Newton's Law of Media Backlash

(AP/Nick Wass)

Campaign journalism works in much the same way. A candidate enjoys some positive press and then – with a precision you could darn near set a watch by – he or she starts to get criticized. It's a little like Wack-a-Mole, where you pop up and get smacked. And it's a little like skeet – you aim high for the sky, but then once you hit a certain trajectory, POW the shots start coming.

Two examples of late: Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. He was the media darling Cinderella story of the Iowa straw poll, way exceeding the expectations set by the media.

Based on those results and a great on-camera persona, Huckabee built up a little steam, started showing up on cable news political shows, had a "Real Time with Bill Maher" one-on-one and gained traction with his momentum and awshuckiness.

Then, Newton's Law of Media Backlash took effect.

BLAM! Came the American Spectator last week:

Ask lots of folks in Arkansas, including Republicans, and a fair number will probably tell you that Huck is for Huck is for Huck. National media folks like David Brooks, dealing in surface appearances only, rave about what a nice guy Huckabee is, and a moral exemplar to boot. If they only did a little homework, they would discover a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak, and a long history of imbroglios about questionable ethics.

Mike Huckabee has officially been anointed the "It Candidate" of the moment in the Republican presidential race, enjoying a flood of favorable media coverage and a string of good campaign news.

But can the man whose campaign was so cash-strapped that it couldn't afford a trip to Mackinac Island be considered a serious threat in Michigan, or the rest of the country?

I mentioned on Monday that he might be poised to ride a boomlet into the Iowa caucuses, in part because he is an effective communicator and an ordained Baptist preacher who is sincerely in sync with the party's religious conservatives. Nevertheless, in a Republican debate on Sunday night, his fervor got in the way of his facts.

But sometimes the pendulum swings a bit too far, to the point of nitpicking the new golden boy (or girl). While I appreciate Dick Polman's fact-checking instinct – he tried to break down how many Declaration of Independence signers were clergymen, to refute one of Huckabee's claims – I think there are more pressing issues that are worth checking and double-checking before you get to "Was William Whipple a man of the cloth or not?"

And the second instance of Newton's law of media backlash comes at the expense of … presidential sorta candidate Stephen Colbert. Right after he announced his faux candidacy, he was the toast of the cable networks and media writers and blogosphere, was even asked to write a Maureen Dowd column and invited to appear on "Meet the Press." (Which drew an instant wag of the finger from this writer.)

A few days after my piece, Rachel Sklar of the Huffington Post basically also said 'Whoa, Stephen,' when she wrote "it's enough."

It's a terrible idea on many different grounds. Comedically, it's an extreme gag and an unoriginal one at that — getting a bridge named after you in Hungary or branding a minor-league Ontario baseball team or whooshing a museum for yourself into existence or getting a red piece of plastic around Matt Lauer's wrist — those are all inherently way funnier than ye olde joke candidate.

It's depressing to watch respected journalists lower themselves just to tickle Colbert's funny bone. Dowd is the wittiest columnist anywhere, and Russert is the best interviewer in television news. They shouldn't be kissing up to a comedian, even one as talented as Colbert.

Hopefully, though, the digging into the candidates records and resumes will be the focus of journalists' energy and not little asides about cackles or campaign headquarter locations or Declaration of Independence signatories … or even, cross your fingers, another paternity test regarding who spawned the Internet.