Matthews offers walk-and-chew-gum explanation for why media don't adequately cover McCain
On MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Dan Abrams, and Rachel Maddow discussed how the media, in Matthews' words, "completely ignore [Sen.] John McCain's problems." But in purporting to explain "the way the media works," Matthews suggested that it is not possible for the media to cover both the Democratic primary and McCain adequately, asserting: "[A]s long as we focus on the fight between Hillary and Barack, and perhaps more recently just on Barack's problems, it blocks the sun -- the media, the public's attention -- from the problems that are obviously incipient and coming to be at some point with McCain."
During MSNBC's coverage of the May 6 Democratic primaries, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Dan Abrams, and Rachel Maddow discussed how the media, in Matthews' words, "completely ignore [Sen.] John McCain's problems." But in purporting to explain "the way the media works," Matthews, who anchored the primary coverage and hosts MSNBC's Hardball, offered the dubious suggestion that it is not possible for the media to cover both the Democratic primary and McCain adequately, asserting: "[A]s long as we focus on the fight between [Sens.] Hillary [Clinton] and Barack [Obama], and perhaps more recently just on Barack's problems, it blocks the sun -- the media, the public's attention -- from the problems that are obviously incipient and coming to be at some point with McCain." Liz Cox Barrett, who noted MSNBC's coverage in a May 7 post at the Columbia Journalism Review's daily blog, described Matthews' explanation of "how the media works" as "Can't Walk and Chew Gum." Indeed, it was Matthews, who in a recent hour-long interview with McCain, failed to challenge McCain on several issues, including statements regarding Iraq policy, other foreign policy issues, campaign finance, and spending projects, despite purporting to ask "tough" questions, but did manage to ask the following question of McCain, which Matthews characterized as a "tough one": "Is Barack Obama an elitist?"
Additionally, while Matthews and Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief, noted what they described as McCain's "problems," "weaknesses," and "mistake[s]," and suggested that the media have not given McCain what Russert referred to as "the same kind of scrutiny" as his Democratic rivals, Russert also suggested that the media could not cover both McCain and the Democrats, asserting: "But all of that in time. I mean, it is only May. This has been going on for some time but it's gonna be a long, long campaign. And when Senator McCain is back in the media's light, he'll receive the same kind of scrutiny." Purporting to translate Russert's comments, Barrett wrote: "We'll stop ignoring McCain's mistakes when we start focusing on McCain's mistakes!" [italics in original]. As Media Matters for America noted, on the May 5 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning, Russert ignored his own role in the media's disparate coverage of Rev. John Hagee, whose endorsement McCain sought and obtained, versus its coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the context of the Obama campaign: "I don't think -- the Hagee thing, McCain has not been questioned in great scrutiny by that -- scrutinized about that, or a lot of things. I mean, he's been -- really been given this grace period to go around the country, unify his party, raise some money, put a campaign together, and he's benefited from enormously. There's no doubt about it."
Later in the broadcast, Maddow, an MSNBC analyst, asserted:
MADDOW: John McCain is an attractive candidate to a lot of people who identify as moderate voters -- at least he is now with the way the media treats him. If John McCain gets redefined by a strong Democratic opponent and by a hungry press, then he won't be as attractive. But right now with the brand that he brings from 25 years of being essentially tongue-bathed by the press and being called a maverick, then he does have a lot of appeal.
In response, Abrams, host of MSNBC's Verdict, said: "Look, I agree with you about the media coverage of John McCain. That's why on my show, Verdict, we have a segment called 'Teflon John,' which relates to the fact that the media seems to love him and nothing seems to stick." Later Abrams stated: "[T]he Democrats have been getting a lot of -- have going after each other every night and we cover each and every one of the battles, and when it comes to McCain, we don't seem to cover it. Yet."
As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, the media have largely ignored McCain's inconsistencies, falsehoods, and controversial supporters.
From the 11 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's coverage of the May 6 primaries:
MATTHEWS: Do you think [Democrats worrying about the effects of ongoing primary] are aware of the way the media works? I was explaining this to a group of students the other night, that, you know, as long as we focus on the fight between Hillary and Barack, and perhaps more recently just on Barack's problems, it blocks the sun -- the media, the public's attention -- from the problems that are obviously incipient and coming to be at some point with McCain -- his problem with the war, which is unpopular, his problem with the economy, which is very unsteady right now. The more we focus on the Jeremiah Wright story, the less we focus on Hillary's problem with candor and the more we completely ignore John McCain's problems. Do you think the Democratic warhorses know that as long as there's a fire going on in one of those rings, the Barack Obama ring, we're not gonna focus much on John McCain's weaknesses?
RUSSERT: Yes. They believed initially that ignoring the McCain campaign was beneficial and helpful to the Democrats. But as this is has gone on, they see in their minds -- and we get flooded with the emails, Senator McCain making a mistake on Shia versus Sunni, making a mistake about the first Persian Gulf War and the second vis-a-vis oil, and his own relationship with Pastor Hagee and why isn't that talked about and reported on the way Reverend Wright's relationship with Senator Obama is talked about.
But all of that in time. I mean, it is only May. This has been going on for some time but it's gonna be a long, long campaign. And when Senator McCain is back in the media's light, he'll receive the same kind of scrutiny.
From the 1 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC's coverage of the May 6 primaries:
MADDOW: I mean, John McCain is an attractive candidate to a lot of people who identify as moderate voters -- at least he is now with the way the media treats him. If John McCain gets redefined by a strong Democratic opponent and by a hungry press, then he won't be as attractive. But right now with the brand that he brings from 25 years of being essentially tongue-bathed by the press and being called a maverick, then he does have a lot of appeal.
ABRAMS: Look, I agree with you about the media coverage of John McCain. That's why on my show, Verdict, we have a segment called "Teflon John," which relates to the fact that the media seems to love him and nothing seems to stick.
MADDOW: But everybody else hasn't made that pivot yet even though you have.
ABRAMS: I don't mean to sit here and say, "Oh, we're so great." Look, it's just that the bottom line has been that the Democrats have been getting a lot of -- have going after each other every night and we cover each and every one of the battles, and when it comes to McCain, we don't seem to cover it. Yet.
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
To a degree, Matthews makes a good point. It isn't really fair to judge the media scrutiny that Obama/Clinton are getting vs. McCain now. The Democrats are locked in an historic primary battle, between a black Senator and the first serious female contender for the White House, it is unprecedented and has captured the media's attention far more than McCain, considering he is off on his biography tour or whatever he calls it.
Wait until the Democratic contest is settled and there are two clear opponents, then it will be a more fair contrast.
No way, right now McCain is running
That means the scrutiny should be on him
And the wait should be on who the Dem nominee is before they face the fire
The opposite is illogical, you could be hammering a non entity for nothing
just wait............McCain is getting a free ride right now. His campaign is just a one man trip around the country, almost a vacation for him. He is de facto not running for anything right now.His worthy opponent has not been determined.
They can only tear one new hole at a time.
I'm not sure I can agree with Einstein chris matthews, and his Principle of Simultaneous Events, namely, that he isn't able to report or comment on two campaigns that occur simultaneously... and by simultaneously, we don't mean in the same instant, like when two flashes of lightning strike the rails of a railway track, at two different places.
Simultaneous in the reporting or commenting on political and campaign events, can mean one after the other, in the same broadcast or other report, can't it?
Einstein, and his difficulties with Simultaneous Events.
It would seem these things can be dealt with one after another, but in the same sitting, in the same half hour and in the same place: in the same broadcast even...
...like when they read the news: they don't claim they can't report in the same broadcast, on the two events of, say, how Sen. Obama doesn't sleep with a flag pin stuck to the lapel of his pajamas, and report also on the day's events in Iraq, do they?
OK, that's not a very good example.
But it still disputes the apparent difficulties that Einstein is having with the idea of Simultaneous Events... because they could report also on Iraq if they wanted to, but just after they reported on the more important flag pin story... couldn't they?
While the Clinton-Obama story is infinitely more interesting than John McCain at the moment, this is still a lame excuse on Matthews part for the media not doing it's job.
How about instead spending the entire hour on the Dems they include what John-Boy is up to...eh?
Too tough Chris? Then get another job.
Mathews:"Computers can parallel process.
Why oh why can't I."
Chris and the boys would have had a heck of a time if they had been journalists during World War II. A European war AND a Pacific war AND political campaigns. What would the poor boys have done then?
I love when high-profile members of the main-stream-media such as Matthews and Maddow and Russert speak of the MSM in the third person, as if they are helpless to affect policy. Absurd really as they are among the most influential voices of the MSM and if anyone can affect policy they can. They have been complaining about Wright dominating the airwaves out of one side of their mouths, while pushing the coverage even when it isn't there--in order to keep it there--out the other side of their mouths until it eats them and us alive in a fated Frankensteinian experiment. None of them seem to be immune to their hypocrisy.
Ed Shultz Thursday interviewed someone about the Wright effect having no effect in the IN and S.C. elections. This was late in his shift, there had been no mention of Wright all morning and for two days, and it was like Shultz was subtextually saying: "Gee, no one's talked about Rev. Wright so let's bring up Rev. Wright and ask why no one's brought up Rev. Wright."
Right on, Rob. A candidate says he would be okay with us staying in Iraq for 100 years and it barely blips in the MSM news cycle. Flag pins have stayed in the cycle for two months. BTW, McCain still has not worn a flag pin since tracking started on March 4th.
In this very clip, Russert has the nerve to mention that he gets emails about Hagee, the Sunni-Shiite gaffes, the war for oil gaffe...and that nobody covers it. Timmy, why don't you be the first to jump in the pool? The campaign is happening. What McCain does is still important. Instead, Russert says, "But all of that in time. I mean, it is only May. This has been going on for some time but it's gonna be a long, long campaign. And when Senator McCain is back in the media's light, he'll receive the same kind of scrutiny."
LIKE HELL HE WILL, RUSSERT!! THE TIME IS NOW!!
Anyone who understands how the media, especially the broadcast media works (and the supposedly includes MMfA?) knows that Matthews was dancing around the bottom line:
1) McCain is the de facto Republican nominee, barring accident, illness or other calamity.
2) No one in the "other party" is actively attacking McCain; Obama and Clinton are too busy attempting to give the other the death of a thousand cuts.
3) Any attempt, right now, at a substantive, detailed examination of McCain's policies, principles, statements and history would be accompanied by the sound of a nationwide channel switch to ESPN or the Home Shopping Network. (I.e. Ain't no ratings, people!)
4) It wouldn't make any difference right now, anyway. (See point # 1.)
Regardless of how much a small minority would prefer substantive political coverage, it's only early May -- most people really don't care yet.
Just wait... I, for one, am waiting for the POW/MIA community to unload on McCain. It should make the Swift Boating of Kerry look like a church social.
Anyone who says that the media will start to seriously criticize McCain "later" is full of it.. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN! McCain only became the defacto nominee in MARCH. He was in a long and heated nomination campaign against some high powered candidates and I never once heard the words "Keating Five" on my tv. When Hillary finally steps aside and the real campaign between Obama and McBush begin, Obama will be scrutinized on if he sighs incorrectly during a debate (like Al Gore was) or on his lack of bowling skills, or if he chooses an elitist drink like orange juice at a diner...God forbid he go windsurfing. At the same time, McCain will be able to label Al Qaida as a Shiite group and the media will say, "He meant to say Sunni...move on."
Caught Begalla,Brazille and Jefferies the otherday on cnn and Begalla brought up the fact of Hagee not getting the attention that Reverend Wright has gotten,and he qualifiyed his statement by saying that all three of them were caththolic.
McCains day is coming Guaranteed.And he is going to have to answer those questions.Like they say"you can run but you can't hide"
McCains day is coming Guaranteed.And he is going to have to answer those questions.
You are wrong. He will never have to answer those questions. Obama will have to answer 50 tough questions, all with ten minute followups. McCain will be allowed to say "I'm being taken out of context." No followups will be asked. My proof is in the "100 years in Iraq" statement from McCain. THE MAN SAID HE WOULD BE FINE IF WE WERE IN IRAQ FOR A HUNDRED YEARS. The media fell all over themselves to change what he said and to blame Hillary and Obama for using it in speeches and ads.
I'll believe it when I see it.
One question I would like a so-called journalist to ask McCain is:
"Okay, we understand that the context of your 100 years in Iraq statement was meant to be "100 years in a peaceful situation like Korea or Germany while US troops are no longer taking gunfire". How many years would you permit US troops to stay in Iraq if we are still taking casualties at a similar rate as today?"
He will say, "As long as it takes for us to win."
Followup: "100 years?"
Then what can he say? He has cornered himself into saying, "If that's what it takes."
Therefore, it is not a lie to say that he is okay with us staying in Iraq for 100 years.
Russert's explanation was laughable. McCain is getting a pass from the media because they like the guy. I'd have a lot more respect for the media if they'd just "come out of the closet" and admit that they aren't going to hold McCain to the same standards as Barack Obama. MSNBC, which I used to respect, has now become the new Fox News.
Where is everybody? I thought this article should get a lot of comments. Guess not.