Starting Gate: Big (Media) Love
John McCain is feeling neglected these days. While Barack Obama is off gallivanting around the globe and getting the kind of media attention usually reserved for an actual president, McCain finds himself struggling, not too successfully, to get into the storyline.
McCain’s campaign tried to pre-empt Obama’s trip last week by releasing an ad attacking Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan even as the Democrat was en route to the war zones. Yesterday, the campaign ratcheted up their growing complaints about the media’s coverage of Obama by posting a Web video mocking the press and basically belittling those intrepid journalists traveling with McCain.
The frustration is understandable for someone who has been accused of being the media’s darling for nearly a decade. Back in the halcyon days of the 2000 campaign, McCain was on the other side of the equation, basking in the media attention his bull sessions on the Straight Talk Express created. It was McCain, in those days, who the media seemed to be infatuated with. And the interest did not wane in the years after the election as McCain became one of the best-known fixtures on the media circuit.
But the reasons for the attention McCain has traditionally received from the press aren’t hard to figure out. His personal story as a war hero and POW has always been a riveting storyline for the senator – one that his campaign uses often themselves. His bitter primary battle with George W. Bush in 2000 elevated his political position. Here was a politician frequently at odds with his own party on big issues, whether it was campaign finance reform or immigration reform. And he has been one of the most visible critics and supporters of the administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.
Surely McCain’s campaign understands the interest in Obama now as the media – and the country – continue to try and get to know this new political phenomenon. Still, they seem to be hoping that, through all the complaints, they can guilt the media into providing him equal time. It’s a strategy that might not be working out for them exactly.
There’s new controversy arising from McCain’s interview with Katie Couric for last night’s CBS Evening News after McCain refuted Obama’s insistence that violence in Iraq may have waned even without the surge, as was evidenced by growing cooperation of Sunni leaders in fighting al Qaeda even before the surge was announced. McCain disputed that, saying that the so-called “Anbar Awakening” was made possible by the surge, a contention that is being disputed by some. (You can read the entire transcript and watch the full video of Couric’s interviews with both candidates at CBSNews.com).
The seeming flub joins a growing list of misstatements from McCain in recent weeks which are getting more and more attention. The Politico yesterday questioned whether his gaffes were a result of his age. The Washington Post follows up on that theme today and adds questions about whether McCain is getting preferential treatment. It just goes to show that not all coverage is good coverage.
Around The Track
Obama begins what could be the most difficult part of his trip today in Israel. His comments on the middle east peace process will be watched carefully.
Bobby Jindal made the rounds today on the morning news shows as speculation over the vice presidential sweepstakes swirls around him. McCain is slated to meet with Jindal this week but the Louisiana governor told the “Early Show” that he’s happy with the job he has. ““I’ve got the job that I want... He’s not going to offer it to me,” Jindal said about the number two slot.
Did McCain drop a hint about Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s future to a group of New Hampshire delegates or was he merely vouching for the man whose state hosts the convention?
”McCain is attacking too much and indiscriminately. The barrage undermines his brand, takes time away from telling voters what he might do for them, and looks awfully old-timey in a year when voters want a new brand. He should go on the offensive, yes, but in targeted forays.” – Slate’s John Dickerson, on McCain’s new aggressiveness.
McCain’s campaign tried to pre-empt Obama’s trip last week by releasing an ad attacking Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan even as the Democrat was en route to the war zones. Yesterday, the campaign ratcheted up their growing complaints about the media’s coverage of Obama by posting a Web video mocking the press and basically belittling those intrepid journalists traveling with McCain.
The frustration is understandable for someone who has been accused of being the media’s darling for nearly a decade. Back in the halcyon days of the 2000 campaign, McCain was on the other side of the equation, basking in the media attention his bull sessions on the Straight Talk Express created. It was McCain, in those days, who the media seemed to be infatuated with. And the interest did not wane in the years after the election as McCain became one of the best-known fixtures on the media circuit.
But the reasons for the attention McCain has traditionally received from the press aren’t hard to figure out. His personal story as a war hero and POW has always been a riveting storyline for the senator – one that his campaign uses often themselves. His bitter primary battle with George W. Bush in 2000 elevated his political position. Here was a politician frequently at odds with his own party on big issues, whether it was campaign finance reform or immigration reform. And he has been one of the most visible critics and supporters of the administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.
Surely McCain’s campaign understands the interest in Obama now as the media – and the country – continue to try and get to know this new political phenomenon. Still, they seem to be hoping that, through all the complaints, they can guilt the media into providing him equal time. It’s a strategy that might not be working out for them exactly.
There’s new controversy arising from McCain’s interview with Katie Couric for last night’s CBS Evening News after McCain refuted Obama’s insistence that violence in Iraq may have waned even without the surge, as was evidenced by growing cooperation of Sunni leaders in fighting al Qaeda even before the surge was announced. McCain disputed that, saying that the so-called “Anbar Awakening” was made possible by the surge, a contention that is being disputed by some. (You can read the entire transcript and watch the full video of Couric’s interviews with both candidates at CBSNews.com).
The seeming flub joins a growing list of misstatements from McCain in recent weeks which are getting more and more attention. The Politico yesterday questioned whether his gaffes were a result of his age. The Washington Post follows up on that theme today and adds questions about whether McCain is getting preferential treatment. It just goes to show that not all coverage is good coverage.
Around The Track
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 28 CommentsWho is disputing it outside of an ill-informed John McCain?
There is irrefutable documentation that the Anbar Awakening began in 2006 and the surge began late in 2007. THAT was a factual mis-statement, which is why it was excised from the official CBS record.
Please tell this viewer, who has now decided to never watch a single CBS newscast ever again, how the timing of the Anbar Awakening suddenly becamse a matter of conjecture?
And, if it really is a matter of opinion, why did you alter McCain''s answer without alerting your viewers to that fact?
Edward R. Murrow should be rolling in his grave right now.
How shameful of CBS.
And you still can''t admit the truth.
You simply ignore the fact that has been verified by numerous military officers on the ground, including General Petraeus and Michael Mullen who have said consistantly that the "Anbar Awakening", as well as security gains thoughout Iraq COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE SURGE IN TROOPS.
Stop spinning the facts to fit your liberal meme, or get out of the news business.
And Liberals too, they just have different pet corporations.
Posted by olcottr
There were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ.
There was no yellow cake uranium sold to Saddam Hussein from Niger.
It was all made up, and lied to the American People to allow for the invasion and pilfer of US Federal Treasury Funds.
Try the same old right wing tactic of %u201Cthe democrats do the same thing tooo!%u201D
Lies and stealing from the American People isn%u2019t right, it%u2019 WRONG!
From your own Standards book:
"Answers to different questions may not be combined to give the impression of one continuous response. In short, we cannot create an answer merely because we wish the subject had said it better."
But yet that''s exactly what CBS did last night.
Anyone care to explain?
And Liberals too, they just have different pet corporations.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the Conservatives have taken the American People for a long and wild ride around the barn to facilitate the diversion of $Billions of Dollars to the Private Sector.
Like them or not, these people (the "lamestream" media) are exposed daily to the happenings of the world. They are faced with the difficulties of reporting the news as honestly and objectively as they feel is possible. However, they are human. They do form their own opinions. Trying to keep their own opinions out of their reports is a difficult job in itself, however, for the most part, as a whole, they do a good job.
Now, these people are very well educated people. They were not plucked off of the street. It takes years of schooling, training and experience to get to where they are (which is on top of the "lamestream" media world). The agencies and networks employing these people are run by very intelligent people as well.
Your opinions of them are yours to hold. No one says you have to like them. But has it ever occured to you that their similar opinions are shared by eachother for the most part because they are more exposed to the world and see it a little more clearly than the average person? Or do you think that it is some sort of conspiracy that they are trying to pull off?
The media is not "biased." There is no conspiracy. They may have an opinion, but it is that way for a reason. A well educated reason. Think about that for a minute. Or don''t because maybe I''m part of that whole conspiracy, too.
From Chris Matthew''''s ''''leg tingles'''' when he hears Obama speak to the CNN anchorette quitting to go work for Obama''''s campaign.....they are all in the tank for the guy.
But, they''''re ''''coming out'''' more and more.
Posted by LibH8er at 12:31 PM : Jul 23, 2008
*************************************
The way that Conservatives or Republicans or reactionaries (whatever you call yourselves) will take one situation, one storyline, and totally fabricate an entire theme, regurgitate it until most people are ready to puke is the very reason that Republicans are going down the tubes. People are sick and tired of the constant lies and back stabbing. Grow up!
The New York-based newspaper publisher says its quarterly net income dropped to $21.1 million, or 15 cents per share, which included 11 cents per share in buyout costs.''
Adios...LAMEstream media. Your biased days are numbered! :)
NOBAMA 08! "WWJWD, what would jeremiah wright do?"!
Posted by ikez78 at 11:26 AM : Jul 23, 2008
Exactly! It''s a proven fact that the LAMEstream media is biased to they left, yet they continue to try and portray themselves as ''objective.'' What a laugh.
From Chris Matthew''s ''leg tingles'' when he hears Obama speak to the CNN anchorette quitting to go work for Obama''s campaign.....they are all in the tank for the guy.
But, they''re ''coming out'' more and more.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 28 Comments