NY Times Flubs Timeline of 'Birther' Myth: First Spread by Hillary Clinton Supporters in 2008
By Clay Waters | April 28, 2011 | 13:22
President Obama authorized the state of Hawaii to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate, resulting in massive media attention and a front-page splash by New York Times reporter Michael Shear on Thursday, “Citing ‘Silliness,’ Obama Shows Birth Certificate.”
But a Times media reporter wrongly suggested the “Birther” theories only erupted after Obama became president, among conservatives, when in fact they first circulated during the Democratic primaries, stirred up by supporters of Obama rival Hillary Clinton.
Shear wrote:
President Obama released his long-form birth certificate on Wednesday, a step that injected him directly into the simmering “birther” controversy in the hope of finally ending it, or even turning it to his advantage.
The gamble produced dramatic television as Mr. Obama strode into the White House briefing room to address, head on, a subject that had been deemed irrelevant by everyone in his orbit for years even as it stoked conservative efforts to undermine his legitimacy as president.
Mr. Obama’s comments risked elevating the discredited questions about where he was born, but also allowed him to cast his political opponents as focused on the trivial at a time when the nation is facing more important issues.
Would those “more important issues” include fund-raising on Wall Street and taping an appearance on “Oprah Winfrey,” as he also did on Wednesday? Neither has Obama been a profile of leadership with his vague and partisan budget “plan,” a political response to Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s more substantive proposal.
Shear got the conspiracy theory’s time-line right, correctly fixing the controversy as starting during Obama’s presidential campaign.
False accusations about Mr. Obama’s being born abroad -- and the implication that his election was thus invalid -- have percolated on the Internet and among conspiracy theorists since the early days of his presidential campaign, when aides distributed a shorter version of the birth certificate that is normally given out by officials in Hawaii.
It’s ironic that the liberal media’s obsessive reporting of “Birther” rumor-mongering may have lent credibility to the idea Obama was born overseas. On Wednesday, Times media reporter Brian Stelter brushed against the issue without conceding any ideological component, noting a report that found that “of the three main cable news channels, MSNBC hosts spent substantially more time talking about the citizenship issue than those on CNN or Fox News.”
But Stelter himself failed to get his “birther” time-line straight, falsely implying the theories erupted after Obama became president and were spread by “right-wing radio and television hosts,” when in fact they first circulated during the Democratic primaries, stirred up in April 2008 by supporters of Hillary Clinton.
The facts about Barack Obama’s birth never wavered. But the more the fraudulent theories were debated and dispelled in major news media outlets, the more people seemed to believe them.
The conspiracy theories were promulgated on the Internet and by fringe publishers in the early days of the Obama presidency, and they were encouraged by right-wing radio and television hosts and, more recently, by Donald J. Trump, who is toying with a Republican run for president.
....
But murmurs on Internet forums led to whispers on talk radio. Some hosts shrugged it off, but others, like Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs, questioned why the long-form birth certificate had not been released.
Stelter’s conspiracy time-line, highlighted above, appears out of whack with his own reporting. In a July 25, 2009 story Stelter claimed: “The conspiracy theorists who have claimed for more than a year that President Obama is not a United States citizen have found receptive ears among some mainstream media figures in recent weeks.”
Stelter's “for more than a year” time-frame would date the rumors before July 2008, before Obama’s election and during the fiercely contested Democratic primary. Indeed, the rumor that Obama was not a U.S. citizen was initially spread in April 2008 by a group of Hillary Clinton supporters, as reported April 22 by Politico’s Ben Smith and Byron Tau:
If you haven’t been trolling the fever swamps of online conspiracy sites or opening those emails from Uncle Larry, you may well wonder: Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there?
The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008.
....
Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve.
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login or register to post comments


















Comments
Leave it to the NYT
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:59pm.
Not only did they flub the timeline (on purpose) but they also continued the liberal meme of trivializing a possible Constitutional crisis.
When the same issue was brought up with regards to John McCain being born in Panama (on a US Military base) he had to go to a Federal District court and deal with it before the election, which he had no problem doing. Meanwhile Obama has spent over 2 years and $2 million trying to keep it secret and unseen (along with his college records).
So who exactly has been keeping the "birther" issue alive????
Part time Congress with term limits! - No more professional politicians. Let's start rebuilding the Republic!
How conveeenient! Media is
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:00pm.
How conveeenient! Media is amazingly incompetent. Amazingly biased. An amazing lack of morals. Do the right thing? Heck no!!!! Truth? What is truth? The government schools never taught them about that!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Yes the Dems started this and
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:17pm.
Yes the Dems started this and then some of the conservatives picked it up and now the conservatives "own" it.
Yes the left is behind birtherism
Submitted by dgv on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:19pm.
Which is why hippie states like arizona and oklahoma are passing birther bills
There you go, again
Submitted by jaywl on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:19pm.
Now look here, the story is much more, say, Good if the NYT omits that part about Clinton and all. It simply confuses the reader. After all the object is to make the far right, ultra conservative, tin foil wearing wackos the instigators of this waste of time. As a matter of course the Times "edits" the news of the day to assist the Public in the formulation of perceptions and beliefs. If those good people failed in this endeavor the networks and newspapers across the country wouldn't know what facts to present as all the facts. Confusion and chaos would reign. Liberals might search independently for truth and find that those "common" people really have....common sense. What would happen?
They used it to paint the
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:43pm.
They used it to paint the WHOLE R as nuts, then Trump, along with lots of other things he said they could have run with {SEIZE oil fields, really???} played right into their hands by mentioning it. I really don't think he wanted it to be ALL people heard when he spoke, but the msm made sure it was.
Ronald Reagan
The real question
Submitted by In_Awe on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:58pm.
The real question is when and whether we will ever get serious about reliably vetting the candidates whose eligibility is constitutionally defined. As it stands now, the candidate's political party vouches for the candidate and that's that. Under similarly vague circumstances, would the left have been satisfied with the RNC vouching for GWB's bona fides? Why shouldn't candidates for top political offices in this country be required to what is required to get a passport - produce a birth certificate or other proof of eligibility to say the DoJ?
LA Times - NY Times - all in the same game. Re: Birthers
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 3:02pm.
Today the Los Angeles Times put it's best spin on the story by putting six - count em - 6 journalists on this piece:
How far did all six of these fine journalists get with the history of the birther movement?
Six journalists (goodness only knows how many editors were involved) working together, utilizing 990 words, take on the birth of the birther movement, and they can't bother to identify that it began with dirty Democratic party politics (notes - quotes taken from John Avalon, with (my bold):
Berg also went viral on YouTube.
Just how much effort does a national newspaper have to expend in it's effort to keep pertinent information out of a news story, and to keep it out of all of their coverage, including op-eds and editorials, on a particular issue such as this one?
(;~/ gary
Not one Big Media member has the guts to be honest.
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 3:22pm.
Natural Born Citizen.
If location is all that it entails, then illegal alien anchor babies are eligible to be President.
Poll question - Are Illegal Aliens' children eligible to be President?
HOW Many people in America are going to say yes?
Big Media doesn't even have the guts to ask that question.
I forgot.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 1:39am.
Are you a jus soli birther? Or a jus sanguinis birther?
It's quite obvious
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:20pm.
if you make an suggestion or criticism that is not directly related to policy, you're a racist. That being the case, the libs fed this and waited for and nurtured it and once was ripe (a process Trump sped up), they played their favorite race card. I do believe that they wanted to show their artwork close to the election and Trump squeezed that document into the limelight.
They always play this game. The formula does not change and we fall into this nonsense whenever we go outside what matters, policy. We get played.
Remember Willie Horton
Submitted by RightWinger on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 7:08am.
Al Gore started the Willie Horton saga when running against Michael "Tank" Dukakis, but the racist blame for starting those ads were placed on Bush Sr. It's funny that when you bring up to a Regressive today that Hillary Supporters started the Birther craze and not those evil Republicans, their response is " It doesn't matter who started it!" LOL