McCain's Media Lapdogs Rip Conservative Critics

It's only natural that leftists would take the media lovefest over Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's "trash-talk express" to mean only one thing. In The Nation, Eric Alterman asked: "Can we please put the `liberal media' [insert barnyard reference here] to rest forever, now?" At the invitation of the Los Angeles Times, left-wing media critic Jeff Cohen declared: "The `Straight Talk Express' may not roll over Bush, but it already has run over and killed the myth of the liberal news media."

Nowhere in their critiques did they consider that nowhere but nowhere has the mainstream press praised the Arizonan's votes to impeach Clinton, for tax cuts, for a missile defense, against abortion, or any other conservative stance he's (sometimes) taken. That would make you wonder about the liberal media.

But these radical rogues have some strange new company: network TV pundits trotted out as representative of "conservative" thinking. Alterman took glee in quoting Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who told the New Yorker magazine, "The whole idea of the `liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." He noted Kristol said on CNN's Reliable Sources that "the press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes." Kristol didn't have an example of that alleged conservatism, nor was he asked for one, which got him neatly off the hook.

Kristol's colleague David Brooks -- another "conservative" -- said in a Newsweek column: "The movement consciousness is based on the idea that we are a band of brave, beleaguered souls under perpetual assault from the liberal mainstream media. These people detest McCain because liberals don't hate him"

But the award for liberal bias denial has to go to CNN pundit Tucker Carlson, yet another Weekly Standard staffer busily promoting McCain. On Feb. 6, Carlson claimed Bush staffers "are doing this kind of Spiro Agnew thing, the liberal media loves McCain because he's liberal, or something. That's ridiculous. The press likes McCain for the same reason voters in New Hampshire like McCain, because he doesn't fear anything."

Why reporters fawn over John McCain

Posted January 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

This morning, almost in passing, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough mentioned the national press corps covering the presidential campaign and said, “I think every last one of them would move to Massachusetts and marry John McCain if they could.”

A little crude, sure, but Scarborough’s point is not without merit. Last week, for example, McCain finished fourth in the Iowa caucuses, behind a guy who barely even tried to campaign. No one has ever finished fourth in the Republican caucus and gone on to win the GOP nomination. The national media, therefore, naturally declared the fourth-place finisher the big winner of the night.

TP pulled together some of the embarrassing, ingratiating praise media personalities offered for the Arizona Republican.

MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle: “McCain’s stance on the war. They view it because of who he is and the eye contact during these town meetings. He’s the Babe Ruth of town meetings.”

Politico’s Mike Allen: “Tonight is a fantastic night for John McCain…. He’s one of the biggest winners of the night.”

Newsweek’s Jon Meacham: “To me, the great story about Sen. McCain is, when in doubt, give principle a try.”

Fox News’ Carl Cameron: “Inside Washington, he’s been a real maverick outsider.”

John McCain may very well be the first fourth-place finisher in nominating history to come out of Iowa with momentum and media adulation. It’s worth taking a moment to consider why.

Jason Zengerle, noting that there’s “no denying that the media absolutely loves McCain,” highlights a point that often goes unsaid.

The simple explanation is: McCain affords the press access like no other candidate. In the McCain campaign, there’s no barrier between candidate and reporter. If you have a question for McCain, you don’t have to bother going to his press secretary; you simply go ask him. On some days, you literally spend eight hours with the candidate, just riding with him in the back of his bus peppering him with questions on everything from Pakistan to his philosophical thoughts about suicide. Toward the end of the day, this amount of unfettered access to the candidate can actually be a bit of a problem, when you start to run out of questions for him and there are awkward silences. But, on the whole, it’s hard to overstate the sort of goodwill this access engenders among reporters.

Still, I do wonder why McCain allows this sort of access, given all the risks it entails.

Well, maybe. I explored this a bit last year in a piece for The American Prospect, and found that the risks may not be as great as they appear. In the 2000 campaign, an enamored press corps was willing to cut McCain all kinds of slack. In October 1999, for example, aboard the campaign bus, McCain referred to the Vietnamese as “gooks.” Not only did reporters not call the candidate on the use of the slur, almost none of them reported on McCain’s ugly word choice. According to one insider I talked to, there was a “gentleman’s agreement” in place — in exchange for access and freewheeling interviews, most campaign correspondents would knowingly look the other way from some of McCain’s more “candid” blunders.

And therein lies the point: McCain gets all of the benefits (media adulation) and few of the risks (carte blanche to act like an idiot without being called on it).

The New York Times is out of control. On a regular basis, the news department makes headlines for outrageously biased non-news, such as the incredibly scummy story in February alleging that McCain had a sexual relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman despite the paper’s utter lack of proof. Even their advertising department has gotten into the act. Recall how they made a sweetheart deal with MoveOn.org to slam Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us." Now it’s the op-ed department, refusing to give McCain the opportunity to respond to Obama because they don’t like the response, period.

Meanwhile, over in TV land, the network anchors lined up for their chance to boost Obama’s adventures. In the first days of the trip, it led all the network newscasts and they praised him aggressively, down to the jump-shots he made playing basketball in Kuwait. Now compare that to their coverage of McCain when he went abroad. On a trip in March, the networks amassed four stories in the entire week. CBS gave McCain’s trip....ten seconds, 31 words.

When McCain went to Colombia and Mexico a couple of weeks ago, ABC beat him up. Five times over the course of two segments on July 2, various "Good Morning America" hosts, reporters and analysts emphasized that McCain's trip might result in voters thinking he didn’t care about the domestic economic situation. Robin Roberts began her interview: "So, why is Senator McCain abroad when Americans are focused on the economy here at home and losing jobs, more and more jobs?" McCain said the drug trade in Colombia is a serious issue for Americans. But Roberts just plowed ahead, and asked again why on Earth he would go to South America. ABC didn’t want an answer. ABC wanted people to resent McCain for leaving the country.

McCain’s campaign is now running Internet ads mocking Chris Matthews for his "thrill up the leg" comments about Obama and other assorted media goo, complete with Frankie Valli crooning "Can’t Take My Eyes Off You" in the background. It’s quite clear that the media are hypersensitive about any mockery of Obama. So mocking his pitter-patter valentines in the media may be the best hardball he can throw.

Labels: 2008 election, John McCain, mainstream media, media bias, presidential candidates