama does or says that they don't like, even though it's really old news, by pretending that they are adding some kind of analysis, even though the analysis is about as sophisticated as five year olds arguing about whose turn it is to be 'it' in tag.

Why focus on an unclear reference on the screen for a few seconds when the 4 minute interview was about something else?

Because the screen reference was appalling?

Ah, it's not even a clip. I saw it and assumed it was. Anyway, my request still stands for other posts along those lines, I've noticed it happening more and more often here.

Regarding the post itself: yes, that's ridiculously offensive. "Baby mama?" I'd love to say that they're just making themselves look bad, but I'm sure plenty of the audience of Fox news thinks that it's funny. That woman is very likely to be our next First Lady. Keep calling her "baby mama," Fox. I'm sure it won't come back and haunt you later.

No matter if the disgusting screen caption was the only reference Fox News made to that racist comment, it was still up and still pervasive in a very real way. If Fox News wanted to do something about that, they could have immediately taken down the caption and/or sent out a public apology. Or how about this: fire the people responsible for the caption and never do it again.

But sadly, I doubt that's the worst we'll see from Fox News about this upcoming election, especially involving Obama.

Hopefully more people realized the implications behind such a caption and are just as outraged.

No matter if the disgusting screen caption was the only reference Fox News made to that racist comment, it was still up and still pervasive in a very real way. If Fox News wanted to do something about that, they could have immediately taken down the caption and/or sent out a public apology. Or how about this: fire the people responsible for the caption and never do it again.

But sadly, I doubt that's the worst we'll see from Fox News about this upcoming election, especially involving Obama.

Hopefully more people realize the implications of such a caption and are just as outraged.

I agree the caption is offensive, and I am often offended by Fox's crude type of reporting.

But, I also find that it is knee-jerk reaction by Liberals to portray Fox as the bete noir of journalism, when it is my perception that while Fox is certainly biased from the Right, many other media outlets are biased as well, only from the Left.

All media outlets are biased - this is part of the fabric of our discourse. So, no news there.

Also, most times those captions are written by low level personnel and not the work of the network's editors.

So, while I agree it was offensive, I thought the reaction distorted what the segment was really about.

david

David--the captions being written by low-level employees is not an excuse. Are you trying to say that the editors have no idea what they're putting on television? The captions are checked and approved before they go on the air. Someone thought it was funny. And it's NOT. It's offensive. Even if it were some rapper's girlfriend who commonly refers to herself as his baby mama it would be wrong to put it up in print on a TV screen.

Wow. Fox is ridiculous. They know exactly what they are doing and we can't ignore it just because none of the anchors actually stated the phrase aloud. Someone from Fox wrote it, someone from Fox approved it, and someone from Fox put it out there for all of us to see.

that is totally messed up.

David,

While I see your point, I think the issue is that the subtitle was shown multiple times, which implies that FoxNews editors didn't find it offensive.

What does it say about our country when adults find nothing odd or wrong with calling the presumptive nominee's wife his 'baby mama' (given the information that he is, in fact, black).

Do you think they would ever run that with Laura Bush? George W. Bush's baby mama? I haven't seen that written anywhere yet. Why do you think that is?

Why is this a problem?
1) If Michelle Obama was white, they wouldn't have run that blurb.

2) Actually... I had a list of other reasons that this is a problem, but I think reason number one pretty much says it all.

PS. The liberal news media is a myth and it's time for conservatives to quit whining about it. When I'm upset that Rupert Murdoch is buying the Wall Street Journal because it was a source of relatively unbiased news, that's a REALLY BAD SIGN.

Orchid, this post didn't even TOUCH upon what the segment was really about, let alone distort it. The topic of the segment is irrelevant; this post is about the caption on the bottom of the screen!

David-

But, I also find that it is knee-jerk reaction by Liberals to portray Fox as the bete noir of journalism, when it is my perception that while Fox is certainly biased from the Right, many other media outlets are biased as well, only from the Left.

Are you serious? Spend some time at Media Matters. Read Alterman's "What Liberal Media." Dig around for Brave New Films' brand new mashup of Chris Matthews. Then come back and we can discuss facts and arguments, rather than your perceptions.

The implication of "baby mama" is pretty offensive: not only is it extremely racially loaded, but it implies that they aren't married, that the children are illegitamate, and that there was some sort of abandonment of Michelle by Barack once the kids came along.

Yes, one of the candidates abandoned the mother of his children when times got rough, but, um, that candidate was not Obama.

gee, you know, where was this "liberal" media when they were pounding the drums of war? If the media is so "liberal", why were they Bush's loudest and biggest cheer leaders running up to the war? Give me a break already.

Its not the "liberal" media, its the "corporatist" media, and its ruining this country.

That's absolutely ridiculous, how can they get away with that!
I'm trying to imagine a caption like that on the news in the UK, the broadcasters would be strung up for something like that and rightly so.

jfaustus Funny, you send me to a site dedicated, and I quote: "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

An "unbiased" source?

LOL

Look, I too found it offensive - but comeon, I've seen worse, and the interview was not offensive. One reason I believe Fox gets a such bad rap is because their overall reporting (which is okay) is tarred because of these bizarre eruptions. I think their broadcast philosophy is to make the news "entertaining" and part of that is to attempt to use slang and other "hip-isms" but of course they do so in totally inappropriate fashion, because, well they are a bunch of middle aged white men. They use slang at their own peril and most of time make asses of themselves.

But if you seriously think that only Fox is biased (it is) and the New York Times, or PBS or ABC, or CBS are not (they are) then you are blind to the reality of the journalistic facts of life.

It is impossible for any media outlet to NOT be biased. Every decision on what to print, which facts to stress , or even include, which words used to describe the principals, where to run it, what headline, how many stories to run on an issue, they all impact on the spin of the story. And the same story the same facts can get quite different treatment in the Wall Street Journal as opposed to the New York Times.

Oh sure they all profess "professionalnism" and their goal is to be objective, yes yes yes. But their main goal is to sell papers, advertising, and make money through the peddling of "news" which often times is ugly gossipy trash dressed up as something very very very "important" that we just have to know about - right now!, and further, usually told how we should feel about it by some superilious jerk reading the story from a prompter.

Oh, but, I don't ignore any media outlets, as tiresome and transparently biased they are, I consider it the mark of a dunce to proudly announce that they never watch such and such "network" or read such and such "newspaper" - all it does is expose the limitations of their own biases and inability to separate information from the spin.

I don't want to live in an echo chamber I find it much more interesting to constantly be confronted with views opposed to my own - and my views do not neatly fall into either the Liberal or Conservative boxes.

david

ah yes, the "liberal" media. You know...where the hell was this "liberal" media during the run up to the war? They were Bush's parrots and cheerleaders- hardly liberal at all. There is no "liberal" or "conservative" media, there's only a "corporatist" media and its killing this nation.

Thank you David for teaching us about media bias. I am sure the dim-witted posters here had never previously considered that news sources besides fox may contain bias.

ANYWAY, that's off topic.

It is an outrage to see this special mixture of racism & sexism anywhere, let alone such a prominent media outlet where it is guaranteed to be viewed by many, many people.

Thank you Feministing for calling out bigotry wherever it is to be found!

But, I also find that it is knee-jerk reaction by Liberals to portray Fox as the bete noir of journalism, when it is my perception that while Fox is certainly biased from the Right, many other media outlets are biased as well, only from the Left.

David, did you miss this post entitled "Shame on CNN"? It's only four below the one you're currently commenting on, so I'm not sure how you could, but I thought I'd point it out.

Feministing is an equal-opportunity media criticizer. So you can calm down, because believe me, FOX is not the only media outlet capable of being racist, sexist, or otherwise horribly offensive in its coverage, and feminists of all strains are well aware of that.

Do the conversations at Fox go something like:
"Time to turn the sexism onto the candidate's wives now that Hillary's out of the race, and don't forget to add in some racism--we don't want people to forget that they're black." That's what it seems like.

Look, I too found it offensive - but comeon, I've seen worse, and the interview was not offensive.

So let me get this straight...If it doesn't rate high enough on the Offense-o-Meter then we shouldn't bother, is that it?

Let's see...I guess rating 1 - 3 get only a tsk-tsk and a figner-wagging. 4 - 7 gets an angry letter. 8 - 10 gets a protest march. Is that right, David?

What-the-fuck-ever...

But if you seriously think that only Fox is biased (it is) and the New York Times, or PBS or ABC, or CBS are not (they are) then you are blind to the reality of the journalistic facts of life.

To use your own words, "no news there."

It seems as though your try to distract from the offensive action by saying, "Look what the other people are doing! They're not playing fair either!"

Bottom line: FoxNews was racist. Period.

Tomorrow it'll be CNBC.

Ohhh, I hate Faux News!!! They can take their network along with MSNBC's Chris Matthews and stuff it....

So...because the New York Times has a liberal bias, it's OK for Fox News to use a blatantly racist caption?

There's a difference between having a bias--which, I agree,is unavoidable--and endorsing racist stereotypes (which this caption does). I would be JUST AS PISSED if CNN (aka "Clinton News Network" once upon a time) used a caption like this. Or the Nation. Or any other liberal rag.

You may not want to live in an echo chamber, but I'm reasonably certain that the only voice you're paying attention to here is your own. How Fox reports the news--its bias, its sensationalism--is not the issue here. (PS-not watching cable news does not make me a "dunce" or closed off to alternative ideas. It just makes me someone who finds cable news annoying.) The issue is that, to set of what you yourself have stated is a totally unrelated story, Fox has reduced a successful businesswoman, mother, and wife to the title "Obama's Baby Mama." If you can't see why that's offensive, then you're not looking hard enough.

This is ridiculous. I expect a certain amount of backlash towards Michelle Obama because they are so public and there is the possibility that she's going to be our next First Lady, but to refer to her as "Obama's Baby Mama" is sexist, racist, and flat out offensive. Fox news is putting out nothing but garbage and because of their political journalism-which equates to that of a gossip magazine-they have been totally discredited as a newsworthy source in my opinion. I'll stick to CNN.

This is ridiculous. I expect a certain amount of backlash towards Michelle Obama because they are so public and there is the possibility that she's going to be our next First Lady, but to refer to her as "Obama's Baby Mama" is sexist, racist, and flat out offensive. Fox news is putting out nothing but garbage and because of their political journalism-which equates to that of a gossip magazine-they have been totally discredited as a newsworthy source in my opinion. I'll stick to CNN.

The New York Times, ABC, CNN, CBS, and NBC ARE biased; they are just slightly less invested in patriarchal white supremacy than FOX.

David,

This post had nothing what so ever to do with whether or not Fox News (or any media source) is biased. You're absolutely right -- they all are.

The original post was talking about whether or not it is sexist and/or racist to label Michelle Obama as his 'baby mama' rather than 'wife'. It should strike you as offensive, because it absolutely is. Cutesy rhyming aside (obama / mama... well done Fox News... you made a rhyme), it's both sexist and racist.

Please pay better attention to the original post and the discussion. Notice they did not put up the whole video (which was available elsewhere to watch). That wasn't an accident -- Jessica was purely highlighting the label, and not talking about the audio content of the video as a whole.

Horrible caption. Totally outrageous. If someone has a plan let me know and I will help.

David, you said: "I find it much more interesting to constantly be confronted with views opposed to my own - and my views do not neatly fall into either the Liberal or Conservative boxes."

WATCH PBS. Throw away both FOX and CNN (of course FOX is the pioneer in producing crap). "opposing views" as they are presented in these channels are completely useless (At least to me) because there is no intelligent discussion going on and you will end up making your mind about the issue by looking at who screams louder.

It's not about bias at all. Good journalism is about good analysis rather than simply providing two very stupid people from two opposing sides.

Watch PBS. Watch PBS. Watch PBS... (Bill Moyers Journal, Frontline, newshour, etc.)

"If Michelle Obama was white, they wouldn't have run that blurb."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I agree that the racism in the blurb would not have been there. But the sexism would have. They would have easily replaced "baby mama" which is both sexist and racist with something else that would still be sexist.

We are on the same team.

I don't get it. What does "Obama's Baby Mama" mean? Is it insinuating that he's immature, and she has to mother him? Or that she's the mother of his children? (although I don't understand why that would be offensive, just bizarre). Aside from the rhyme, this makes no sense to me.

Fox News, the unofficial house organ of the Republican Party.

They offer this sort of bigotry because they know it's welcomed by their viewers, and even excused by them (see above).

Did anyone see the Daily Show yesterday with Obama giving his wife a sort of handshake? Fox interpreted it has a "terrorist" thing.

Did anyone see the Daily Show yesterday with Obama giving his wife a sort of handshake? Fox interpreted it as a "terrorist" thing.

azinyk, the entire point is to remind their viewers that OMGWTFBBQhesBLACK!!!, without using those exact words, and thus to carry the whole ugly historical baggage of "jungle bunnies," "welfare queens," "inner city urban thugs" and all the rest of it forward into the 21st c. with plausible deniability, if of the thinnest sort.

azinyk, "baby mama" is pop culture slang.

from urban dictionary:

"1. baby mama

The mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved.
Oh her? She ain't nothing to me now, girl, she just my baby mama. So, can I get your number?

2. baby mama

A term used to define an unmarried young woman (but can be a woman of any age) who has had a child. As mentioned before in another definition, most of the time it is used for when it was simply a sexual relationship, compared to ex-wife or girlfriend. Usually this has a negative connotation, a lot of baby mamas are seen as desperate, gold digging, emotionally starved, shady women who had a baby out of spite or to keep a man. Sometimes they may act like this because of missed child support payments, unfulfilled promises by the father, or convenient sex by the father. Either or both may exist in any situation.
Joe didn't have any relationship with that chick, she was the "other woman" who ended up being his baby mama.

Maybe Andy's baby mama is pissed because he said he was taking his sons to get a haircut but instead ended up playing dominoes with his boys.

Tiffany is a greedy baby mama; she is using her child support payments to buy her new boyfriend some speakers for his car."

baby daddy would be the corollary.

anyway, it's pretty appalling, even for faux news. something tells me they aren't going to call cindy mccain a baby mama next week.

Azinyk, "baby mama" is a slang term. It means, bascally, "baby's mother." Generally it is applied to the mother of baby who is not married to (or possibly not even in a relationship with) the father of the child. So if John and Jane have a baby but are not married, Jane would be John's baby mama. It's used mostly by black people (to my knowledge) and like a lot of "black" slang, it has its roots in Jamaican Creole. The corrosponding term is "baby daddy." You can read more about it at this URL: slate.com/id/2141083/

Election eve Fox News ticker:

Are you really going to vote for a n****r/terrorist and his upity b***h? Or a fine elder statesman war hero?

I wish they had the guts to just get it over with and say what they mean.

azinyk - here, this link might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_mama

Also, I wonder what Dark Daughta over at "One Tenacious Baby Mama" would think about this discussion...

David, maybe it's true all media have biases, but none are so blatant as on Fox Noise, who are practically the media arm of the Republican fucking Party. They're the idiots who misidentified Mark Foley as Democratic during his little text message scandal. And they identified former Senator Lincoln Chaffee as Democratic when he was losing to Sheldon Whitehorse. If they can make the Democratic Party look bad, they will do anything they can to do so--including shoddy reporting. That, or they're too cheap to have a good fact-checking department.

And as roro pointed out so aptly, the candidate who abandoned his wife and children isn't the Democratic Party (presumptive) nominee.

Fox has sunk to new lows with this vile caption. along with the dipshit presenter who wondered allowed if the dap was a terrorist gesture. I hope not--I just saw a couple of guys do that on the bus next to me the other day.