Chris Matthews Show panelists answer host's question: "Why does the media like McCain?"
On the August 27 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews asked his panel of guests, "Why does the media like [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ]? I mean, what's going on here? Does he seem to be more authentic than other politicians?" In response, MSNBC chief Washington correspondent and NBC Today correspondent Norah O'Donnell said, "[S]ometimes people criticize the media for 'liking' John McCain, but I think, quite frankly, if there's any sort of affection, it's because he actually gives us some access." Later, New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller added, "[T]here also is his personality ... people seem to like John McCain in sort of the same way they liked [George W.] Bush back in 2000 before everything else happened."
From the August 27 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, which also included panelist and Newsweek chief political correspondent and Washington bureau chief Howard Fineman:
MATTHEWS: I want to ask a very relevant question --
FINEMAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: -- after listening to the four of you. Why does the media like McCain? What's going on here? Does he seem to be more authentic than other politicians?
O'DONNELL: Well --
FINEMAN: Well, I think part of it on this --
O'DONNELL: Well --
FINEMAN: -- part of it on this specific thing, he knows what he's talking about. He clearly has a lot of experience, militarily, from the inside out on the Armed Services Committee.
MATTHEWS: OK.
FINEMAN: He knows his stuff on that -- on this particular question.
O'DONNELL: Sometimes people criticize the media for "liking" John McCain, but I think, quite frankly, if there's any sort of affection, it's because he actually gives us some access. He actually agrees to interviews, which very few politicians do and very few people that are running for president seem to shy away from the press.
[...]
BUMILLER: There also is -- there also is his personality. You mean, we're sort of talking around the issue, but people seem to like John McCain in sort of the same way they liked Bush back in 2000 before everything else happened.
MATTHEWS: Does he really like Bush now?
BUMILLER: Excuse me?
MATTHEWS: Does McCain really like Bush?
BUMILLER: Does McCain like Bush? That's a very good question.
MATTHEWS: I'll be right back with scoops and predictions straight from the notebooks of these top reporters. Tell me something I don't know. Be right back.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The NYT's finest Bush apologist on Softball. Let's remind people of BushieCo's "likeability" in the midst of tapping your phones. That's more important!
I wasn't exactly enthralled with this MMFA item - asking why the media likes McCain is different than asking should the media like him - until I hit Matthews last question and the non-answer from Bumiller. "Does McCain really like Bush?" That was worth the price of admission. Too bad he dropped it.
Matthews has a point here. The media seem to like some politicians and dislike others and their stories will usually skew to highlight the positives of the ones they like and skew to exaggerate the negatives of the ones they don’t. For some apparent reason the media particularly Matthews took a disliking to Gore and Kerry and they allowed a lot of the smears of the two to go un-rebutted. It's up to the electorate to inform ourselves as fully as we can and to be mindful to study the official policy statements of candidates and to research candidates backgrounds independent of these Matthew like shows. Our decisions should be made based on a candidate’s competence and experience and not on the fact the Matthew types might think a candidate has beautiful smile. I think people like Matthews and my God Imus are ridiculous. Imus often says he doesn’t agree with a candidate’s “nutty views but if I like them I’ll support them”. How selfish and irresponsible for any voter to do that. Implementation of a candidates views can have serious consequences on the lives of your fellow Americans even if you have a life where your wealth and influence insulates you from that.
OR it could be part of that larger pattern. I mean the media liked Bush, yet didnt like Gore or Kerry. The question you have to ask yourself to see if you think this is a legitimate misinformation agenda is: Do you believe there is a Democrat on the PLANET that the media woulnt trash with their storyline? I mean if the Democrats ran Jesus would he be trashed? The media gets a storyline and boy do they stick to it. Bush was likeable and honest but maybe not too smart. Gore was a dishonest exagerator and liar. Now I have followed Gore for a long time, there are certainly legitimate criticisms to make of the man but dishonesty was NOT one of them, yet the storyline was kept even AFTER Bush was caught in several outright LIES during the campaign. You have to wonder if this isnt a deliberate pattern and if it IS then its certainly a valid target for MMFA, to answer jylons query below
Lynn---I agree with you. The media use very shallow criteria to determine how they will handle stories. Simply because they "like" someone they ignore, at the public's peril, very serious problems regarding governmental responsibility and transparency. The question I wished Matthews had followed up with would have been, "The George Bush you "liked" in 2000 didn't turn out the be the President Bush we have had for the past six years. Do you think "liking" is a really credible way to assess a candidate?" I think this is a very valuable issue for MMFA as I doubt these journalists would ever find themselves "liking" a Democrat as much as a Republican. That said, I think it would be even better to have a live chat with one of these bigshots and have them really explain why they think this constitutes responsible journalism.
Why is this even a MMFA story?
Its a good question that needs to be answered.
although it isn't really the news of the day, there may still be some ppl that aren't aware of just how thoroughlly true it is that media "like" McCain. And what I mean by "like" is, media ignore negative stories or angles, and play up, sometimes make up, positive storylines.
Scheiffer at CBS is the absolute biggest whore for McCain. He will never, ever run with a negative story on the guy. McCain flips and flops on issues, especially concerning Bush, but he still gets credit for that straight-talk crap. He ain't no straight-talker.
And after what Bush did to him in S.C. in 2000, I have to question his masculinity for sidling up to Bush anymore. I think I actually felt sorry for McCain back then...but he forgot all about the brutal campaign Bushs supporters ran against him then.
But it seems to be asked of every MMFA item, and usually by either you or Tommy or a couple of disingenuous others. And usually the reason the stories are chosen is obvious to everyone but the few of you.
The more important question is, if you don't like the choice of items at MMFA, why do you stay around? Why don't you start your own site that contains only the stories you are interested in?
Seems to me this is just Matthews ASKING a fairly benign question. Getting dumb answers from his panel perhaps, BUT it seems like a rather harmless inquiry.
Sometimes the Press simply takes a liking to certain political figures...from BOTH sides. That may not seem FAIR, but Matthews ASKING about it does not equal any kind of bias. It's actually a good question.
Personally I don't know WHY the media or anyone likes McCain...anymore.
He was MY guy in 2000, BUT the guy's proven to be, IMO, a phony. Watching him hug & slobber over Bush during the 2004 Presidential race turned my stomach. Bush & his cronies played dirty politics and destroyed McCain during the 2000 primaries.
McCain kissing up to Bush just proved to me that the guy would prostitute himself IF he THOUGHT it would win FAVOR with the Right-Wing base and help him gain the Oval Office.
I've lost track on where the guy even stands on the issues--he changes with the wind...He's like a damn weathervane.
Name the Democrat from 2000, including THAT election that the press "just took a liking to" In 92 the press certainly "took a liking" to Clinton conservatives didnt like that very much, since then exactly WHICH Democrat has the press took a liking to? They took a liking to Bush now to McCain they seem to repeatedly "take a liking to the GOP frontrunner, and take a "disliking" to the Dem
Who was the last Republican in a national election that the press "disliked?" Nixon is the last one, though the press took a disliking to him AFTER re-election. Bob Dole incurred minimal questioning about his age, but nothing more. Please name one Republican who has been treated the way Al Gore and John Kerry have by the MSM.
I can't speak to 1968, but maybe Goldwater was disliked more than Johnson?
First off I was talking about the Press taking a liking for certain politicians [from both sides] *over the years*...yes like Bill Clinton in '92.
I wrote:
**"Sometimes the Press simply takes a liking to certain political figures...from BOTH sides"**
Do you see a "time" listed there?
They HATED Nixon, LOVED Kennedy. I was making a broad statement--and a factual one.
I'm sorry they haven't gotten all *warm & cozy* over any RECENT [Presidential] Democrat candidate...BUT they have LIKED Democrats--such as Barack Obama [who could one day run for President], which was my point.
It seems to me that so many of you are crying in your beer.
You seem to think that when your candidate loses, its because the media doesn't like him. Boo hoo hoo.. It can't possibly be the positions or the posture the candidate takes turns off people? Naw.. that can't be it.
I have often felt that McCain is treated with velvet gloves. I do believe he's a gifted politician too. Many times I disagree with him, but I never seem to see hard questions put to him. When he does get a few, he is good at smiling, being polite, and answering them, especially when he criticizises the right. Which he does often.
So many of you forget that Bush was not well liked. He just came across more sincere than Gore who was even less well liked. Honestly, many of you need to go back and refresh your memories.
Back in 2002-03 I felt the reason Kerry got the nomination was due to the msm. He had a likability factor they thought made him electable when Dean had his meltdown.
Nowdays, you can see the Hillary is well liked, as demonstrated by Time's cover.
Bill has always been liked, even during his impeachment. The MSM continually ignored his history of sexual harrassment.
I agree with Jeter that for some reason Obama is well liked, although I know not what for, except he's a good talker.)
The recent coverage of Lieberman shows the MSM another person (who, contrary to popular belief, is a Democrat,) the MSM liked.
You have to admit that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton continue to get good press no matter how outlandish they act.
Speaking of which, it looks to me Gore is being resurrected by the MSM and getting favorable press. This time around he has shown some self-depricating humor. That helps. We'll see how much.
In the end, IMHO the Democrats need a new playbook. The 'angry' Howard Dean approach that Kerry appropriated in the last campaign, and now being sung by Hillary Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and the rest of the leadership preaches well to the choir but doesn't play in Peroria. To constantly harrangue about Bush only makes them look like whiners. As I tell my children. Nobody likes whiners.
The problem wasnt just that they didnt LIKE Gore they MANUFACTURED a false story line about him. Gore has ALWAYS been an honest politician. Bush has always been a liar. Yet the STORY was Gore is a liar and unlikable and Bush is honest and likable. To pretend Bush wasnt treate with kid gloves is ludicrous. Not called on his lies, not drilled about his insider trading scandal, nor his many business failures had Gore done ANY of those things he would have been pilloried. Pretend all you want there wasnt a double standard here its plain to see there was.
Here are but the first of four pages documenting some of the uh.. unfactual statements from Mr. Gore: [link to www.nationalreview.com]
ALL R&D October 17; third presidential debate, St. Louis CLAIM: “The big drug companies…are now spending more money on advertising and promotion — you see all these ads — than they are on research and development.” TRUTH: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation reported in July that drug companies spent between $5.8 billion and $8.3 billion on marketing and $21 billion on research in 1998, according to CBS News. — by John J. Miller
FIRE LIE October 3, 2000; First presidential debate, Boston, Mass. CLAIM: “I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out [in Parker County].” TRUTH: FEMA spokeswoman Mary Margaret Walker told NR: “During the fires in Parker County, Texas, the vice president participated in a roundtable about the fires with FEMA's regional director. . . . He was not with Mr. Witt at that time.” Gore admitted as much on ABC's Good Morning America: — by John J. Miller & Kathryn Jean Lopez
BUSH'S EXPERIENCE October 3, 2000; First presidential debate, Boston, Mass. CLAIM: “I have actually not questioned Governor Bush's experience.” TRUTH: In an interview printed by the New York Times on March 12, Gore said: “You have to wonder whether [Bush] has the experience to be president. I mean, you really have to wonder. ... You have to wonder: Does Governor Bush have the experience to be president? ... Again you have to wonder: Does George Bush have the experience to be president?” — by John J. Miller
SLICK GORE Washington Post, Sept. 24 CLAIM: At Sept. 22 press conference, Gore says, “I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established.” TRUTH: President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman. — by Kathryn Jean Lopez
OFF KEY USA Today, Sept. 19 CLAIM: Addressing a Teamsters meeting, Gore spoke of lullabies from his youth and sang, "Look for the union label." TRUTH: The song was written in 1975, when Gore was 27. — by Kathryn Jean Lopez
ARTHRITIS PAIN Sept. 20, 2000; Associated Press CLAIM: The vice president told Florida senior citizens in an Aug. 28 speech that his mother-in-law pays $108 a month for the same arthritis medicine he gives his dog for $37.80 a month. TRUTH: The figures he used were taken from a House Democratic study and did not reflect his family's own costs. Moreover, the study's figures referred to wholesale prices, not prices paid by the consumer. — by Kathryn Jean Lopez
DEBATING BUSH July 16, 2000; NBC'S Meet the Press CLAIM: "I've accepted for two or three months now your invitation to debate on this program," said Gore on NBC's Meet the Press. "How are you going to persuade [Bush] to say yes, Tim?" Tim Russert: "Well, maybe you're helping today." Gore: "Well, do you think so? But what kind of approach — can you get Jack Welch involved?" TRUTH: On the Today show on September 4, Gore refused to make good on this pledge. Matt Lauer: "I do want to remind you that back in July, you had already agreed to the Meet the Press debate with Tim Russert." Gore: "Sure." Lauer: "Why now reject it?" Gore: "I still agree to it. But first, let's do the commissioned debates." — by John J. Miller
SOFT MONEY March 15, 2000; CNN CLAIM: "What I did yesterday was to call on the Democratic National Committee—and they'll comply with this—to not spend any of the so-called soft money on these issue ads unless and until the Republican Party does." TRUTH: "The Democratic National Committee announced a $25 million summer ad campaign, paid for with soft money. The Republicans, so far, have not bought ads with soft money for Bush." (for full story, click here.) — by John J. Miller
Next Page
SOFT MONEY: In announcing plans to use the soft-money contributions to help cover the cost of the commercials, Democratic officials are breaking with Mr. Gore's own proposal to ban the use of unrestricted soft money on advertising. ... "It was a challenge that was never accepted," Mr. Rendell said. "The only time a challenge becomes binding is when the other side accepts the challenge."
RESIDENCE December 23, 1999; ABCNews.com CLAIM: “I live on a farm today. I have my heart in my own farm.” TRUTH: Gore lives in the vice-presidential mansion at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. After making this farm claim, Gore said: “Yes, I live in Washington, D.C., when I’m working there”!
Of course he is in the Vice Presidential mansion. Only NRO would try to make this a lie. Did he own a farm that he lived on at the time?
INTERNET March 9, 1999; CNN interview CLAIM: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” TRUTH: The Internet is an outgrowth of a Pentagon program established in 1969. In the 1980s, Gore supported legislation considered favorable to the Internet’s development.
There facts do not refute Gore's statement. Notice that "The Internet is an outgrowth of a Pentagon program." Gore did help develop the Internet, which was developed from an earlier initiative(DARPANET?).
The second is clearly NOT a lie, no he didnt go with Witt on THAT excursion of course he DID accomany Witt 17 other times on such trips and DID go on that trip. A simple mixup.
It certainly looks like he mispoke on the experience claim he SHOULD have questioned that and it looks like he was trying to have it both ways.
So he had only been part of the discussion from 1976 until 2000 a mere 24 years instead of 26, yeah obviously a huge mistatement of fact. Perhaps he should have said from the early days instead of earliest but give me a break even Carter said in South Georgia when you want to sell a mule you call it a horse. I didnt say he was Mother Theresa, grading on the curve of politicians he is an honest one and this is hardly an argument against that.
So his lullaby was a different Union song and he mixed them up, even I didnt throw a fit when Bush said his favorite book was the fuzzy caterpillar which was not only a childrens book but one written when he was in college, childhood memories are not that reliable, not a big deal.
This certainly sounds like an exaggeration, I seem to remember something about it at the time but its certainly true that the same medicine for animals is cheaper than they are for people. I KNOW this to be true having bought such medicine for our animals myself. Since we ARE talking about those debates lets compare the untruths. So Gore exaggerated here. BUSH said "By FAR the VAST MAJORITY of my tax cut will go to help those on the bottom of the economic ladder, TRUTH? less than 16% went to the bottom 60% of the economic ladder. Then he said "I brought democrats and republicans together to pass a patients bill of rights" TRUTH? BUSH VETOED THAT BILL. He campaigned against it then let it become law without his signiture when it passed with a veto proof margin the second time. You tell ME which is the bigger liar here?
As for the last one it appears they DIDNT follow his advise he thought they would. A strategy decision which they overruled him on and its debatable considering the huge money advantage republicans had whether or not it was a good tactic but this does NOT constitute a lie by Gore.
I could show several eggregious lies by Bush about whether he was arrested about the outcome of the FEC investigation into the sale of his Harken stock the two lies I cited above. Worse than anything you have shown by Gore and yet the storyline was that BUSH was the honest one. It doesnt wash. This was however a pretty good argument you made. IF I had meant Gore was the SOLE politician in America who was scrupulously honest instead of honest by the standards of politicians you would have clearly shown that wasnt true.
People don't like McCain; they like the idea of McCain. The thought of a maverick politician, not afraid to speak out boldy against the excesses of his party (and a war hero no less!) is just too attractive a fantasy. Never mind that the reality doesn't gibe. The media have the narrative written and by golly they'll make McCain fit it.
The Media is ALWAYS looking for a "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" story. They hunger for that patriotic idealist who'll take on political corruption. An admirable concept...just NOT realistic. Too bad really :-/
It was a GREAT movie....BUT it's FICTION. Nobody could ever be a Senator Jefferson Smith....certainly NOT John McCain!
He however was never a media darling. He tirelessly fought for the downtrodden and you wont hear his most sever critics deny he was honest and principled
This McCain "maverick" crap is disgusting. McCain isn't a maverick he's a Republican. Which means he loves a big military, hates rich people being taxed, hates unions and working men and women and loves defecits.
I almost said you were right, but I caught myself in time.
The press is going to pound the square peg that is John McCain into the round hole until the next presidential election. By then, all of his anoying edges will be rounded off and he'll appear to be the McCain that the press has been pushing all along. They'll use the spakle and plaster from the religious right to round off the edges. The sad thing is, the electorate might just buy it.
was further damaged when he cozied up to Jerry Falwell, who has thrown barbs at McCain for years. The defining moment for me was when he said on one of the Sunday morning drivel shows regarding Zarqawi, "We had to take him out". This administration has used the Bin Ladin and Zarqawi myth to slaughter over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. The context of McCain's interview was the killing of an entire family to get Zarqawi. A hawk is a hawk. As for Al Gore, he is very electable, and pretty shrewd for focusing on global warming. He has been an environmental champion for years. A Gore-Clinton ticket in 2008 makes good political sense. Despite all the talk, this patriarchical society won't elect a female as Chief Executive.
I used to wonder why only men got elected when women outnumber men in this country.
That was before I listened to righty radio, where insecure meat head guys encourage their female fans to ridicule smart women.I know when the word "patriarchal" gets tossed out most think of men doing the business, but there's no shortage of women intimidated by women either.
The same guys that like dumb women like tough-talking weasels as their leaders, all works out pretty well for a certain party.
I think this was a fair question to ask, the media seems to love John McCain, and I think it's for good reason.
Heck, John Stewart lists John McCain as his favourite politician. He's genuine, intelligent, and understands foreign policy far better than any of his republican counterparts.
If the republican party was made up of people like McCain, I'd be voting differently in 06 and 08.
I just hope the Dems can come up wth someone better than Hillary Clinton. She would lose to McCain hands down.
Am I the only person that almost fell out of his chair laughing when reading this:
"[T]here also is his personality ... people seem to like John McCain in sort of the same way they liked [George W.] Bush back in 2000 before everything else happened."
Yeah, back in 2000.. back before he had any chance to screw up all of America. The good ol' days.