Print media uncritically quoted McCain claim that "negative campaigns don't work," ignored his own negative ads
SUMMARY: Numerous print media outlets reported on Sen. John McCain's assertion following the Iowa caucuses that "[t]he lesson of this election in Iowa is that ... negative campaigns don't work." But none of those articles noted that McCain has run negative TV and Web ads against Mitt Romney.
Articles by the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the Politico, The Washington Post, and USA Today quoted or paraphrased Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's (AZ) assertion following the January 3 Iowa caucuses that "[t]he lesson of this election in Iowa is that, one, you can't buy an election in Iowa, and, two, negative campaigns don't work. They don't work there, and they don't work here in New Hampshire." But none of those articles noted that McCain has run negative TV ads in New Hampshire against one of his Republican rivals, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. McCain's campaign has also produced negative Web ads targeting Romney.
In a December 28 press release, McCain's campaign announced the release of its TV ad "Consider," which quotes a Concord Monitor editorial asserting, "If a candidate is a phony... we'll know it. Mitt Romney is such a candidate." Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin reported on his Time.com blog The Page that the ad was the "first negative ad by any candidate besides Romney." In a December 28 post on ABC News' blog Political Radar, Matt Stuart reported that Romney responded to the ad, saying: "It's an attack ad. It attacks me personally. It's nasty. It's mean spirited. Frankly, it tells you more about Sen. McCain than it does about me that he would run an ad like that."
McCain has also criticized Romney in two Web ads, "Experience," released January 1, and "Foreign Policy Alert," released January 2. "Experience" opens with footage of a bomb blast and its aftermath, then cuts to footage of what appears to be a terrorist training camp. A narrator states, "Mitt Romney says the next president doesn't need foreign policy experience." In "Foreign Policy Alert," the narrator asserts that "Mitt Romney says the next president doesn't need foreign policy experience. Here he is in his own words." The ad features a clip of Romney asserting: "Well, if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy we can simply go to the State Department." The announcer continues, "Is he serious? We live in a dangerous world. And these are serious times. America needs a president who is serious about foreign policy. John McCain is the one man prepared to lead America in a time of crisis."
Media Matters for America identified numerous instances of the media reporting McCain's statement that the "lesson of this election in Iowa" is that "negative campaigns don't work," but in none of those instances did the media outlet also note that McCain is currently running these negative ads against Romney. In fact, the January 4 New York Times article, giving a slightly different version of the McCain quote -- "negative campaigning doesn't work" -- reported that the "Republican fight here [in New Hampshire] has been much more pointed -- as reflected in cutting advertisements, with Mr. Romney... blanketing the airwaves," but did not note McCain's own "cutting advertisements." Instead, the article's sole description of McCain's ads in the state reported that New Hampshire "is friendly territory for Mr. McCain -- a point he is making in a new advertisement released Thursday recalling his victory here in 2000." From the New York Times article:
While the spotlight has been away from New Hampshire in recent weeks, the competition here has been heating up as Senator John McCain of Arizona has gained ground on the longtime Republican front-runner, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Mr. McCain did not compete seriously in Iowa, but the campaign was obviously thrilled to learn that Mr. Romney had been beaten in the caucuses by Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. While not commenting on what that outcome meant for his chances, Mr. McCain noted that it proved that "negative campaigning doesn't work."
[...]
The Republican fight here has been much more pointed -- as reflected in cutting advertisements, with Mr. Romney, who has had to spend more time in Iowa sparring with Mr. Huckabee, blanketing the airwaves.
Here, Mr. Romney has focused on two main lines of attack on Mr. McCain, noting his opposition to the Bush tax cuts -- while not mentioning Mr. McCain's stated reason, that there was no corresponding cut in spending -- and Mr. McCain's support for immigration reform.
[...]
New Hampshire, whose voters pride themselves on their independence from party orthodoxy and who are interested in an array of issues not on the agenda in Iowa, is friendly territory for Mr. McCain -- a point he is making in a new advertisement released Thursday recalling his victory here in 2000.
Similarly, the AP, the Los Angeles Times, the Politico, and USA Today all reported McCain's statement that "negative campaigns don't work" without noting that he has run negative ads of his own.
From the January 3 AP article:
Sen. John McCain congratulated rival Mike Huckabee on winning Iowa's presidential caucuses Thursday and said it shows that negative campaigns -- such as opponent Mitt Romney's -- are doomed to fail.
Romney spent the final few weeks before Iowa cast the first votes of the 2008 presidential election engaged in an aggressive contest with Huckabee, a Baptist pastor turned politician. Huckabee resisted the temptation to respond in kind, instead relying on his wit and humor. McCain said civility is one of the lessons to take from Iowa's results.
"One, you can't buy an election in Iowa," said McCain, whose own financial woes have affected his campaign. "And two, negative campaigns don't work. They don't work there and they don't work here in New Hampshire."
From the January 4 Los Angeles Times article:
About half an hour after Huckabee's victory became apparent, McCain and his wife walked beaming into a Manchester, N.H., meeting room to the cheers of about 40 supporters.
"I think that the lesson of this election in Iowa is that: one, you can't buy an election in Iowa; and two, that negative campaigns don't work. They don't work there, and they don't work here in New Hampshire," he said.
He flatly predicted: "We are going to win New Hampshire."
From the January 4 Politico article:
But that's not to say the Arizona senator didn't take something away from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's resounding victory over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is McCain's chief rival in New Hampshire.
"The lesson of this election in Iowa is that, one, you can't buy an election in Iowa and two, negative campaigns don't work," McCain said. "They don't work there, and they don't work here in New Hampshire."
In Iowa, Romney aired negative ads against Huckabee and targeted McCain with similarly unflattering commercials in New Hampshire, where the two are locked in a fierce primary battle.
From the January 4 USA Today article:
In New Hampshire, McCain said the lesson is that "you can't buy an election in Iowa" and that "negative campaigns don't work. They don't work there, and they don't work here in New Hampshire."
The Washington Post also reported McCain's comments without mentioning McCain's negative ads in the same article. From the January 4 Post article:
Speaking in New Hampshire, McCain offered an assessment of the Iowa campaign and an implicit warning to Romney, who has been running negative ads against him for weeks. "The lesson of this election in Iowa is that, one, you can't buy an election in Iowa, and, two, negative ads don't work," McCain said on CNN. "They don't work there, and they don't work here in New Hampshire."
But another Post article that day reported that McCain is "questioning the former governor's [Romney] consistency on a variety of issues and lack of foreign policy experience" in "harsh ads."
I could care less about any of these Republicans, they can run negative ads, claim they dont, I do not care. What I do care is how McCain continues to be the "darling" of the media, that concerns me. It was a great night to be an American, Obama won a primary and the Repubs gave a primary to a man who reminds me of the Ayatollah. Things could be getting better in America finally. We might be on the right track.
Jlyons,
What is disconcerting is when any candidate is the "darling" of the media, and to be perfectly honest Obama is certainly the more current "darling" these days.
Now I am a fan of his as I have said many times, and was glad to see him win last night, his speech was inspirational and I am very interested in seeing how he handles his frontrunner status.
That being said, I still want all candidates to be treated not as "darlings", but as men and women who are asking to be entrusted as our president and should be evaluated in serious depth with fairness and equality.
Good point. Just tell us what IS and stop developing the storylines. As for Obama, no doubt the man can give a speech that will just burn the place down. I WISH the media would stop falling in love with a candidate. They did the same thing with Bill Clinton when he was the CANDIDATE. After he got elected they turned on him and gave him the hosing of a lifetime but when he was running I was reading stories by hardened vetren reporters that made me think they were about to quit journalism and join his campaign staff. I wish they would get over that.
They didn't work for him either. ;)
Ben, That's what I thought McCain was getting at. Where's the misinformation? More like "Curses, my evil plans are foiled!" ;0)
I hope the repug's eat each other alive on national t.v. but I agree, McCaine is the ultimate hypocrite.
The thing is, is that time and time again, negative ads do actually work. Now, we all know that the people behind said ads or who are the target of negative ads are going to say that they don't work, but they do. Willie Horton anyone for a good example? How about Bush's ads about McCain's illegitamate children in SC back in 2000? The negative ads about Max Cleland and so on and so forth. The list is long, distinguished, and working. Negative ads work. It's a sad truth.
Not to mention the fact that our current President Numbnuts would never have been elected without negative ads. He certainly couldn't have won on his record...or his "vision" for America. He won because GOP media surrogates savaged Gore and Kerry unmercifully.
Mag,
I agree with you, sadly, negative ads do work, or at least they have in the past. It certainly would be refreshing if their time had come and gone, however. Rather than tell me how awful somebody else is, tell me what you will do.
I sincerely hope an Obama candicacy can help reverse the negative ad trend, or at least he stays above it.......I hope.
That's what I liked about Obama's speech. It had a positive tone, overall. Of course, Rush Limbaugh and company will trash it as "empty rhetoric", but it was refreshing, nonetheless.
I agree completely. Whatever Rush and co. say about it, they will say about it - Obama's honesty and his appeal to the betterment in all of us far outweighs the Rushs of the world and their divisive, dishonest rhetoric that only serve to tear us apart.
Very positive post there, Tommy. Neither of us should be whining, as that storm that was supposed to come in last night may show up at any time, and as True So.Californians, we'll need all of our whining muscles for that 1/2" of rain we may be faced with.
Exactly, my whining will deal with the LA drivers who freak out over one raindrop.
Exactly of COURSE they work. I wish they didnt but McCain in 2000 is the PERFECT example of a black hearted smear campaign that absolutly worked.
This coming election will be the nastiest of all, repugs will be thrown over the side and they won't go with crying and stomping and negative ad making.
they already setting the stage by implying the only presidential credentials are being the strongest commander-in-chief. Total rubbish.
It's all they've got. Unless they can keep their base scared sh*tless, they don't stand a chance. Don't underestimate the power of fear, though. They could still win next November....and that scares ME sh*tless.
Negative campaigns don't work? Did he forget 2000 and George W Bush ?
I think what McCain meant to say was that negative ads aren't a guarantee for winning.They actually work much of the time, he just didn't get good results from his.
I did misunderstand MMFA's take on McCain's statement at first.Their point is that he is denouncing their effectiveness while continuing to use them.I still don't think it's misinformation, it's just another Republican sticking with a plan that is a proven failure.
It's called staying the course, dammit, and resolve ! And it's not really news.
Whoa--wait a minute. I don't disagree that the media is spinning McCain as a way to promote him, but I'm concerned that Media Matters in this case is "spinning left" by using the term McCain's hundred year war and leaving out the context--and the caveat he added to his statement. As I recall it, he said that yes, they could stay 100 years or whatever--as long as they were not being killed or injured. And he used examples of other nations where we have permanent bases in countries where we are not "at war." So, to be fair--and not guilty of the thing you are accusing the right of doing, you should have included that in your article.