Let’s begin with the basics: it’s unethical for the President to lend his name and office a Twitter account that purports to send out messages from him when in fact he neither sends out the messages nor approves them. It’s also stupid, and it’s unethical because it is stupid. A President’s credibility must be protected, by him and everybody else. If Obama isn’t sending a tweet, he shouldn’t permit an official tweet to go out that suggests otherwise. “Everybody” knows Obama isn’t sending the tweets, you say? If so, then why do so many Twitter users follow Fake Obama? Whether they believe it is him or not, he implicitly endorses and approves whatever is tweeted under his name. He is responsible.
From this follows the next point: it is irresponsible to hire a grade school drop-out to represent the President of the United States on the internet. Stating that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in 1963 isn’t a typo: this was embodied in a graphic, and requires deep, frightening historical ignorance. I wouldn’t expect the President to have time to oversee this kind of petty operation, especially since he can’t find the time to oversee the I.R.S., the N.S.A, the V.A., the Secret Service, the Armed Services, or the Justice Department, all of which he should be holding to some standards of competence. I would expect, however, that whoever that supervision is delegated to would understand that making sure POTUS isn’t made to seem like Jessica Simpson on Twitter is paramount. I would also expect that the President himself would want to exert some effort to control the words others place in his mouth, as that would be the smart, responsible, professional and presidential thing to do.
But that is obviously expecting too much.
Source: Ed Driscoll
5 thoughts on “Ethics Dunces: The Idiot Who Pretends To Be Barack Obama On Twitter, Plus The Idiot Who Hired An Idiot To Pretend To Be Barack Obama, Plus The President, Who Apparently Doesn’t Know Or Care That He’s Being Impersonated By An Idiot”
I think the assertion is that: a) the equal pay act was signed in 1963, and “it’s not 1963 anymore”; b) we have accomplished big things (like landing on the moon) in the interim, but haven’t accomplished so-called equal pay (though I dispute that notion.)
I agree that the disjunction is jarring and can readily lead one to conclude that they are saying that, but I don’t believe the suggestion is that the moon landing occurred in 1963.
So, it’s poorly phrased, and it supports a false assertion regarding equal pay, but not quite as stupid as it otherwise appears to be.
I think you are probably right! Thank you!
But while we are talking about poor phrasing,”I don’t believe the suggestion is that the moon landing occurred in 1963″ is clearly wrong. When a message includes a graphic showing the moon-landing and the date 1963 superimposed over it, that IS, intentional or not, a pretty clear suggestion that the moon landing occurred in 1963. Date with photo of historical event = assertion tah event occurred on said date.
So the tweeter may be a different kind of idiot—communications impaired rather than historically ignorant—but he’s still an idiot, and his supervisor and the President remain indicted. And thanks for mentioning the continued use of the equal pay misrepresentation. I was proud of myself for not doing so.
I agree with Macca. There was never any belief or intention to state that the moon landing happened in 1963. As you say, it’s a communication error rather than an error in historical knowledge.
Made on behalf and in the name of the President of the United States. Either way, it is outrageous negligence, three ways.
How is this different from what Obama’s press secretaries have been doing on television, right in our faces?