McCain has been riding a smear against Obama for some time now, attempting to link Obama to Hamas, a terrorist organization. This started when, about a month ago, an political advisor for Hamas approved of Obama:

Hamas’ top political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, embraced the Obama campaign Sunday in an interview on WABC radio, saying, “We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election.”

He compared the Illinois senator to President John F. Kennedy, saying he was a “great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.”

Obama immediately rejected the unsolicited approval by that organization, denouncing Hamas and criticizing former president Carter’s meetings with them. His campaign released this statement:

Senator Obama has repeatedly rejected and denounced the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of many innocents, that is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. As president, Obama will work with Israel to isolate terrorist groups like Hamas, target their resources, and support Israel’s right and capability to defend itself from any attack.

McCain, however, pounced on the chance to associate Obama with terrorists. On a call with conservative bloggers in late April, McCain said:

I think it’s very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare… If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

McCain continued this attack, repeating it again and again over the past two weeks. Obama responded by criticizing McCain for running a smear campaign, after McCain had repeatedly claimed his campaign would take the high road:

Yeah, this is offensive.

And I think it’s disappointing, because John McCain always says, well, I’m not going to run that kind of politics. And then to engage in that kind of, you know, smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy towards Hamas has been no different than his.

I’ve said that they are a terrorist organization, that we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they’re willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.

The McCain campaign responded to this not by defending the accusation that Obama is bad because Hamas likes him, nor by explaining how such a charge is somehow compatible with a “clean” campaign; instead, they focused on the comment by Obama that McCain had “lost his bearings.” Obama, with that remark, in the context of just having pointed out McCain’s promise not to practice “that kind of politics,” had clearly and plainly meant “losing his bearings” to mean “straying from his stated principles.” There is no parsing or equivocating here; Obama’s remarks were without any doubt whatsoever a reference to principles, and not age.

The McCain campaign, however, in the grand tradition of Republican political strategy (e.g. “inventing the Internet”), twisted the statement to be an attack on McCain’s age:

McCain senior adviser Mark Salter shot out a memo saying the ”bearings” crack was ”not a particular clever way” of making an issue of McCain’s age. Obama’s ”new brand” of politics, said Salter, was really an attack, and that ”is called hypocrisy.”

Salter said McCain was raising ”legitimate questions” about Obama’s ”judgment and preparedness” to be president. Salter said they won’t be scared off by an Obama team tactic to call ”ANY criticism on ANY issue” — Salter used capital letters — ”negative, personal attacks.”

Now, here’s where the startling bias comes in: the media is not only buying McCain’s complete and utter misrepresentation of Obama’s remark, but they are actually ignoring the complete context of the “bearings” comment. CNN, the very network where Obama first made the comment, carried this exchange:

BANDERAS: Meantime, McCain’s likely opponent, Barack Obama, made what some are calling a dig at John McCain’s age. So, will this be an issue in the general election? We’re talking now to Wendy Schiller, associate professor of political science at Brown University, also a regular guest on The [O’Reilly] Factor. Thank you so much for talking to us.

SCHILLER: Good morning.

BANDERAS: Let’s first address Obama’s comments by basically saying, or possibly bringing up the age issue by saying that McCain is losing his bearings. He has been around. He’s 71 years old. He’s been in the Senate for more than 21 years. He knows how to stand up to a guy like Obama. What do you think?

SCHILLER: Well, I think just like you said — he’s been around for a long time. And I think every time Obama says “age,” you know, McCain says “experience.” And so, it’s a risky strategy for Obama, I think, to go after McCain on his age. Also, let’s not forget: Who votes the most frequently? What’s the biggest turnout rate, highest turnout rate? People over 65 in this country. People are living longer, more active. Nobody over 70 wants to be told that they’re irrelevant. So I think on a double level, I think Obama’s taking a risk here. And I don’t know that it’s going to pay off for him.

Completely ignored the Hamas smear. Completely ignored the context of the statement. Completely misrepresented it’s plainly obvious meaning, and accepted with only the mildest of non-specific caveats the unmistakable re-imagining of its meaning.

Consider: while the statement “losing one’s bearings” can refer to losing one’s faculties, it depends completely on the context. If you are navigating a boat, and I point out that we are off course, and say you have “lost your bearings, you need to change course” can this possibly be construed as a comment on your losing your mind? The answer: only if you force that meaning into the statement, and dishonestly so.

The word “bearings” means “the direction or position of something, or the direction of movement, relative to a fixed point.” So to say one has promised to follow the principles of clean campaigning, devoid of smears, and then has resorted to smears, and so has lost one’s bearings–well, there really is no question here. None at all.

The irony is that in so lying about Obama’s statement, McCain is digging himself even deeper into a combative, smear-based low-road campaign, further violating his own pledge not to campaign dirty. And instead of noting this, the media seems happy to essentially be a mouthpiece for the McCain campaign.

Any journalist who gloms on to McCain’s intentional misinterpretation of the statement without noting the original context is dishonest and biased–whether for political leanings or for sensationalism, either way it’s dishonest and definitely not “journalism.”