"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
The Edwards standard and John McCain
During John Edwards' campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, media regularly treated his personal wealth as a key to assessing his policy proposals -- a standard that is not being applied to John McCain.
It often seemed as though the news media was incapable of running a story about Edwards' anti-poverty proposals without noting his own wealth. The Washington Post, for example, ran a 203-word blurb about Edwards' eight-state poverty tour, opening it with a 28-word reminder of the candidate's fortune: "John Edwards is battling back the 'three H's' that have dogged his campaign -- expensive haircuts, a lavish new house and a stint working for a hedge fund."
That was nothing new for the Post, which spent much of 2007 in an apparent bid to become the nation's leading source of haircut journalism (four separate articles in the paper's December 11, 2007, edition mentioned the Edwards haircut, many months after it first made "news.") A later article about the poverty tour reported in the fourth paragraph: "Edwards urged reporters to 'please stay focused on the stories we heard' from the workers, rather than the candidate." Paragraphs five, six, and seven then dwelled on "a series of controversies that cast doubt on the image he has cultivated as a millionaire lawyer who as the son of a millworker understands the plight of those with less than he has."
When Edwards exited the race, the Post noted "Edwards's focus on the poor was muddied by tales of his personal good fortune. News stories told of his $400 haircuts, of an ostentatious North Carolina home and of his work for a hedge fund."
The Post certainly wasn't alone. Journalists of all stripes agreed: it was important to discuss Edwards' personal wealth in reporting and assessing his policy proposals. Many explained this belief by claiming that Edwards' proposals to reduce poverty and help the middle class were hypocritical, given his own wealth. This was transparent nonsense; that simply isn't what it means to be hypocritical. But the transparency of the nonsense didn't make it any less common. Others conceded that it wasn't hypocritical to be wealthy while advocating policies to help the non-wealthy, but argued that it was poor "optics." Whatever the reason, there was broad consensus in the media that Edwards' personal wealth should be part of discussions of his policy positions.
But the media doesn't apply that standard to John McCain.
Last week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a new report by Michael Ettlinger estimating that under McCain's tax plan, he and his wife, Cindy, would save $373,429. That's nearly $400,000 -- per year, not over the course of their lifetimes. (Under Barack Obama's plan, the McCains would save less than $6,000. The Obamas would save nearly $50,000 under McCain's plan, and slightly more than $6,000 under Obama's plan own plan.)
By the standards the media applied to Edwards, the fact that McCain supports tax policies that would save him and his wife nearly $400,000 a year -- and require massive cuts to public services to pay for those tax breaks -- should surely be news. Unlike the media's focus on Edwards' wealth, which did nothing to help voters understand the substance of his proposals, McCain's potential savings under his tax plan actually would help illustrate how much the wealthy would benefit from the plan.
At the very least, McCain would seem to have the dreaded "optics" problem ascribed to Edwards. With voters jittery about the economy and a crushing budget deficit, what could be worse "optics" than a wealthy candidate proposing massive tax cuts for his wife and himself?
Surely, then, The Washington Post, having obsessed over Edwards' wealth, has noted Ettlinger's findings in its reports about McCain's tax plans, right?
Wrong.
On June 21, two days after the report's release, the Post ran a front-page article about the candidates' tax and budget policies: "Republican John McCain vows to double the exemption for dependents and slash the corporate income tax. ... McCain has proposed even bigger tax reductions [than Obama], including an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, permanent limits on the AMT and a 10 percent reduction in the corporate tax rate." The Post didn't mention how much the McCains would save under his tax proposals. It didn't so much as hint at their massive personal wealth. And in more than 1,300 words, the Post didn't include a single word about the income distribution of McCain's proposals.
On The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews aired a clip of McCain attacking Obama's tax plan -- but didn't point out that McCain and his wife would save more than $360,000 less under Obama's plan than under his own. Like The Washington Post, neither Matthews nor any of his guests made even passing mention of McCain's personal wealth. (Matthews on Edwards last year: "John Edwards, that dude with the hot-ticket haircuts, now wants the rest of us to cool it on expensive cars.")
Again, this isn't unique to the Post and Matthews. The Ettlinger estimate was completely ignored by the news media. Beyond that report, I don't remember ever seeing a major-media report about John McCain's tax policies noting that, due to his wealth, he would fare quite well under his own proposals. And in a couple hours of Nexis searches, I haven't been able to find one.
Perversely, it seems the conventional wisdom among the media is that it's more acceptable for a wealthy politician to propose policies that help the wealthy than policies that benefit the middle class and the poor.
It's got nothing to do with "personal wealth", and everything to do with sources of income: whether the person is wealthy or not makes no difference... if "personal wealth" were a sin in politics, and a disqualification from Office, then Bill Gates would be the worst sinner in America, and could never be elected even as the town dog-catcher...
But were Bill Gates to aspire to catching more than just the American People's stray dogs for them, and to run for the Senate or President, then his wealth would not disqualify him from our consideration: but the source of it might... and seeing as that source is from making an Operating System that is the reason why children dunces and even granny can master the computer and the Internet Wire, then who would care and so what, if that was Bill Gates source of "personal wealth"...
And John Edwards also: so, he was a successful Trial Lawyer, winning often and big, in Personal Injury cases I believe... who cares and so what if that's his source of income: if you were in an auto accident or suffered some other serious mishap where you were not at fault (but someone with insurance was), then John Edwards (or someone successful like him) would be the guy you'd want to Advocate for you, in Court...
Who cares how "personally wealthy" anybody is... it's not how much money they make, but what they do to make it.
Which brings us to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Cindy McCain.
Were we to consider not in the least how "personally wealthy" George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were, when they ran the for the Offices they ultimately (and succesfully) stole: but instead just focused our inquiring minds, on the sources of their income, then we'd have known them to be nothing but business agents for the oil and defense contracting industries... which pretty much sums them up as this stage: two guys who make their money in oil and defense contracting, who stole the Offices of President and VP, and then spent eight years acting as extraordinarily successful business agents for those industries...
The focal point being the source of their incomes as our concern about them, and not the amount of their "personal wealth".
Why does Cindy McCain, and her husband too, continue to hide from us, the sources of her income?
It's important: who cares how much she's worth: what's the source of her income...
Is any part of it oil?
Defense contracting?
It's important.
Now, were Cindy McCain to simply come clean in this matter, and tell us the sources of her income as she should, then we would know, as we should... and if she makes money from Operating Systems, or from Personal Injury settlements, then so what and who cares, so don't Bill Gates and John Edwards...
But if Cindy McCain has sources of income from the oil and defense industries, then that matters and that's important: because so don't George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and look where that's gotten us.
Who cares about "personal wealth": it's all about the sources of income.
I say Cindy McCain is hiding from us, the fact that she derives income from the oil industry and from defense contractors, just like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney do...
Come clean Cindy: make me a liar...
It's all about sources of income, and about hiding those sources from us.
If John McCain and his wife make money from oil and defense contracting, then I say they're not qualified to catch stray dogs for the American... then I say they're as bad as Satan and his helper, who stole the administration of our Federal Government from us, just so as to act as business agents for those industries, as Cindy and John McCain want to also.
Great analysis. Great! Mediamatters needs to parlay its success into a television show. We need more whistleblowers to keep the media in check. This is something I was just discussing the other day. The double standards are right there for everyone to see. This same double standard played out with Bush being made to be a war hero while Kerry was painted a coward. And the media let republicans get away with it. How about the respect other candidates wives get compared to Obama's wife? How bout McCain not having to reject and denounce questionable associations? How bout McCain, or no republican candidate, ever being referred to as a bi*ch? How about McCain's faith never being challenged? How bout . . .
Think most of us would like the american population to be aware of MMfa's work and cognicent of it.
Perhaps with an Obama administration a weekly/daily run down the items on PBS might happen. I really can't see MSM corporate policies and MMfa together on a regular basis right now. There are business leaders whose every action isn't about their perseived selfish interest. It seems absurd but unless a media's owners care deeply and believe that an informed population is worth more than the next quarters profit margin, there's small chance of seeing MMfa's info on tv.
Eweston,
Once president Obama has the chance to get around to it, I hope he puts an open-minded progressive in charge of the FCC, which in turn would give us back our public airwaves from these right-wing clowns, via PBS!
As for the media at large..... don't they realize that a large chunk of We the People can see right through their hypocrisy.... and they don't need MMfA pointing it out either! Though I'm happy they did.
A new generation of the New Deal is coming..... and I for one can't hadly wait the next 4-8 years to see how it all turns out.
If Democrats (and I mean you and I as well as our politicians) can reach out and connect with people on a soul deep level and do right by the people, we could be looking at a Democratic majority for a generation.
It will require our participation. It's up to us to take back our institutions from the ground up.
Roundhouse,
Amen brother!
It all starts with three things.... one of which Thom Hartmann wrote about in "UnEqual Protection".... take away, once and for all, the preceived notion that corporations have 'human rights', then summarily remove any and all corporate dollars from campaigns (at all levels) with a true form of either public financing that is equal for all sides or place a permenant cap on the amount that any one corporation or person can give to say ($1000 per year)(or some such variation), and then, in this one and only time that would seem more American than not doing this, is to take all those voting machines and make them the property of We the People!
Yes, this would mean that at least 4 companies would lose out on billions.... but so what.... at least We the People would have our damn vote back!! How can anyone argue against that, since they never should have had them to begin with?
Isn't Hartmann a treasure? He's so right on in so many ways.
You touched on the overarching and overwhelming importance of this presidential election. SCOTUS. They're the ones with the ability to restore the balance of power away from the elitist corporations by removing their personhood and giving sway back to We th People. If Americans want greater dominance of the market fundies then they can vote for McCain's fake ass populism, or they can vote for Obama and get a more people first Progressive court.
We're living in exciting times but the authoritarian right will not go gently into that good night. They will use every lever of their considerable influence in every level of government and media to thwart the progressive movement. Luckily, the right has nothing left but thug tactics, emotionalism and violent rhetoric. They are out of ideas and it shows.
We still have a long row to hoe in front of us if we are to see Obama elected. And on that note, I wanna give Hillary her props for putting her ambitions aside and joining the commons cause. I hope her supporters will follow her lead.
Capt:
You're absolutely right, corporations should NOT have the same rights as human beings. The right-wing talking point is that preventing them from paying for their politicians would be "silencing free speech," which ignores the fact that essentially it makes "free speech" expensive beyond the means of most of the population.
IMO, ALL elections should be publically financed and ONLY publically financed, which would mean that everybody has exactly the same amount of available cash--maybe we would wind up electing people on issues rather than talking points.
Yes more and more people are getting fedup with our media. A majority believe its effect on our society is caustic. I think most feel it's credibility is slightly worse than that of anyone you might meet on the street. Its just another opinion, it's not a fount of good infomation, a pity.
I agree with you that in that I'm glad MMfa is here and I can access it.
This is only a further injustice that the mainstream media continue to perpetrate. They spend countless hours knocking Obama while playing silent on what McCain gaffes on, lies on, or flip-flop on.
There is a concerted effort to inject the American people with a belief that McCain is an upright guy that the American public should keep viable. I can only say that I love my grandfather but would never allow him to take charge of my life. McCain is losing his bearing and have no viability of existing in the 21st century to take my children to the next level (for goodness sake he can't even use a computer, even my mother -- who is 74 -- can do that). McCain's views are ancient and not realistic. I do not want the party of the 60's or 70's governing my country at the end of the day.
I'm glad I am old enough that I do not let other people, such as talking headings, form my opinions. But, McCain has a problem. I raised my daughter (18) to have a mind and she refuses to listen to talking heads either. She is just as involved as I am about making good and sure that we get it straight this time and not be beaten into submission via fear tactics.
John Edwards == sleazy ambulance chasing trial laywer.
John McCain == married a woman who inherited her dad's beer fortune.
not really comparable.
On The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews aired a clip of McCain attacking Obama's tax plan -- but didn't point out that McCain and his wife would save more than $360,000 less under Obama's plan than under his own.
With all due respects, you are missing the point. It would be of far greater interest to have reported how Chris Matthews' tax returns might be affected by the McCain proposal that it would be to have how McCain himself.
Reason: the McCains ( and Edwards ) of this world come and go - it is the Matthews that are always with us.
Will no one ask of McCain how his decades of policy experience should be considered so laudable?... considering that during his tenure the results are
1.some of the worst economic conditions in U.S history;
2. yet another directionless war;
and
3. no foreseeable sustainable energy policy...
McCain saves money under Obama's plan? Someone tell Obama about that monster deficit that we need to get rid of.
The rich need to be soaked again. As 1993 proved, that actually stimulates the economy and creates jobs. (Don't tell me it was a dotcom mirage. The "hard" numbers were as good as the "soft".)
Expecting the media to not be skewed heavily to the right is like betting on the WWF. The fact that it's been 7 years since 9.11 and Bush has not only refused to respond to the attacks and go after Bin Laden, but has maintained a hands-off policy towards him - and none of that even remotely interests the media - BUT Barack Oabama's bowling talents are of extreme importance!
We went through the entire 2004 campaign, with it's endless attacks on John Kerry for being a "New England elitist", while George W Bush, born and raised in New England, and being a Harvard snot-nosed, blue-blood, effeminate cheerleader, was never once called a "New England elitist" or mocked for has patently phoney southern accent which NO ONE in his family shares.
Edward's wealth vs McCain's wealth is not an issue that interests our national media because, as with the wealthy mental midget currently occupying the White House, the media sycophants "want to have a drink" with McCain - and they don't give a good god damn about how devastating his presidency would be to the American people.
Good point Night...
I haven't heard it pointed out before about Bush-boys accent. You're right. No one in his family has this faux Southern accent.
Can you imagine if a Democrat attemped this sort of phony Southern accent. He or she would be absoutely crucified by the corporate media.
Our current mental moron president gets a free pass.
Great job Jamison!! Another home-run.
For some people, accents are easily picked up from close associates, even as an adult.
His wife has a pretty strong accent. I wouldn't hang your hat on his having a fake accent.
Oh, I see, he picked it up from his wife...
Sorry, I was mixed up.
Oh wait, how come she didn't pick up his New England accent?
I wouldn't "hang my hat" on this accent at all. But if this phony ass conservative came over to my house, I'd toss him out in the gutter, and let him get a cab back to whatever hole he crawled out of.
Excellent article, but holy cow! - Media Matters thinks the word "media" is singular?
Actually, like others who construe it as singular, you use use it inconsistently - I think "among the media" implies plurality; "in the media" would apply to one media. The media are separable, as "print media", "broadcast media" etc., down to newspapers, magazines, radio, television, so they are not a homogeneous aggregate, referred to by quantity rather than number.
When good singular/plural forms exist, why not use them?