Transcript of president Obama’s conversation with General Stanley McChrystal (June 22, 2010):

Transcript of president Obama’s conversation with General Stanley McChrystal (June 22, 2010):

General Stanley McChrystal: Obama?
President Obama: Yes, Stan?
General Stan McChrystal: Have you ever seen an Afghan drink a glass of water?
President Obama: Well, I can't say I have.
General Stan McChrystal: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
President Obama: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Stan, yes.
General Stan McChrystal: On no account will an Afghan ever drink water, and not without good reason.
President Obama: Oh, eh, yes. I, hmm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Stan.
General Stan McChrystal: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Obama, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
President Obama: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
General Stan McChrystal: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
President Obama: Yes. (He begins to chuckle nervously)
General Stan McChrystal: Are you beginning to understand?
President Obama: Yes. (More laughter)
General Stan McChrystal: Obama. Obama, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?
President Obama: Well, it did occur to me, Stan, yes.
General Stan McChrystal: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
President Obama: Uh? Yes, II have heard of that, Stan, yes. Yes.
General Stan McChrystal: Well, do you know what it is?
President Obama: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
General Stan McChrystal: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Afghani plot we have ever had to face?
General Stan McChrystal: Obama, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Obama, children's ice cream.
President Obama: Lord, Stan.
General Stan McChrystal: You know when fluoridation first began?
President Obama: I-- no, no. I don't, Stan.
General Stan McChrystal: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Obama. How does that coincide with your post-war Afghan conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Afghan works.
President Obama: Uh, Stan, Stan, listen, tell me, tell me, Stan. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Stan McChrystal: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Obama, during the physical act of love.
President Obama: Hmm.
General Stan McChrystal: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
President Obama: Hmm.
General Stan McChrystal: I can assure you it has not recurred, Obama. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Obama.
President Obama: No.
General Stan McChrystal: But I... I do deny them my essence.

In the 1990's, the Los Angeles Times, specifically a writer named Michael Haederle wrote what has since become a case study of Native Americans and the news media. He called it "When Worlds Collide: Navajos and the News Media." It began when journalists descended upon a Navajo reservation in New Mexico to cover what was called at the time "a mysterious respiratory illness." From the start, the reporters proceeded to interview tribal members about their lost loved one, without a clear understanding of Navajo cultural beliefs about death (including the custom that Navajos refrain from talking about a dead person for four days; to do otherwise is considered getting in the way of the deceased's transition to the afterlife). It led one tribal leader to remark that instances like this one suggest a clash of cultures between reporters and Native Americans. Navajos responded with large signs reading : NO NEWS MEDIA ALLOWED. One could argue that the journalists were just doing their jobs, but, on the other hand, what can this case study suggest about the very different cultural values that exist between the reservation and the newsroom, if not the larger mainstream American culture in general. As a foundation for your discussion, you may want to begin by first looking at the website of the Native American Journalists Association (www.naja.com).

This is a case proving that good writers should know about what they are writing.  The foundation of good journalism is to have a clear understanding of the subject. How could a reporter write about an issue that they themselves do not have a grasp?

The study of anthropology faced a similar dilemma at the turn of the last century.  Researchers looked at “other” cultures from a Western ethnocentric viewpoint, making it difficult to have a true understanding of different peoples.  It was when anthropologists took the time to live with the divergent cultures, they began to better understand and explain how humans could face hardships in areas far removed from their own.  It was through this underlying respect for “other” cultures they began to appreciate the common humanity of all people.

Some of my favorite interview questions are the simplest.  Ask “why?” in a way that invites to “help me understand the context of the situation, not just offer a sound bite or quote.”

Journalists can learn from the lessons and techniques of the anthropologist, especially when reporting on other cultures such as the Native American.  I am not suggesting journalists must immerse themselves in the different cultures on which they report, but any degree of understanding can only help to tell a better story.  When a writer comes off their ethnocentric pedestal, taking a sometimes-difficult route to relate to other groups, the effort will pay off.  It makes them better prepared to offer thoughtful stories to a wider audience. 

This is the goal of diversity.  It is not only in bringing other cultures to the table, but in understanding that people have their individual stories to tell; stories that can be told in their own manner.  It is the job of the enlightened journalist to act as a bridge between divergent peoples and to identify the universal themes in humanity. 

Imus and the meaning of words

The key concept in Imus’ unceremonious removal from radio and television is in how words and concepts constantly change with social norms.  What was acceptable a generation ago becomes offensive today.  Where Imus failed was in recognizing the social changes and the shrinking audience for his outdated views. His situation reflects an important part of journalism, as Jean Gaddy Wilson wrote, “Language changes to get in step with power shifts, and in a world that is globalizing, power shifts constantly.” 

Wilson wrote of the task of the journalist, as it is with anyone who makes his or her living on a public forum.  It is to recognize and reflect our changing times.  Imus’ comments reflected an outdated outlook that was out of step with the increased power and respect of people traditionally kept “out of the loop,” most notably women and people of color.

Imus made his reputation as a ‘shock jock’ decades ago.  He refused to realize his act was not playing well to a changing world, and he paid the price.  He was forced out because Imus represented a sense of power that has become outdated and anachronistic. 

The key is in the individual interpretation of words and the values that society places on them.  As Wilson wrote, “Journalists struggle to craft intelligent work that reflects current reality, not stereotypes and labels from an out-of-date time frame.”

Even though Imus established himself as a political commentator, with many high-profile interviews as well espousing what he believed was a “grass-roots” viewpoint representing the “common man.”  Imus put too much emphasis on his own limited view, and not enough on the social realities of the day.

Bertrand Russell said, “Although the dictionary or the encyclopedia gives what may be called the official and socially sanctioned meaning of a word, no two people who use the same word have just the same thought in their minds.”  Imus’ fatal flaw was that he did not recognize that the meaning of his words would have a significance different from his own.  What he demonstrated was stubbornness for his own values, which in reality was clinging to a past that most now saw as morally wrong.

However, I would not go as far as labeling Imus’ words “hate speech.”  In America, to dismiss categorically any level of speech is to run the risk of controlling thought and concepts.  To begin prohibiting certain concepts runs the risk of violating free expression, something that is the foundation of the First Amendment.  Imus’ words may have been insensitive and in poor taste, but not seen as “fighting words;” the current standard of “hate speech.”

Joseph Hemmer saw the problems in codifying hate speech when he wrote, “If a code banned such words, numerous respected pieces of literature--Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn, and Harvey Fierstein's Torch Song Trilogy--could not have been written.  Second, content-based expression should likewise be protected. Clearly, the expression of any hate-based theory, ideology, philosophy, subject matter, or message content enjoys constitutional protection.”  As in everything, context is the key in understanding (or decrying) any word or deed.  Nothing humans do occurs in a vacuum.

To keep in mind is this: Imus’ speech may have been constitutionally protected; however, there is nothing in the constitution saying business must broadcast unappealing words and concepts.  Radio and television are businesses—as with any business practice, what is offensive or demeaning to any group does not have to be broadcast.  

CBS radio had every right to take Imus off the air.