John McCain, in tried and true Republican fashion, likes to whine about the press. His line is that the media is liberal, that it ignores him, and that it focuses a grand spotlight on his oponent, Barack Obama. This Republican line of attack has been proven false over and over again, but it is truly galling in McCain's case. McCain himself has long taken public pride in his relations with the press, going to far as to call the media his "political base."
While it is true that Obama is getting press coverage in total number of pieces and in total "air time" beyond anything that has ever before been seen in American politics, it is also true that Obama's campaign is historic and different in a way that has never before been seen in the modern era. Anyone who doesn't think that Obama "deserves" this attention doesn't understand in even the most limited fashion what drives the media. On the flip side, McCain's sad story that he is being ignored is false. The level of coverage that he is receiving is comparable to candidates for president going back to Reagan. It only pales in comparison to that of Obama, but so would that of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and all of their challengers.
What is also interesting is the total amount of press that each candidate receives that is viewed as negative toward that candidate. Here, it is Obama that comes out behind by coming out ahead. IA greater percentage of pieces about Obama are negative towards him than are pieces about McCain negative towards the Republican. Right now, if anything, I would say that there is a bias against Obama and towards McCain. Let's take a look at some examples.
Last week, McCain, in speaking with CBS News, flubbed an answer regarding the surge in Iraq, his signature issue. He outright got the facts wrong about the timeline of events there and indeed what the very nature of the surge entailed. He was not called out by CBS News anchor Katie Couric for his mistake, not even close. Rather, the interview was edited to entirely omit McCain's incorrect answer, substituting his answer to a former question in its place, and covering for this by using a cutaway photo over his voice to disguise the cut. This was an outright fabrication of events to favor McCain, to protect him from his own amazing lack of knowledge about events in Iraq. While it may take events of this nature to extremes, it is not alone.
In a piece by ABC News' George Stephanoppulos, the reporter repeated over and over the fact that Obama had positions now in common with McCain on Afghanistan, with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki on the time table for American troop withdrawal from Iraq, and with the Bush Administration on engagement with Iran. He did so, however, in a way that made it seem that it was Obama that had changed his views, rather than having these others conform theirs to beliefs that Obama had long maintained. This served to diminish Obama regardless of the conclusions drawn by Stephanoppolus about its political fallout. It may have been intentional, it may have been sloppy, or it may have been both. With Stephanoppolus, one never knows.
Finally, I once again note that the McCain campaign released an ad upon Obama's return from his overseas trip that was simply a pack of lies. However, did the press actually do its job and report McCain's misinformation? No, or rather only MSNBC pointed out the factual issues with the ad. Again, the media covers for McCain.
Eventually, I hope that McCain's promise to run an honorable campaign, when he so clearly is not, combined with his continued misstatements on the issues of the day, will overcome the media's favoritism towards the Republican. We shall see.
29 July 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment