Obama under the microscope again

As reported on Romenesko today, Zachary Roth of the Columbia Journalism Review raises an interesting point about the recent media treatment of statements made by religious associates of Barack Obama. In short: Obama's church says something nuts and the media is outraged. John McCain's church says something nuts and no one notices.

Roth argues that old white politicians are so typical in this country that scrutinizing their religion is seen as a moot point. That may be the case, but I can't help but see another difference between McCain and Obama: the doubt that the media continues to cast upon Obama's religious background.

Flimsy arguments painting Obama as possibly Muslim were all over the media over a year ago. They were quickly debunked and disappeared from the news, but they're far from dead. The silly chain emails calling Obama a radical Muslim continue to circulate, but the real problem is that the mainstream media fails to definitively inform people otherwise. The public isn't going to forget the notion of Obama as a quasi-Muslim until the news has rid itself completely of this sort of innuendo.

Last month, a photo of Obama wearing a 'turban' made headlines. The stories debated who had circulated the image, but the photo and the word turban were enough to make an impression on viewers and readers. Even though the image wasn't what it looked like, the media gave the paper-thin story plenty of attention, giving at least some credence to what it suggests.

It's not just gullible people talking about 'Barack Osama' who will impact the election. As others have pointed out, any doubt raised about a candidate, legit or not, will hurt their image. It didn't matter in 2004 that the Swift boat captains were lying about John Kerry, because it made plenty of voters unsure whether he was fit to lead the country. And it was the media that gave such nonsense an audience.