Jon Stewart, having recently read the book, comments on his show saying that "I'm surprised at the controversy because the book seems to portray Michelle Obama as a complex yet human individual struggling with this unbelievable situation yet remaining the moral compass and center of an administration trying to find its footing."
Again, due to the convoluted ways of the media, they have, once again, twisted the book into an un-needed controversy about the relationship between husband and wife, as well as husband, wife, and aides.
My question to you is would you read this book? If so, would you find it credible in it's claims?
3 comments:
I believe that the book is somewhat credible because from what I heard on a Today Show interview, the author got most of her information from staffers and White House aids in the East Wing; they are all first hand accounts. The only problem that I see is that all these accounts are very outdated. They date back to about 2009 and deal with problems of the past. I think a consolation, however, is that the author is a New York Times reporter which gives the book some credibility. I think that if I were to read this, I would have to keep in mind that the book is somewhat outdated and also arguably biased.
I agree with what dustan said but I probably wouldn't read it because I don't read books unless they're harry potter or something I have to read for school. I even then I hardly read so, nah I wouldn't read it.
I would like to bring up the point that credibility of the book "The Obamas" is limited on the account that there are no interviews with the Obama family about specific moments during Obama's presidency from '08-'12. I have to admit that could have been a result of possible oversight or just with the difficulty of getting in contact with them. Yet, there is only the bias of the Obama family's "closest aides" and how they see the members of Obama's family in their daily lives.
In the course of the interview, the author places the negative reputation for the media representation of the book skewing the audiences' views with an overall negative bias. The example of the interviewer's attitude towards the author herself (on CNN in the title link) kind of fits what argument the author said about the media pushing controversy and the author at the very least called out the interviewer's bluff on her own segment.
The basic information that people would get out of this book is from the inside aides and staff from the White house. Such assumptions of character from the author that the interviewer spotted had grayed the line between fact and opinion. The controversy could either be a pull on the people who want to reason out the truth for themselves or a push away on people who do not want to trouble themselves on a questionable book or some other third reason to the reader or non-reader. If I would read the book, some of the opinions and personal character of the subjects in it would be as outdated as Dustin said. I would also add in the effects of being a 24-hour public figure as well.
Post a Comment