McCain And The Media

by hilzoy

As I noted earlier, at his press conference yesterday, John McCain said this:

"QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met."

But McCain's policy does include mandatory caps on emissions of the sort the EU has. There are basically three explanations for what McCain said: (1) He is lying about his own policy; (2) He doesn't know what his own policy is; (3) He doesn't know either what the EU system involves, or what the term 'mandatory caps' means. Personally, I prefer some combination of options 2 and 3, which imply that McCain is completely unfamiliar with what is supposed to be one of his signature issues. But any of the three are damning, albeit in different ways.

McCain's campaign responded by saying that McCin had been confused by the question. This is unconvincing: he's made the same mistake in response to other questions that don't have the confusing feature the campaign cites.

You might think that a mistake like this might be worth covering. But if you did, you'd disagree with most of the mainstream media. I checked about twenty five newspapers, ran a Google News search on "McCain AND energy" and "McCain AND 'cap and trade'", and read all the results (and there were a lot of them; McCain gave a press conference on energy yesterday and is giving an energy speech today.) Outside blogs and web-based media like Politico, I did not find a single story that so much as mentioned this. And even Politico, which did catch the gaffe on Jonathan Martin's blog, went on to post a story about McCain and energy that mentioned some stuff from his press conference, but did not mention this.

This might be comprehensible if McCain had generally been on top of policy details. Then one might think: well, this is just a one-time mistake, and who knows why he made it? Maybe he was just tired. But this won't work. For one thing, as I mentioned above, McCain has made this same mistake on a number of occasions. For another, McCain has been confused on a whole lot of policy questions. For instance:

* He said that the number of troops in Iraq was "down to pre-surge levels". In fact, we have 25,000 more troops in Iraq than we did when the surge began.

* He gets Shi'a and Sunni Islam confused, and doesn't seem to know that Iran, which is Shi'a, is very unlikely to train al Qaeda in Iraq, which is Sunni, within its borders. Possibly that's because he thinks that al Qaeda is Shi'a.

* He doesn't seem to know what his own Social Security policy is. From the WSJ:

"On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site."

* He also seems to disagree with his campaign and his website on whether he plans to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.

* My personal favorite:

""The economy is not good. The stock market continues down. And the indicators are not good. I'm not too astonished. ... We let spending get totally out of control, and it continues today, and I'm sorry to tell you this," McCain said at a town-hall style meeting at the Carolina Hospital East Campus in Florence. (...)

"People talk about a stimulus package. Fine, if that's what we want to come up with. But stop the spending first," he said."

Um: excessive government spending does not slow the economy down. And you stimulate the economy by (basically) putting more money into it. Saying that we need to "stop the spending" before passing a stimulus package is like saying: "Sure, we need to deal with the flooding in your basement. But let's finish filling it up with water first."

***

I could have provided many more examples like these. All the ones I just listed, except the last, concern either Iraq, McCain's signature issue, or his own policies. (I included the last because it's so appalling.) They are, therefore, all things you'd expect McCain to know off the top of his head, not arcana that no Presidential candidate should be expected to know. (I mean: ask yourself how it would be possible for someone who had been paying any attention to debates about terrorism not to know that al Qaeda was Sunni. Paying attention to this sort of thing is part of McCain's job.) And yet McCain gets basic, basic facts wrong, and he does it over and over again.

So why do our newspapers think this is not worth covering? I can think of a couple of answers.

First, the reporters who cover McCain might not know much about policy, and thus might not notice when he gets something spectacularly wrong. I suspect this is true, and it's a huge problem: if those reporters are not supposed to evaluate what McCain says, or ask whether or not it's true, how do they differ from mere stenographers? And why not just save money and have a video camera follow him around?

Second, when they do notice, they might be worried that if they note his confusion, they will be illegitimately invoking McCain's age. But this is not true.

The main reason why McCain's opponents might bring up his age is because it might suggest that he was more likely to become confused and befuddled. But if he is already confused and befuddled, then it is possible to note that fact without bringing up his age at all. You can just cut out the middleman: it doesn't matter at all whether his confusion and befuddlement is due to age, to an unwillingness to pay attention to policy details, to laziness, or anything else: he is confused on very important points of policy, and that's what matters.

Third, journalists might just assume that McCain really does know better. They might have the kind of reaction that Joe Klein initially had to McCain's Sunni/Shi'a mistake (though, to his credit, he thought better of it):

"I was going to give John McCain a break on his Al Qaeda-Iran gaffe yesterday. After all, it wasn't a Kinsleyian gaffe--the inadvertant blurting of an unacceptable truth--it was just a plain old slip of the tongue, a brain fart. Surely, McCain knows that Iran is Shi'ite and Al Qaeda is Sunni..."

If this plays a role in the coverage of McCain, it's worth asking what, exactly, journalists base this on. As McCain's mistakes pile up, the idea that he really does have a good grasp of policy issues gets less and less convincing.

***

We are about to elect a President, in one of the most important elections in recent memory. One of our candidates is routinely either confused about or ignorant of very important facts about the issues confronting us, and even about what his own policies are.

Our press ought to do us the courtesy of telling us this.

Comments

[cleek]

our press is absolutely head-over-heels in love with McCain.

[rea]

We are about to elect a President, in one of the most important elections in recent memory. One of our candidates is routinely either confused about or ignorant of very important facts about the issues confronting us, and even about what his own policies are.

Our press ought to do us the courtesy of telling us this.

That could have been said with equal truth in every election year since Nixon resigned.

[Mark D]

Outstanding post and points, but you forgot one other explanation of the media's lack of coverage: The media loves them some access.

If a reporter tagging along with McCain points out McCain's obvious and unexplainable-by-reality gaffes, there's a chance 'ol Senator Hothead will cut that reporter off from all access. And if that happens, the reporter is toast.

I think it really is that simple.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Cleek: that was thoroughly wretched and vile. I'd try to quote the "I hear what you're saying, but [...] this is John McCain we're talkin' about!"; however, the written word cannot express the fawning, incredulous tone in which the words were uttered. "But doesn't he have credibility? But oh, doesn't he have credibility when it comes to the insight of the horrors of war, of the issue of torture, of decisions that have to be made when we lead this country into the future?" Is this the press we're listening to, or his campaign staff?

[Jeff]

If a reporter tagging along with McCain points out McCain's obvious and unexplainable-by-reality gaffes, there's a chance 'ol Senator Hothead will cut that reporter off from all access. And if that happens, the reporter is toast.

Plus, no BBQ!

The solution is simple: The NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, etc assign one reporter each to McCain. If McCain cuts off access, that media outlet shuts off John McCain. They will report about him, but there will be no direct access, and the reason why will be mentioned at every opportunity.

But no BBQ!!!! Whaaaaaa!!!!

[John J.]

Just a quick note. McCain isn't completely off base saying we need to control spending to fix the economy. It is very short sighted and more like plugging one hole in the sinking boat while ignoring the dozen other holes, but it isn't inaccurate. One of the many things that affect inflation, or more specifically the willingness of people to invest in dollars, is the strength of the government's financial standing. If a government already has lots of debt out there, other people will be less willing to loan that government more money and the value of the dollar will slip. Again though, it is only one aspect of inflation amid the dozens of other issues pushing the dollar down.

[hilzoy]

John J: that is true, but remember: he didn't just say that we need to get spending control among other things, he said that while we may need a stimulus package, we need to get spending under control first.

Besides the stupidity I mentioned -- stimulus is either raising spending or cutting taxes -- what he said also suggests that he thinks that a stimulus package is not a short-term response to an immediate problem (in which case, if you do it at all, you do it fast), but something else that can be put off until other, very big things have been taken care of.

That's less completely idiotic than the bit I highlighted, but it's still wrong.

So: sure, of course we need to get our fiscal house in order. (Not that McCain's proposals do that; they make it worse, and by a lot more than Obama's.) But that is not an immediate solution to a recession -- though since McCain seems to say, in this quote, that the recession was caused by too much spending, so maybe he doesn't know that.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

The explanation is really fairly simple:

One segment of the press hates Democrats. Pure and simple. Spin, lies, smears - whatever it takes to make Democrats look bad - just do it. And the reverse for Republicans.

The other segment of the press is for the most part hopelessly intimidated by the smear the right wing has invested enormous effort in building up over multiple generations, that the only "real Americans" are manly men, tabacca chewing, NASCAR watchin, red-necked sons of the earth.

Anyone else, who is the wrong gender or color or occupation, or who just reads too many d*mm books, just isn't right somehow. I mean we'll be gracious and allow them to stay in the country and all, but they aren't REAL AMERICANS.

AND THAT INCLUDES YOU, MR, SNOOPY REPORTER.
SO KEEP YUR D*MM MOUTH SHUT, HEAR?

Our press has become so intimidated by their testosterone-lacking self-image that they bend over backwards to give positive spin to the political party which has co-opted this manufactured image of "Real Americans". It is above all else the GOP's secret weapon.

This idea is constantly propagated in our culture - look at all of the advertising on TV. Almost every beer ad and every car ad uses this meme. Look at all the fawning over Tim Russert just because the guy was from Buffalo and could tell middle-class stories from his youth.

This meme comes from many different places and goes back at least 50 years or so, but it seems to me that it gathered with particular force after the end of the Vietnam War. The right wing has been guilt tripping "the liberal media" ever since with tremendous results - the dolchstosslegende keeps on paying dividends decades after the event.

Needless to say, this whole thing p*sses me off to no end. It is enough to make me want to spit my tabacca juice at somebody.

[tgirsch]

But McCain's policy does include mandatory caps

I think that should read "does not include"

/Farber

[hilzoy]

tgirsch: no. McCain's policy -- the one on his website, the one in the bill he co-sponsored, etc. -- does include those caps. The ones he said he doesn't favor. That's because it is a cap and trade policy.

He just doesn't know what his own policy is.

[Another Chris]

McCain's prospective VP, Tim Pawlenty, has been countering the Iraq business by comparing the number of times McCain has visited Iraq with the number of Obama vists. (McCain has made a number of visits and Obama hasn't.)

Pawlenty understands that you've gotta keep it simple enough for a 5-year-old to understand with a "gotcha" element for the press to pick up on it.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Cleek,

This will be an interesting GE because, not only do the MSM love McCain, they've displayed a whole lot of affection for Sen. Obama, too.

As a voter, whether you see this is not is largely irrelevant.

What is relevant: Just listening to McCain and Obama speak on the issues. McCain sounds confused, indifferent or inconsistent, or all three.

Obama sounds confident and more assured every day when he speaks on specific issues, no doubt having been toughened and smartened up through his primary battle w/ Sen. Clinton.

Unless you are going to vote Repubican no matter what, I don't see how any sensible, reasonably intelligent Independent or Reagan/Clinton Democrat would not vote for Sen. Obama vs. the honorable Sen. Dazed and Confused.

[Davis X. Machina]

. McCain sounds confused, indifferent or inconsistent, or all three.

A mere rhetorical device designed to make him attractive to the median voter, who is confused, indifferent or inconsistent, or all three.

[Fraser]

bedtimeforbonzo, we've already been told by the talking heads that "Obambi" is a wimp who can't bowl,has a name that sounds like Saddam, will not be able to deal with the Mideast because he's an apostate Muslim and has a wife who hates America. It's only going to get worse.

[chamay0]

Let's take a good hard look at this anomaly. If the press started stomping on McCain's serious flip-flops and gaffes then the party would be over. Polls would shoot up for Obama and their would be no need to hold off for election day and no news to report.

On the other hand if the media keeps Obama in the publics' eye and nip pick over every reason why Obama might have problems, Obama's (supposed) problems will keep the masses interested and more importantly will effectively keep McCain viable (at least until November when the people speak).

Hence there is no real mystery here. The media wants people to keep watching TV and keep their ratings high. If you take McCain out of the picture what will there be to report; or, if they start reporting about Obama truthfully it would only give the public a reason to not notice McCain at all and thus no one would spend time looking at the news for the latest campaign news.

Keep in mind the main stream Media is trying to keep this an issue for the sake of making it a close race for the White House. Of course that will only work if the public is stupid. But, after 8 years of stupid I think we have all had enough of the Media's slant to keep what's dead (McCain) alive.