About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Front-page LA Times article presents McCain's troop snub charge as he-said-she-said, but McCain camp admitted it "seem[s]" to be false

July 31, 2008 3:17 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: A front-page Los Angeles Times article reported that Sen. John McCain "has attacked [Sen. Barack] Obama for canceling a visit to wounded U.S. soldiers at a military hospital because he couldn't bring reporters along. Obama's campaign has angrily disputed the charge as false and misleading." But in depicting the issue as a point of contention between the Obama and McCain campaigns, the article did not note that the McCain campaign has since acknowledged that the attack, which it had included in a campaign ad, "seem[s]" to be inaccurate. Nor did the article note that numerous reports, including a separate Times article that same day, have supported the Obama campaign's position that the attack is "false and misleading."

17 Comments

In a front-page July 31 Los Angeles Times article, staff writers Bob Drogin and Peter Nicholas reported that Sen. John McCain "has attacked [Sen. Barack] Obama for canceling a visit to wounded U.S. soldiers at a military hospital because he couldn't bring reporters along. Obama's campaign has angrily disputed the charge as false and misleading." But in depicting the issue as a point of contention between the Obama and McCain campaigns, Drogin and Nicholas did not note that the McCain campaign has since acknowledged that the attack, which it had included in a campaign ad, "seem[s]" to be inaccurate. Nor did Drogin and Nicholas note that note that numerous reports have supported the Obama campaign's position that the attack is "false and misleading." Indeed, in a separate July 31 Times article, staff writer James Rainey highlighted a Washington Post report that he said "showed that Obama never planned to take the media to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, putting the lie to charges from John McCain that the Democrat was on the prowl for a cheap photo op."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the McCain campaign ad falsely suggests that Obama "canceled a visit with wounded troops" because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras." In a June 30 blog post, McCain deputy communications director Michael Goldfarb wrote, "It does now seem that Barack Obama snubbed the troops for reasons other than a lack of photo-op potential." Additionally, after MSNBC host Joe Scarborough asked why the McCain campaign thought Obama didn't visit the troops on the July 29 edition of Morning Joe, campaign manager Rick Davis acknowledged: "I don't know what the truth is."

In his "On the Media" article in the Los Angeles Times, Rainey reported:

The Washington Post published a smart, thorough takedown Wednesday of the baseless charge that Barack Obama spurned a visit with wounded troops because he couldn't turn the trip into a public relations coup.

Reporters Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz showed that Obama never planned to take the media to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, putting the lie to charges from John McCain that the Democrat was on the prowl for a cheap photo op.

Indeed, the July 30 Post article, headlined "McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence," reported: "For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true."

Similarly, as Media Matters for America documented, on the July 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell stated, "There was never any intention -- let me be absolutely clear about this. The press was never going to go. The entourage was never going to go. There was never an intention to make this political." She later said, "And the McCain commercial on this subject is completely wrong, factually wrong." ABC senior national correspondent Jake Tapper and Time national political correspondent Karen Tumulty both also noted that the McCain campaign has provided "no evidence" to support the ad's suggestion that Obama canceled the visit because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras."

From Drogin and Nicholas' Times article:

For McCain, the new and sharply negative tone toward Obama could damage the Republican's image as a maverick who rejects the attack-dog politics of traditional Washington.

The Arizona senator's new TV ad shows pictures of Obama's speech last week to an estimated 200,000 people at an outdoor event in Berlin, comparing his celebrity to that of pop culture figures [Paris] Hilton and [Britney] Spears. "But is he ready to lead?" it asks.

In addition to launching the ad, McCain recently has accused Obama of being willing to lose the war in Iraq in order to win the November election. Over the course of several days, he also has attacked Obama for canceling a visit to wounded U.S. soldiers at a military hospital because he couldn't bring reporters along. Obama's campaign has angrily disputed the charge as false and misleading.

David Winston, a GOP operative in Washington, argues that McCain has erred by issuing negative personal attacks. McCain should put Obama on the defensive by highlighting their policy differences on taxes, energy and national security, he said.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (July 31, 2008 3:28 pm ET)
         

      HuffPo is reporting that McCain had an ad planned in case Obama did visit the hospital in Germany, essentially saying that Obama was using the wounded soldiers as props.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/31/mccain-planned-to-attack_n_116091.html

      Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (July 31, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
         

      I highly encourage readers to actually read the L.A. Times article.

      This is yet another example by MM where they take an article very critical of McCain, find something that isn't worded in a way they prefer, and then make an issue out of it.

      C'mon, MM. This post is weak. Also, the cheerleading for Obama by the Times has been very well chronicled.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 31, 2008 3:57 pm ET)
           
        Then linking to the article so you can read it and make up your mind is a good thing, right?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 31, 2008 4:04 pm ET)
           

        "This is yet another example by MM where they take an article very critical of McCain, find something that isn't worded in a way they prefer, and then make an issue out of it."

        What about NOT finding something that has a direct bearing on the issue? 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 31, 2008 4:08 pm ET)
           
        Alleged previous cheerleading for Obama has nothing to do with the article at hand.  MMFA owes no debt to the LA Times for any positive reporting on Obama.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 31, 2008 4:15 pm ET)
           

        This is yet another example by MM where they take an article very critical of McCain - shoes

        Really?  Cause I rad it and found it to be mostly balanced.  Care to point to something in particular that you would classify as "very critical of McCain"?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (July 31, 2008 5:20 pm ET)
             

          Ol' Ben, that's Shoes you're talking to. A second post supporting the initial pile o' poo? Har! don't hold your breath.

          The worst thing i saw re: Grampy was that he's "going negative". Not even really an opinion, pretty easily observable fact.

          I did get to see a quote from my homeboy Ken Kachigian, one of the OC's finest.Finest dipwads.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by shoes89 (July 31, 2008 5:25 pm ET)
             

          1. "John McCain's campaign gave its clearest signal yet that its main focus right now isn't talking about the presumed Republican nominee." (The Times ignores McCain's recent autobiographical ads.)

          2. "In trying to paint its image of Obama, the McCain camp has turned increasingly negative, even derisive."

          3. "McCain rarely draws large or boisterous crowds, as Obama did in Berlin. Even close aides acknowledge that McCain's public speaking skills pale beside Obama's soaring rhetoric."

          4. "For McCain, the new and sharply negative tone toward Obama could damage the Republican's image as a maverick who rejects the attack-dog politics of traditional Washington." (That new ad is "sharply negative"?)

          5. "David Winston, a GOP operative in Washington, argues that McCain has erred by issuing negative personal attacks." ("Negative personal attacks"? Not even close. By the way ... Let's see if the Times makes a front-page story tomorrow out of Obama's "doesn't look like all those other presidents" remark. The McCain family is a multi-racial family and Obama is playing the race card?! Prediction: The Times will report Obama's remark tomorrow, but it will be buried in the A section, unlike today's article on the top of the front page.)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (July 31, 2008 5:47 pm ET)
               
            Sounds like accurate analysis to me.  Sweety, that all ya got?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (July 31, 2008 6:13 pm ET)
               
            I think now I understand why you normally quit after one post, Shoes. The second one just makes things worse for you.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by shoes89 (August 01, 2008 12:33 am ET)
                 

              Again - nothing but personal attacks on me (which always go unpunished here).

              How about a substantial response to what I wrote?

              Anyone ... anyone?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 01, 2008 2:07 am ET)
                   
                A substantial response to what? You quoting reality-based comments about McCain, or your "predictions"? Where do you get the idea that responses to your confusion need to be more substantive than your confusion? The hubris.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 01, 2008 2:10 am ET)
                     

                  Oh yeah, there were no "personal attacks". Nobody knows you personally. The criticism was only directed at your  posts.

                  You wingnuts really have to get over this imagined Ad Hominem stuff.Nobody even knows you.

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Old_Benjamin (August 01, 2008 11:45 am ET)
                   

                Again - nothing but personal attacks on me (which always go unpunished here). - shoes

                What is it with some cons and their need for punishing anyone they deem as transgressing some rule.  Anyhow, you have the ability to flag any of these "attacks" for removal, ya know?

                As for your whinging about the times article is the usual knee-jerk reaction one would expect.  As others have pointed out, the article is not "very critical" of McCain and I think you know that.  Some cons hate it when others notice what they have been trying to hide. 

                As in your point #3 - . "McCain rarely draws large or boisterous crowds, as Obama did in Berlin. Even close aides acknowledge that McCain's public speaking skills pale beside Obama's soaring rhetoric."  This is completely accurate and apparently his own people acknowledge this very fact.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (July 31, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
         

      "the McCain campaign has since acknowledged that the attack, which it had included in a campaign ad, "seem[s]" to be inaccurate."

      Mission accomplished.

      1. Make up the B.S. 
      2. Feed the B.S. to the right-wing slime machine.
      3. Let the B.S. fester and spread like a disease.
      4. Then repent, inconspicuously.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.