The Maui tv article was actually from an article which appeared in “The Honolulu Advertiser” last week. As I mentioned it is one of the worst cases of journalism I have ever seen! I will find the analysis of the article which Freeper bvw made and post it here for you to read.
What a weirdly composed article.
Example 1: This sentence:
“Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health,” he said. “They would send the same thing to both papers.”
Is followed immediately by this one:
Fringe theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya are left to ponder how two independent Honolulu daily newspapers and the state Department of Health could be part of conspiracy half a century ago to thwart the truth about the future president of the United States.
Obfuscation Alert: The answer about the two papers is what the first statement made obvious — because the State Department send out the same list! So there did not have to be any conspiracy involving two papers, especially two that the article goes out of it’s way to declare as “independent.” That’s either really confused thinking by the author and editors or it is deliberate obfuscation meant to mislead.
Dishonest Reporting Alert: It is not even necessary that the Department of Health be involved in a conspiracy either. They could have merely accepted a birth notice from some party. And that party could have misstated the place of birth. Private parties are allowed to record a notice of birth. It is simply dishonest to report that there had to be a conspiracy involving the any official.
Logical Fallacy Alert: The article presents a small subgroup “theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya” as if that represents all who question the birth legend. I do not know if any of us “insist” Obama was born in Kenya! Some of us do think he *most likely* was, but that is NOT the same as insisting. What we all would like to know is the truth. We do, however, insist that we want the *truth*, whatever that may be.
The logical fallacy is that the most easily dismissed subgroup of researchers is used as the typical example of all who seek the simple truths of Obama’s birth.
Prejudicial Bias Alert: The lead-off term “Fringe theorists” prejudices the reader. We are not fringe, and we are researchers as well as theorists. Actually, we’d love if the Hawaiian media would work with us to get to the truth. Assuming they want the truth, and not just the legend.
Example 2: This:
It’s feasible the couple occupied the back cottage at 6085 Kalaniana’ole. Public records from the time show that Barack H. Obama, 25, also had a residence at 625 11th Ave. in Kaimuki.
Since those records show that Obama Sr. had the 11th Avenue dwelling at the same time he and his wife were living on Kalanianaole Highway, its possible the young Barack also visited that residence.
Frame Breaker Alert: Twice in these two sentences the report says that public records show that Obama Sr. lived on 11th Avenue. Why twice? Because the reporter is confused about it. It doesn’t fit the narrative. When confused about a statement of facts that doesn’t seem to fit prior assumptions it is a natural human tendency to repeat the frame-breaking fact.
For example, after a rough morning at work one coworker might say “Gee, it’s two pm already!”, and a natural response is “Two o’clock, already?!” Repetition of the fact that doesn’t fit the assumption. Something that breaks a mental framing of reality is remarkable, we mentally note it verbally repeating the frame breaking fact.
Strange Idiom Alert: “It’s feasible” is not an unknown idiom, but it is not common. Note that in the very next sentence the more common idiom “its possible” [sic] is used. The common grammar error “its” for “it is’ is another clue of strangeness.
It seems to me that the reporter or editor deliberately tried to avoid the use of “it’s possible” because that would infer that it is also possible that Obama’s mom did NOT live at that address reported in the birth record. ‘Feasible’ doesn’t queue up the same reaction in most readers, because the usage is rare.
Example 3: This:
By 1963 the Dunhams had moved into Apartment 110 of a six-year-old building at 1427 Alexander Street, records show. A year before, Obama Sr. had separated from his wife and child to attend Harvard University. In 1963, when she was a UH sophomore, Stanley Ann Obama’s address was listed in a university directory as 2277 Kamehameha Ave. She filed for divorce in 1964. It can be assumed that she and young Barack also spent time with the Dunhams at the two-bedroom apartment on Alexander, which is also still there.
Time Jump Alert: We start this paragraph somewhere in 1963 on Alexander Street only to then fly back a vague sometime ‘year earlier’ to learn that dad ran off then.
Foggy Time Line Alert: The paragraph is very confusing, but it is obvious the reporter is going for a determinative time line, yet can’t quite make it. As a possible signal of utter frustration the last paragraph ends “It can be assumed ...”
6,248 posted on Sunday, November 09, 2008 03:12:30 PM by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6234 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Indeed, it’s a difficult piece of reading.
Do you or does anyone know if there are any actual records of either marriage or divorce of Stanley Anne Dunham and B. Obama Sr? Or if they can be viewed by the public?
I’ve never seen any actual records referred to or spocked...(seen, looked at).
If there are actual records of marriage or filings for divorce or granting of same, that would certainly fill in some of the time line.