McCain: There Should Only Be Partisan Reporting Which Supports ME
The latest nugget from the McCain campaign, after NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell does nothing but report objective facts:
In a letter to NBC News president Steve Capus, Davis said that the network’s “level of objectivity … has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain.” He requested a meeting with Capus to discuss news standards and objectivity.“We are concerned that your news division is following MSNBC’s lead in abandoning nonpartisan coverage of the presidential race,” Davis wrote.
So, I suppose that the McCain campaign has held Fox News’ feet to the fire, then? No? Gee, I wonder why not.
MSNBC, which features partisan shows on both sides of the spectrum, even at its worst still cannot compete with Fox in sheer depth and volume of partisan “reporting.” To claim NBC News is even close to either one in terms of being partisan, much less partisan against McCain, is pretty absurd. Mitchell just said that “McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama,” a statement which was 100% correct, and deserved to be noted.
The McCain campaign is now demanding that NBC execs meet with them so McCain’s people can browbeat them in person and dictate how they report the news. Of course, this request has almost no chance of being honored and McCain’s people know this, just as they surely must know that their accusations are completely ludicrous. The entire idea behind this line of attack is purely a “working the refs” tactic, painting the media as being anti-McCain (when the opposite is true) so McCain looks better. If they can trick the public into believing this, then whenever people hear a story about McCain which is not good, they’ll believe it’s not true; when they hear a story which is good, they’ll believe that it’s actually better. This is nothing new, it’s the whole strategy behind the “liberal media” uber-lie. It would be laughable if only it were not working so well.
NBC speculated on air–with absolutely no evidence–that McCain had been listening to Obama’s answers and effectively cheating at their recent debate. This is not just partisan; it’s outrageous misconduct bordering on libel. What’s worse, since it was broadcast by a seemingly respectable “news” source, people are already starting to take this outrageous lie as a proven gospel fact.
If Fox News baselessly said something like “Obama is doing pretty poorly at this debate. He’s probably on drugs right now.” you’d be justifiably furious. But I guess it’s ok for mainstream media to smear MCain, since he’s old and Republican.
Geoff:
Sorry, you’re dead wrong on this one. Mitchell’s full statement was:
“The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that — what they’re putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared.”
Okay. First, she’s reporting within the context of (1) Obama doing poorly, and (2) it was Obama’s people who made the assertion. Mitchell was not, as you claim, speculating about anything. They were just reporting what the Obama camp said.
Next, the Obama camp was simply noting something which was entirely true, and not even as forceful as it could have been. Note the double use of the word “may” and then the “had some ability.” The assertion was correct–not 100% dead accurate only in that it was not strong enough. McCain had *promised* to be in the green room, and then on air had given the impression that he had been there for the whole time (else he would have pointed out that he arrived about halfway through Obama’s turn). The assertion did not say that McCain had cheated, only that he had “some ability” to cheat, and seemed well prepared. Since McCain did not fulfill his promise to sequester himself, noting what the Obama people noted was 100% justifiable; McCain completely opened himself up for that, and had no right whatsoever to complain about the Obama camp statement, and even less to complain about Mitchell reporting on it.
Your analogy with the drugs comment is wholly inaccurate and inapplicable. The entire point of having the “cone of silence” is to prevent a participant from even the potential for impropriety. McCain was not in the quiet-room for half of Obama’s turn, and so he indeed, unquestionably, and without any doubt whatsoever, had the *ability* to overhear what the questions to Obama were. Obama’s people were actually soft on him, saying he “may” have had “some” ability; in that, she was not fully correct, as McCain *did* have *full* ability.
An accurate analogy would be if, for example, Obama were going to take a test, and had promised to not use any communication devices like a cell phone or PDA with which he could get the answers texted to him. Then, after the test, it was discovered that he was carrying his cell phone during the test. McCain’s people would point this out. If a reporter then said, “the McCain camp is suggesting that Obama may have had his cell phone with him and may have had some ability to get text messages during the test,” that would be analogous to what happened with McCain.
And that would not even be close to enough to make me furious. The McCain camp makes far more insulting and disingenuous accusations against Obama on a daily basis, and the media regularly reports them. Had the roles been reversed, the McCain camp probably would have been way *too* forceful, saying outright that “Obama broke his word and cheated during the debate”–that’s much more their style. If you don’t think so, then note that McCain has repeated endlessly that Obama is essentially a traitor to the country. They regularly say outrageous stuff like that, anything to smear Obama. So if it had been Obama not getting to the cone of silence, they would probably have gone too far instead of not far enough. Additionally, Obama answers smears from the McCain camp by charging McCain with making inappropriate accusations. He does not attack the press for reporting McCain’s accusations.
I doubt that many people will read this, but I still disagree. There was no evidence for it, then or now. Even if it originated in the Obama camp, NBC had no business defaming McCain with unsubstantiated (and since discredited) speculation.
Try this on for size. “Fox News tonight reported that sources in the McCain camp suggested the possibility that Obama may have the opportunity to take illegal drugs prior to his debate appearance. The source stated that Obama seemed dazed and distracted, so the drugs might be a possible reason.” Now they’re not accusing him of anything right? They’re just stating a possibility, based on his performance, which they admittedly have no proof at all for. I’m sure that you’re fine with Fox putting this on the air.
Geoff:
I always read all the comments, no matter how old the post, if that makes any difference… 😀
Your analogy still doesn’t measure up, and here’s why: McCain promised to be in the “cone of silence” with the understanding that it was to make sure the turn-taking was fair, because it is more than likely, even expected, for a political campaign to crib and steal and cheat and so forth.
Now, in your analogy, if there was a likelihood of Obama taking illegal drugs, and Obama had promised to take measures to prove he was not taking illegal drugs, like say a drug test, and then he passed on the drug test, that would be analogous–and in that context, it would be proper to speculate about whether he was taking illegal drugs (however unlikely the charges, the likelihood, or the willingness of of a campaign to submit to such tests).
Because there is no likelihood of illegal drugs and because such a claim would be a complete non-sequitur (like claiming that McCain may have cheated on his wife before a debate, ergo the smile on his face), it does not measure up.