Media Matters by Jamison Foser

Media Matters by Jamison Foser http://mediamatters.org Media Matters by Jamison Foser en-US Copyright 2008, Media Matters for America "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030012 John McCain's "protective barrier" Nearly four months ago, I <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803070011">wrote</a> that many journalists were going along with John McCain's apparent efforts to declare that, because of his military service, any criticism -- even if it doesn't have anything to do with his service -- is out of bounds. In one early example, McCain attacked Mitt Romney, claiming that Romney (who, McCain noted, "has never had any military experience") had criticized Bob Dole's "service and courage." In fact, Romney hadn't said anything about Dole's service, or his courage. Not even close. But that didn't stop the media from <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802060007">going along</a> with McCain's false claims. A few weeks later, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer asked if Barack Obama was "taking aim at John McCain's age, an American war hero." Obama hadn't said anything that had anything to do with McCain's status as an "American war hero" -- indeed, he hadn't mentioned McCain at all. Still, Brewer felt compelled to invoke McCain's status as a war hero at the slightest hint (real or imagined) that McCain is being criticized -- even though that (real or imagined) criticism had nothing to do with McCain's military service. But incidents like that were apparently just trial runs for what has happened this week, as much of the media has abandoned any pretense of neutrality. In the most vivid example to date of media describing any criticism of McCain as criticism of his military service, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020012?f=h_latest">described</a> a television ad that made not a single mention of McCain's service as being a part of "an organized campaign against John McCain's military service." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSq30lapbC9c">Here's the ad</a>; watch for yourself. It's an ad about McCain's Iraq policies. It doesn't make any mention of McCain's military record. Doesn't even hint at anything having anything to do with McCain's service. Yet Mitchell suggested it was part of "an organized campaign against John McCain's military service." She may as well have said a giant purple unicorn had called McCain a traitor, for all the truth there was to her statement. Mitchell's description was deeply dishonest, but what's really remarkable is how well it fit in among the rest of the media's political coverage this week. On Sunday, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer suggested that the fact that Barack Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down" makes him less qualified to be president than John McCain. His guest, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, responded by saying that having done so is not a qualification to be president: <blockquote> SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean -- CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president. SCHIEFFER: Really? </blockquote> Clark has made similar comments in the past, and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010007">various media figures</a> said much the same thing about John Kerry in 2004. Morton Kondracke, for example: "It does not qualify you to be the commander in chief of all the Armed Forces because you were a Swift boat commander." And Kathleen Parker: "[M]ilitary service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office." That same year, Bush campaign spokesperson Steve Schmidt -- now John McCain's de facto campaign manager -- dismissed the relevance of Kerry's military service, noting that it had occurred decades earlier. Nobody much cared when people said John Kerry's military service didn't qualify him to be president. But the media have different rules when it comes to John McCain. And so Clark's comments were met with a firestorm of media criticism. Never mind that Clark hadn't criticized McCain's service; that he hadn't said McCain served poorly or dishonorably -- in fact, Clark called McCain a "hero." Never mind all that; the media quickly, relentlessly -- and falsely -- jumped all over Clark. They falsely accused him of attacking McCain's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010005">military service</a>. They falsely accused him of attacking McCain's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030001">patriotism</a>. They went along with the McCain campaign's complaints that Clark -- who, again, called McCain a "hero" -- "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020001">didn't pay proper homage</a>" to McCain. By the end of the week, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030011">one creative journalist</a> went so far as to falsely claim that Clark's comments were part of a "pattern of attacks" on McCain as "psychologically unfit for presidential office." In short: they <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqRwsk56lN44">freaked out</a>. A few journalists felt compelled to acknowledge the obvious: that what Clark said was actually right -- that McCain's military service, like John Kerry's, is not sufficient qualification for the presidency no matter how honorable and heroic it was. But they still insisted Clark shouldn't have said it. New York Times columnist Gail Collins, for example, wrote: "When Schieffer pointed out that Obama had neither run a squadron nor 'ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down,' the correct response was: 'No, and he honors Senator McCain's service.' ... Nevertheless, what Clark said was obviously true." Collins' Times colleague John Harwood agreed during an appearance on MSNBC: "[I]t was a misstep by Clark ... It was not a well-advised thing for Clark to do ... It actually was true." When did journalists decide that the "obviously true" answer to a question is not the "correct" answer? When did they decide that it was appropriate to spend days excoriating someone for saying something that is "true" but isn't "well-advised?" Columbia Journalism Review's Zachary Roth, writing about an ABCNews.com report, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cjr.org%2Fcampaign_desk%2Fattacking_mccains_military_rec.php">explained</a>: <blockquote> This is the perfect embodiment of the press's unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark's comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof -- which is how the news media should be evaluating them.</blockquote> Incredibly, many in the media compared Clark's "obviously true" comments to the vicious smear campaign waged by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry. The comparisons began almost immediately. Just hours after Clark's appearance on Face the Nation, CNN host Rick Sanchez <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0806%2F29%2Fcnr.04.html">asked</a>, "[D]id Wesley Clark pull a swift boat on John McCain today?" He later described Clark's comments as "A respected military leader dissing, some might say, swift-boating John McCain's military record." The absurd comparison quickly gained traction, particularly on cable news. But wait: it gets worse. Not only did the media compare Clark to the noxious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, many of them <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807010008?f=s_search">politely averted their eyes</a> when McCain turned to a member of that group -- which McCain once called "dishonest and dishonorable" -- to respond to Clark's non-attack. The Washington Post, one of the media outlets that did note Bud Day's membership in the SBVT, quoted him rejecting the comparison between Clark and the anti-Kerry group -- because, he claimed, the comparison was unfair to the Swifties: "The <a name="ORIGHIT_22" title="ORIGHIT_22"></a><a name="HIT_22" title="HIT_22"></a>Swift boat, quote, attacks were simply a revelation of the truth. The similarity doesn't exist. ... One was about laying out the truth. This one is about attempting to cast another shadow." The Post didn't bother to tell readers that, in fact, the Swift Boat attacks were deeply dishonest and nasty smears. In short: John McCain turned to a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group whose false and despicable attacks on John Kerry's war record McCain once denounced, to attack Wesley Clark for comments in which Clark did not criticize McCain's war record -- and in which he, in fact, called McCain a hero. And the media went along with it. But -- because the only limit to how absurd the media's pro-McCain coverage will become is time -- it gets even worse. While defending the Swift Boat Vets' lies about John Kerry and attacking Wes Clark for something he didn't say, Bud Day said of Clark: "General Clark spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded, evacuated, and that was his Vietnam experience. I'd say let's hold the two of them up and see who's most qualified to talk about their experience as a combat officer." That <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020013">happens to be false</a>. Clark served at least six months in Vietnam, not "a month." Day's comments about Clark constituted an actual falsehood about a distinguished veteran's military record, made on an official McCain campaign conference call by a hand-picked surrogate. Surely, after days of freaking out over something Wes Clark didn't say, the media quickly gave as much attention to SBVT member Bud Day's false claims about Clark's own war record? Of course not. Remember: the rules are different for John McCain. Then there's Bob Dole. Earlier this year, McCain falsely accused Mitt Romney of criticizing Dole's service. This week, Bob Dole returned the favor by releasing a statement calling Wes Clark's non-attack on McCain's service "Beyond comprehension" and a "further erosion of our nation's political discourse." CNN, MSNBC, Time and the Associated Press, among others, reported Bob Dole's comments about Clark. But nobody mentioned an inconvenient fact that completely undermines Dole's credibility on this topic: In 2004, in the midst of the Swift Boat controversy, Bob Dole went on national television to make <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240003">false claims</a> about John Kerry's war injuries, suggesting the Democratic presidential candidate didn't deserve his Purple Hearts. Dole said in 2004 that he will "always quarrel about" Kerry's Purple Hearts, because "he got two in one day" even though he "never bled" and only had "superficial wounds." In fact, Kerry's Purple Hearts were not awarded for the same day, and he did bleed, according to Kerry crewmate Del Sandusky, who -- unlike Dole -- was present when Kerry was injured. There has never been any evidence that John Kerry did not earn his medals, and there is considerable evidence he did. The false claims Bob Dole made to suggest John Kerry did not deserve his Purple Hearts are what it looks like when somebody actually smears a war hero. Yet the media who dutifully repeated Dole's criticism of Clark didn't bother to mention Dole's bogus and offensive comments about Kerry. After all, Dole was defending John McCain from (imaginary) attacks, and the rules are different for John McCain. Let's pause for a moment to review. According to the news media, if you call John McCain a "hero," but say that heroism doesn't qualify him to be president, you have dishonorably attacked his military service. (Feel free, however, to say the same thing about John Kerry.) And if you criticize McCain's Iraq policies, you are participating in "an organized campaign against John McCain's military service." But wait! There's more! The media's knee-jerk defense of McCain doesn't stop at their use of his military service to rule criticism of his Iraq policies out of bounds. It extends to (things having nothing to do with) his age, too. See, if you criticize John McCain for ignoring his own pledge to avoid negative campaigning, the media will <a href="http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=mccain+bearings&from_date=&to_date=&issue=&subissue=&topic=&person=&show=&outlet=&x=0&y=0">quickly announce</a> that you're really attacking his age. That was ridiculous, of course, but McCain aide Mark Salter <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fmarcambinder.theatlantic.com%2Farchives%2F2008%2F05%2Fsalter_obama_attacked_mccains.php">told them to say it</a>, so they did. You get the picture: the media is on the verge of declaring any criticism of John McCain off-limits -- even when it isn't really criticism. Even when you call him a "hero," but not quite enthusiastically enough. One of the hallmarks of the Karl Rove era of GOP politics is that the Republicans aren't particularly subtle about their tactics. They tend to clearly telegraph what they intend to do, though often with the slight wrinkle of accusing the opposition of doing what they plan to do themselves. That is certainly true of the McCain campaign. In the very memo in which Salter convinced the media to pretend that Obama's criticism of McCain's negative campaigning was an attack on the Arizona senator's age, Salter wrote: "Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race." Yes, that's John McCain's senior adviser complaining that the media has formed a "protective barrier" around Barack Obama. The American people, however, seem to see through this nonsense. Two months ago, The New York Times and CBS News conducted a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fpackages%2Fpdf%2Fpolitics%2F20080501_POLL.pdf%23page%3D24">poll</a> in which they asked respondents whether the media has been harder or easier on John McCain than on other candidates. Only 8 percent thought the media had been harder on McCain than on other candidates; more than three times as many people thought the media had taken it easier on McCain than on other candidates. (Asked the same question about media coverage of Barack Obama, respondents split pretty much down the middle.) It probably could go without saying at this point, but in case you're wondering: No, neither the Times nor CBS reported those poll results. http://mediamatters.org/items/200807030012 Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:14:46 EST "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser http://mediamatters.org/items/200806270008 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 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200705120002#1">often seemed</a> 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 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200712150003">leading source of haircut journalism</a> (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 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fwonkroom%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Ftax_returns1.pdf">new report</a> 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. http://mediamatters.org/items/200806270008 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:25:32 EST "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser http://mediamatters.org/items/200806200012 Media give McCain a pass while pouncing on Obama When Barack Obama announced yesterday that he was opting out of the public financing system for the general election and John McCain responded by attacking Obama for doing so, you didn't have to be Carnac the Magnificent to anticipate the media's reaction. In fact, it's hard to imagine a scenario that would more predictably result in skewed media coverage than a campaign finance squabble involving John McCain. McCain <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Fwashwire%2F2008%2F06%2F19%2Fopting-out-of-public-financing-a-big-deal-says-mccain%2F">said</a> of Obama's decision: "This election is about a lot of things but it's also about trust. It's also about whether you can take people's word. ... [T]his is a big deal, a big deal. He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." McCain's comments were widely reported -- but few news organizations bothered to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806200011">point out</a> that McCain has "completely reversed himself" and gone back on his word on public financing during this campaign. John McCain said he would take public financing for the Republican primaries. Then he used the promise of that public financing to help secure a loan for his campaign. Then, after he wrapped up the Republican nomination, he abruptly decided he did not want to be bound by the limits on campaign fundraising and spending that accompany public financing, so he announced that he had changed his mind. But Federal Election Commission chairman David Mason sent McCain a letter saying that he cannot unilaterally opt out of the public financing system without FEC approval -- a letter the McCain campaign ignored. If McCain cannot opt out of the system unilaterally, he has broken the law by raising and spending funds in excess of legal limits, and continues to do so each day. Even if McCain isn't breaking the law, he has already broken his word and "reversed himself" on the question of whether he would take public funding for the primaries. That fact has gone all but ignored in news reports about Obama's decision, even those news reports that quote McCain's criticism of Obama. And McCain's own history is doubly significant: Not only does it suggest that McCain's criticism of Obama is hypocritical, it also indicates that it is impossible to trust McCain to follow through on his commitment not to raise money for the general election. Finally, if David Mason is right and McCain is found to have violated the law, as The Washington Post <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F02%2F21%2FAR2008022103141_2.html%3Fhpid%3Dtopnews%26sid%3DST2008022102994">noted</a>, "Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison." I have seen no indication that a single reporter has asked McCain to reconcile his criticism of Obama with his own on-again, off-again relationship with the public financing system. And precious few news reports made any mention of the matter. (To their credit, the evening news broadcasts on both ABC and NBC mentioned McCain's public financing shift -- though both mentions were in passing, and both portrayed the matter as an Obama campaign assertion rather than clear fact. And neither contrasted McCain's actions with his words.) <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806190005?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806190005?f=s_search">As</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806190002?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806190002?f=s_search">Media</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806130009?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806130009?f=s_search">Matters</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805220006?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805220006?f=s_search">has</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805210005?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805210005?f=s_search">often</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805090007?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805090007?f=s_search">noted</a>, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805070005?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805070005?f=s_search">media</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804170011?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804170011?f=s_search">have</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804170002?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804170002?f=s_search">consistently</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804160004?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804160004?f=s_search">ignored</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804140004?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804140004?f=s_search">or</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804130002?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804130002?f=s_search">downplayed</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110005?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110005?f=s_search">McCain's</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804100004?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804100004?f=s_search">controversial</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803210006?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803210006?f=s_search">decision</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803100006?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803100006?f=s_search">to</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290010?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290010?f=s_search">forgo</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802280008?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802280008?f=s_search">public</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210012?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210012?f=s_search">funding</a>. Instead of noting McCain's actions, many news reports have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803270007?f=s_search">portrayed</a> him as a virtuous reformer. This is entirely unsurprising, but it ignores the fact that McCain's actual history on campaign finance reform has been more than a little self-serving, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200604010004?f=s_search#5">as I explained in March 2006</a>. Here's the short version: In 2002, McCain excluded 527s from his namesake campaign finance legislation, which was widely expected to benefit Republicans due to the Democrats' greater reliance on "soft money." As things turned out, McCain-Feingold did not benefit Republicans in the 2004 campaign as much as had been expected, due in large part to Democrats' use of 527s. Then, in 2006, McCain abruptly changed his mind about 527s and sponsored legislation that would limit contributions to such groups -- legislation that, once again, was widely seen as favoring Republicans. Maybe John McCain has taken his various contradictory positions on 527s for sincere and virtuous reasons. But there can be little doubt that if he were anyone else, journalists would note that his history of campaign finance "reform" proposals have one thing in common -- they are widely seen as benefiting the political party to which he happens to belong. For that matter, given that McCain is running as someone with a commitment to "reform" and a record to back it up, the media should -- but do not -- examine the actual results of McCain's legislative efforts. There is broad consensus that one of the most significant problems with the current system is the role played by outside groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- groups that can have enormous impact on an election and that have fewer disincentives than candidates or party committees to behave badly. The role played by these groups is a direct (and obvious) consequence of the McCain-Feingold legislation. And during debate over that legislation, McCain specifically ruled out including provisions restricting the actions of 527s. Put simply: John McCain is as responsible as anyone for the rise of 527s, which much of the media treats as one of the most troubling aspect of modern political campaigns. But when was the last time you saw a news report or commentary bemoaning the influence of these organizations that noted John McCain's responsibility for them? Barack Obama has said that one reason he chose to forgo public financing for the general election is so that he will have sufficient funds to compete with not only John McCain and the Republican National Committee, but with 527s and other outside groups that may attack him, as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smeared John Kerry in 2004. In response, news reports have asserted that there are no 527s attacking Obama: <blockquote> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.signonsandiego.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F20080619-1235-obama-money-analysis.html">Liz Sidoti, Associated Press</a>: "Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and 'the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups.' But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama -- and running commercials against McCain. So much for being a straight shooter." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fstories%2F0608%2F11211.html">Ben Smith, Politico</a>: "He [Obama] has complained that McCain said he couldn't control attack ads from outside groups -- though the only outside attack ads to run this cycle have been financed by Obama allies and directed at McCain." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F06%2F19%2FAR2008061900914_pf.html">The Washington Post</a>: "To date, no conservative 527 groups have materialized." </blockquote> Nonsense. Several conservative groups have already attacked Obama, using ads and other tactics. Freedom's Watch <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806190013?f=h_latest">has run ads</a> attacking Obama over taxes and health care. Vets for Freedom <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806190013?f=h_latest">has run two Internet ads</a> attacking Obama over issues related to the Iraq war. (Until recently, two key McCain surrogates -- Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham -- served on Vets for Freedom's Policy Board of Advisors.) Floyd Brown, creator of the infamous Willie Horton ad, has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806200003?f=h_latest">released</a> an ad attacking Obama. But more important: Even if it were true that no conservative groups have yet run ads criticizing Obama, that wouldn't mean that none will do so. Remember: The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth didn't run its first ad until August 2004. Conservatives haven't historically been skittish about attacking Democratic presidential candidates, and they haven't historically lacked for funding to do so. That may change this year, but there is no reason to assume it will -- particularly when there are conservative groups that have already run ads attacking Obama. And when John McCain announces that he won't "referee" controversies over such ads. And when McCain strategist Steve Schmidt <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fdyn.politico.com%2Fprintstory.cfm%3Fuuid%3DA4416D05-3048-5C12-009DB0481F25202A">says</a> McCain "wishes that 527s did not exist on either side. But he understands that they do. And he certainly isn't going to say that one side should have them and one side should not in the context of a presidential campaign." But even if 527s and other conservative groups don't attack Obama, he may still need that extra money he can raise by opting out of the public financing system. As the past 36 hours have reminded us, he may need it to compete with the priceless favorable media coverage John McCain benefits from nearly every day. http://mediamatters.org/items/200806200012 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:21:36 EST "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser http://mediamatters.org/items/200806130006 E. D. Hill has company When Fox News anchor E. D. Hill <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060007">suggested</a> that Barack and Michelle Obama may have engaged in a "terrorist fist jab" at a recent campaign event, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806100006">condemnation</a> (and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806100001">mockery</a>) of Hill's comments was swift, and forced her to offer an on-air <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806100009">quasi-apology</a>. While Hill's apology was unusual (though not unprecedented -- just a few weeks ago, a Fox analyst <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fblogs%2Fmichaelcalderone%2F0508%2FFox_analyst_apologizes_for_Obama_assassination_joke.html">apologized</a> for joking about assassinating Obama), her original comments were sadly typical of the media's treatment of Obama. Since he began running for president, news reports have relentlessly suggested that Obama is different; that he isn't like you; that he isn't on your side. Sometimes, like Hill's "terrorist fist jab" comment, those suggestions have been obvious, and clearly offensive. Other times, they have been comparatively subtle and seemingly pointless -- Chris Matthews' <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110004?f=h_latest">deep concern</a> with Barack Obama's decision to order orange juice in a diner and what it says about his ability to connect with "regular people," for example. But they have two things in common: They portray Obama as weird -- un-American, even -- and they do so based on little more than the fevered imaginations of some journalists and the vicious lies of right-wing partisans. Rush Limbaugh <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210002">says</a> Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden are "on the same page." Other <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110008">conservative commentators</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805010006">have</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806090008">suggested</a> an affinity between Obama and Hamas -- despite Obama's denunciations of the organization, and its description of Obama's policy positions as "hostile to us." Conservative columnist Mark Steyn has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110006">described</a> Michelle Obama as "Kim Jong-Il dressed up with a bit of Oprah Winfrey dressing." Michael Savage <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300008">claims</a> to "doubt" that Obama "would take our side" after a terrorist attack, adding that Obama would "march thousands of us into the hands of the enemy in order to gain what they would think would be a long-term peace. I think that they would gladly take the guns of the American military and turn them first on the American patriot, rather than turning the guns of the American patriot on the enemy within." Savage also <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290017">asks</a>, "Why are there no queries being provoked about Saddam Hussein -- I mean, Barack Hussein Obama?" Tucker Carlson has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710110003">compared</a> Obama's campaign to the Khmer Rouge, the brutal Cambodian regime that led to the deaths of nearly a quarter of that nation's people. Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman responded to a question referencing the possibility of "Osama blowing up the Sears Tower" by <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210016">writing</a>, "How about Obama blowing up the Sears Tower! I never liked that building anyway." Weisman did add, "Just kidding, folks." Another washingtonpost.com reader later followed up: "Um, did you really just joke about Obama blowing up the Sears Tower, or were you thinking Osama, but wrote Obama? Either way, not funny." Weisman wasn't the first reporter to use the "just kidding" defense after inappropriately and baselessly linking Obama to a controversial figure. CNN commentator Jeff Greenfield (now with CBS) <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200701060004?f=s_search#2">compared</a> Obama's tendency to wear shirts with open collars to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's preferred style of dress. When criticized by, among others, Columbia Journalism Review, Greenfield claimed he had been kidding, that he meant the commentary as a "patently absurd parody of muddled political thinking" and lashed out at his critics. But humor (if you can call it that) doesn't excuse making comments like this -- indeed, it makes it more likely that the public will remember and internalize the comparisons, and that the caricatures will take hold. Media figures also often portray Obama as un-American or unpatriotic. Dick Morris <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806110001">says</a> that "the question that plagues Obama is ... Is he pro-American?" and that the presidential election <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805080003">hinges</a> on whether "we believe" Obama is "sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system." Investor's Business Daily <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801160003">asks</a>, "Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests?" On Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710230004">says</a> Obama has "patriotism problems." MSNBC's Chris Matthews <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806040006">thinks</a> "it's a hard thing for someone like Barack Obama" to express a "gut sense of Americanism" and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200712040001">describes</a> Obama as "almost Third World in his sort of presentation." Jonah Goldberg <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803110010">falsely claims</a> Obama "dodg[es] the word and concept of patriotism." And countless news reports -- not just in the right-wing media -- have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710060001">obsessed</a> over the fact that Obama often does not wear a flag pin (Fox News' Sean Hannity particularly loves this line of attack -- despite the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200710050012">fact</a> that Hannity himself often appears on television without such a pin) or have passed along ridiculous claims about Obama and the Pledge of Allegiance, as <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290018">CBS News</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804280007">The Washington Post</a> (among others) have done. Countless news reports have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130001">directly suggested</a> Obama is secretly a Muslim, while others <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805080002">uncritically</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805070001">report</a> the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100011">allegation</a><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805120002"> </a>without <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805120002">bothering</a> to make clear that it is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200711290005">false</a>. As is often the case, Michael Savage takes things a bit further, falsely <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804070001">claiming</a> that "we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim," and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802220012">stating</a>, "We have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teaching." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802140009">Gratuitously</a> invoking Obama's middle name -- Hussein -- is a favorite tactic used by conservative media figures such as Ann Coulter to associate Obama with Saddam Hussein. (Coulter <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802150002">claims </a>that she does it not out of malice but "because I think it's funny.") For some, Obama's actual name isn't enough: Right-wing radio host Bill Cunningham <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100003">referred</a> to Obama as "Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama." (Just a few weeks later, Cunningham was <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802260005?f=s_search">chosen</a> to warm up the crowd at one of Sen. John McCain's campaign rallies.) MSNBC's Matthews has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802260007">explained</a> the problem with these gratuitous references to Obama's name: <blockquote> [E]ven that little seemingly neutral information gets into some older people's heads, and they go, "We got a problem here." [...] [O]lder people -- and I can tell stories in the millions about politicians playing to older voters. They play on the past. They play on fear. They play on confusion. They play on suggestion. You know how it's done with older voters. </blockquote> But Matthews himself was the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200612160001">first person</a> -- media figure or political operative -- to invoke Obama's middle name in a political context in any news report available in Nexis. Way back in November of 2006, Matthews noted: "You know, it's interesting that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. That will be interesting down the road, won't it?" And now Matthews says that the mention of Obama's middle name plays on "fear" and "confusion" and "suggestion" with "older voters." So why did he introduce the name into the national conversation? Matthews frequently claims that Obama is not a "regular" person -- and that his supporters aren't "regular people," either, as I <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060009?f=s_search">explained last week</a>: <blockquote> Matthews' election-night portrayal of Obama as out of touch with "most Americans" was striking in its intensity, but it was not a new theme. MSNBC personnel, particularly Matthews, have been trying out this anti-Obama theme for months. Matthews has attacked Obama for <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805140007">shooting pool</a> ("[I]t's not what most people play. People with money play pool these days.") and obsessed over what he <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804250002">claims</a> is Obama's inability to connect with "regular people" in "a dinette." And Matthews and David Shuster <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110009?f=s_search">mocked</a> Obama for the grievous sin of ordering orange juice in a diner. Matthews has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804020001">said</a> of Obama, "[T]his gets very ethnic, but the fact that he's good at basketball doesn't surprise anybody, but the fact that he's that terrible at bowling does make you wonder." On another occasion, Matthews <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090008">suggested</a> that Obama's lack of bowling prowess "tells you something about the Democratic Party." Matthews has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804020001">contrasted</a> "regular people" with "people who come from the African-American community." He has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804230008">suggested</a> Obama should pick a Jewish running mate because he "need[s] some ethnic balance." Matthews has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290007">said</a> Obama "seems a little foreign" and that he and Jeremiah Wright are "different faces of the same guy." </blockquote> Matthews' portrayal of Obama as unlike "regular people" is catching on. The New York Times' David Brooks recently said Obama wouldn't seem to "fit in naturally" at an Applebee's salad bar. (Turns out that, by Brooks' logic, it is Brooks himself who is out of touch with "regular people"; <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806030004">Applebee's doesn't have a salad bar</a>.) And on MSNBC on Tuesday, columnist Margaret Carlson said of Obama: "Don't you want to say to him, 'Eat the taco. A funnel cake won't kill you.' " Carlson then asserted that Obama needs to get "a little bit more down with the people." Other examples of the media portraying Obama as strange or dangerous abound. Coulter <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805010004">suggests</a> Obama is "a Manchurian candidate." Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802130016">compares</a> Obama's speeches to Hitler's. Slate.com <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220006">teases</a> an article with the line "Why Obama is Like a Serial Killer." Tucker Carlson says Obama "sounds like a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200707070002">pothead</a> to me" and "seems like kind of a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200707110003">wuss</a>," while MSNBC colleague Joe Scarborough suggests Obama is not a "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803310007">real man</a>." And the media don't stop at portraying Obama as abnormal; his supporters have received similar treatment. Brooks, Time's Joe Klein, ABC's Jake Tapper, and other media figures <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080014">have called</a> Obama supporters "creepy" and "cult-like" and compared them to followers of Charles Manson. Obviously there is a difference between calling Barack Obama a terrorist or suggesting he might not "take our side" in the event of a terrorist attack and saying his lack of bowling prowess prevents him from understanding and connecting with "regular people." But both storylines portray Obama as out of the mainstream; they each prime audiences to be more receptive to the other (and the more extreme comments coming from the likes of Michael Savage and Fox News have the pernicious effect of making Chris Matthews' absurd claims about Obama and "regular people" seem reasonable by comparison) -- and neither has any basis in reality. After all, polls show Obama beating McCain, so he must not be doing too badly among "regular people." Yesterday, Barack Obama's campaign unveiled a website dedicated to rebutting false rumors. On MSNBC Live, Andrea Mitchell and Time's Jay Carney discussed the need for the new site: <blockquote> MITCHELL: [Obama] was being asked by reporters about things that are completely unprovable, and the way this stuff circulates, it's so viral that a reporter asks him a question, it gets picked up, and then that ratifies the rumor, which we're not even going to be talking about because, you know, there's no proof about a lot of this stuff. So -- CARNEY: You know, the one, Andrea -- there's one in particular that they talk about where Michelle is alleged in a rumor to have referred to white Americans as whitey in a speech at, of course, the Trinity church, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church. There's no evidence at all that this is true. This rumor started circulating among conservative bloggers and then was picked up and just repeated as a rumor by Rush Limbaugh, of course, the widely listened-to conservative talk radio host. Now over -- driving over to the studio just half an hour ago I heard Rush Limbaugh's show, and he's talking about this non-stop, talking about how it's not -- you know, he's not to blame, he was just reporting a rumor. But of course, he spent half -- MITCHELL: But reporting a rumor, Jay -- CARNEY: But he spent half an hour at least when I was listening to him re-circulating the very rumor without shooting it down, so that's the effect of these things. MITCHELL: Well, let's put it to rest right now. This didn't happen. It hasn't happened, it's not gonna happen. But the Obama campaign has felt concerned enough clearly about all of this -- CARNEY: Exactly. MITCHELL: -- and our own NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows this resistance to him by, you know, white men, with McCain having a 20-point lead in -- among white men and still problems with suburban women, which is kind of more understandable coming out of a primary election between him and Hillary Clinton. This is something he's going to have to fix. CARNEY: Right. It's out there and they just have to -- the goal of circulating these rumors from Obama opponents is basically to create an atmosphere of doubt about the candidate -- about his patriotism, about his background, his religion. </blockquote> Journalists like Andrea Mitchell and Jay Carney understand that the repetition of baseless rumors "ratifies the rumors," as Mitchell put it. And they understand the intent behind the rumors -- creating "an atmosphere of doubt about the candidate," as Carney said. But journalists need to do more than understand the intent and effect of false rumors pushed by the right. They need to understand how their own reporting and commentary have similar effects, regardless of their intent. They need to understand that they have a responsibility that goes beyond being careful not to spread (intentionally or otherwise) these bogus right-wing themes; they also have a responsibility to aggressively report the truth. There is a broad smear campaign being waged against Barack Obama, and it is long past time for the media to expose and debunk those smears, not play into them. http://mediamatters.org/items/200806130006 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:37:00 EST "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060009 If MSNBC is really "leaning left," why does Chris Matthews keep saying African-Americans aren't "regular people"? The past several months have brought a congealing conventional wisdom among many reporters and pundits that MSNBC is lurching to the left. It is perhaps unsurprising that this story line would emerge. It is, however, nonsense. Why is the story line unsurprising? Quite simply, several of its most prominent advocates have a clear interest in MSNBC being seen as liberal. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, for example, attacks MSNBC (and its older sibling, NBC) for purported liberal bias. But O'Reilly is anything but a disinterested observer. Fox has always justified its right-wing agenda by claiming it is a necessary counterbalance to the "liberal media." With more and more Americans realizing how thoroughly the media are in the tank for John McCain, Fox's entire rationale for existing, always dubious at best, is in danger of vanishing altogether. On top of which, O'Reilly and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann seem to legitimately despise each other and to delight in their mutual disdain. Finally, the MSNBC-Fox feud goes beyond the rival anchors: Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F05%2F18%2FAR2008051802313_pf.html">reportedly</a> called NBC chief executive Jeff Zucker last year and threatened that if Olbermann kept criticizing Fox, Ailes would turn O'Reilly loose on MSNBC -- and that the New York Post, Fox's tabloid sibling, would join in the fight. Then there is Howard Kurtz, who writes about the media for The Washington Post and is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fdoc%2F20030224%2Falterman2%2Fprint">widely considered</a> the most influential media analyst in the country. Last week, Kurtz wrote a 1,300-word article about MSNBC headlined "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F05%2F27%2FAR2008052703047_pf.html">MSNBC, Leaning Left And Getting Flak From Both Sides</a>." Oddly, though, Kurtz didn't actually present criticism of MSNBC from "both sides" of the debate over whether the cable channel is "leaning left." Kurtz detailed claims from John McCain's campaign that MSNBC is "an organ of the Democratic National Committee" and is "a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain." And Kurtz included criticism from supporters of Hillary Clinton that the cable channel has favored Barack Obama. But Kurtz didn't so much as hint at any concern by anyone that MSNBC routinely traffics in conservative misinformation and effusively praises John McCain. No, the "both sides" Kurtz presented were conservatives who see MSNBC as anti-Republican and Democrats who see MSNBC as pro-Obama. That's Fox-style "balance" (in which the cable channel features Republicans who criticize Democrats and Democrats who criticize Democrats) in the pages of The Washington Post. Kurtz's transparently skewed assessment of MSNBC makes it impossible to avoid wondering whether Kurtz's relationship with CNN got in the way of his judgment. Kurtz hosts a weekly television show on CNN -- an obvious conflict of interest that Kurtz did not disclose in his MSNBC article. To borrow an analogy first made by <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radaronline.com%2Ffeatures%2F2008%2F02%2Fhoward_kurtz_chris_matthews_full_court_press_01.php">Charles Kaiser</a>, this is like The Washington Post allowing a business reporter to write an article critical of Ford while working on the side for General Motors -- without disclosing the financial relationship with GM. Just this week, TVNewser <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediabistro.com%2Ftvnewser%2Fmsnbc%2Frussert_has_spent_20_years_building_credibility_all_of_a_sudden_hes_taking_questions_from_a_daily_kos_blogger_85778.asp">quoted</a> a "high level source inside MSNBC" referring to the cable channel as "the in-house network of Barack Obama." In relating the comments, TVNewser reported that "MSNBC has drawn criticism from pundits from both parties, other journalists and the White House, for the perceived, and often obvious, leftward shift of their lead political anchors Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann." But this increasing chatter about MSNBC's "leftward shift" overlooks countless examples of the cable channel spreading conservative misinformation, a small sampling of which follows. (Note: According to the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fap.google.com%2Farticle%2FALeqM5hFLqq6dWINvgt7lv7ZT1x5WPKS6QD90TB1A80">Associated Press</a>, "The network has emphasized that MSNBC and NBC News are synonymous." Good enough for me. The examples below involve NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC reporters, though the overwhelming majority occurred on MSNBC, not on the sibling channels.) One of the defining characteristics of MSNBC's political coverage is mockery and ridicule of progressives. Hillary Clinton was the target of a great deal of this, but so were Al Gore (as <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyhowler.com%2F">Bob Somerby</a> has extensively documented) and John Kerry and Bill Clinton and others. And Barack Obama has received such treatment from MSNBC personalities in the past and will only face more now that he is the presumptive Democratic nominee. Don't believe me? Almost immediately after Obama went over the top in the delegate count Tuesday night, Matthews began attacking him. Matthews went on an extended rant about Obama's purported inability to connect with "most Americans," because, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806040004">according to Matthews</a>, Obama has been poor, and he has been rich, but he has not been in the middle. Later, after guest Harold Ford pointed to the fact that Barack and Michelle Obama were still paying off college loans just a few years ago as evidence that Obama is familiar with the economic concerns of middle-class America, Matthews' colleague Keith Olbermann retorted: "[T]here are people who are saying, ' "Still owe money on my student loans?"; we were so poor, we dreamed of having student loans.' " So, according to Matthews, Obama's problem is that, having been poor and wealthy, he cannot relate to the middle class. And according to Olbermann, Obama's familiarity with middle-class concerns alienates him from the poor. According to MSNBC's election-night anchor duo, Obama has been too rich, too poor, and too middle class to relate to voters. Given how frequently he invokes what he describes as Obama's inability to connect with "regular people," one can only assume Matthews must give the topic great consideration while lounging at the pool of his multimillion dollar <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonlife.com%2Fissues%2Foctober_2005%2Finside_homes%2F">Nantucket vacation home</a>. Matthews' election-night portrayal of Obama as out of touch with "most Americans" was striking in its intensity, but it was not a new theme. MSNBC personnel, particularly Matthews, have been trying out this anti-Obama theme for months. Matthews has attacked Obama for <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805140007">shooting pool</a> ("[I]t's not what most people play. People with money play pool these days.") and obsessed over what he <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804250002">claims</a> is Obama's inability to connect with "regular people" in "a dinette." And Matthews and David Shuster <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110009?f=s_search">mocked</a> Obama for the grievous sin of ordering orange juice in a diner. Matthews has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804020001">said</a> of Obama, "[T]his gets very ethnic, but the fact that he's good at basketball doesn't surprise anybody, but the fact that he's that terrible at bowling does make you wonder." On another occasion, Matthews <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090008">suggested</a> that Obama's lack of bowling prowess "tells you something about the Democratic Party." Matthews has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804020001">contrasted</a> "regular people" with "people who come from the African-American community." He has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804230008">suggested</a> Obama should pick a Jewish running mate because he "need[s] some ethnic balance." Matthews has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290007">said</a> Obama "seems a little foreign" and that he and Jeremiah Wright are "different faces of the same guy." And he has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802260007">criticized</a> other people, including comedian Jon Stewart, for using Barack Obama's middle name -- despite the fact that Chris Matthews was the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200612160001#20080606">first person to invoke Obama's middle name</a> in a political context in any news report available on Nexis. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.feministe.us%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2008%2F06%2F06%2Fchris-matthews-racism-watch%2F">Cara at the blog Feministe</a> has much more on Chris Matthews' troubling commentary about Barack Obama. But Matthews isn't alone among MSNBC employees when it comes to insulting Obama. Joe Scarborough has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803310007">described</a> Obama's bowling as "dainty" and suggested Obama is "prissy" and not a "real man." He <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803190009">criticized</a> Obama for saying that he doesn't share all of his grandmother's beliefs -- less than a week after Scarborough himself had said the same thing about his own parents. Tucker Carlson accuses Michelle Obama of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210006">having</a> "a chip on her shoulder." MSNBC personnel like <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805010007">Scarborough</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802110008">Pat Buchanan</a> routinely refer to Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate, apparently relying on a deeply flawed National Journal ranking based on only a portion of votes cast during only one year. (A <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060003?f=s_search">less subjective survey</a> placed Obama in a tie for the ranking of 10th most liberal member of the Senate -- and McCain as the eighth most conservative. For some reason, MSNBC doesn't ever get around to telling viewers that McCain is closer to being the most conservative senator than Obama is to being the most liberal.) MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290002">asserted</a> that "Obama doesn't know what he's talking about" -- and, to support his assertion, misquoted Obama. That was just one of many times <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804150007">MSNBC</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804020004">reporters</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803270010">have</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180009">distorted</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803030010">Barack</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801250005">Obama's</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150017">record</a>. Howard Kurtz didn't mention any of that (or any other negative portrayals of Obama) in his article -- though he did quote McCain strategist Steve Schmidt describing MSNBC as "an organ of the Democratic National Committee." Kurtz also quoted Schmidt calling MSNBC "a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain." In fact, MSNBC reporters have at times seemed like they were auditioning for a job in McCain's communications shop. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805140008">Again</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805130011">again</a>, MSNBC anchors and reporters have portrayed McCain as independent by pointing to his differences with his party on taxes, immigration, and other issues -- without noting that McCain has changed positions on those issues in order to align himself with the Republican Party. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801220002">Other</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802040004">times</a>, they have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804010010">directly</a>, and falsely, claimed that McCain has "stood his ground" on those purported departures from party orthodoxy. And they have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802140014">adopted McCain's false explanations</a> for his shifting views. And they have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803140009">described</a> statements that McCain has shifted positions on taxes, and on his own reasons for his positions, as "claim[s]" rather than clear facts. John Harwood, among <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110011">other</a> NBC reporters, has called McCain a "Maverick" <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805130011">over</a> and over and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805010005">over</a>. Even while acknowledging that McCain had a "phase in 2007 when he was getting a lot of flak for sort of flip-flopping and trying to court the right," Harwood <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804160010">declares</a> that McCain's "maverick brand is intact." In contrast to the cable channel's treatment of Barack Obama, MSNBC's Mike Barnicle <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804170008?f=s_search">praises</a> McCain as someone who "absolutely comes off as" an "Irish Catholic working-class hero." MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski once suggested McCain is "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802070004">the perfect candidate</a>" (forgetting to mention that her brother advises McCain). Brzezinski's comment recalls Chris Matthews' frequent assertions that McCain "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804150005">deserves to be president</a>." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801290003">Not to mention</a> Matthews' statement to McCain that "you're in my heart" and "you show a lot of courage out there." Matthews has also <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200707120002?f=s_search">said</a> having to report on problems in McCain's campaign is "the worst part of my job"; <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200612140005?f=s_search">described</a> McCain as "a firm man"; <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200611200001">compared</a> McCain to Martin Luther; <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200609110005?f=s_search">admitted</a>, "The press loves McCain. We're his base"; <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200605110005?f=s_search">admitted</a> he was rooting for "a McCain-Giuliani ticket"; and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200702150005?f=s_search">asserted</a> that "a lot of people ... like the cut of John McCain's jib." In a promo for a McCain documentary, MSNBC <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270009">declared</a> that the Arizona senator has "mastered the art of straight talk," which raises a few questions: If he has "mastered" the "art," is it really "straight talk"? Did McCain have to practice telling the truth? MSNBC doesn't seem to care -- they just love repeating the McCain campaign's talking points. In April, Matthews wondered why people "still think" McCain is "a straight-talk maverick when he's been in league with the president." Two days later, Matthews interviewed McCain ... and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804150009">told</a> him "you've been a maverick and a lot of people like you because of that." During the same interview, Matthews <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804150008">said</a> "[W]e've had enough softball, Senator. ... Is Barack Obama an elitist?" Matthews asserts that McCain's strength is his "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805020003">integrity</a>." (Matthews has also described McCain as someone who has "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200707120002">always been honest</a>" and who displays "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801300008">candor</a>" and engages in "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200602080001" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200602080001">straight</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200602130004" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200602130004">talk</a>," despite McCain's numerous <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802220004">false assertions</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804250007?f=s_search">inconsistencies</a>.) David Gregory <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802130012">flatly stated</a> that McCain "is not going to pander to the right," despite the fact that McCain already had, again and again. MSNBC reporters have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805140005">downplayed</a> the extent to which McCain actively sought the endorsement of the controversial Rev. John Hagee. And Joe Scarborough has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180010">claimed</a> McCain "has never attached himself to these people on the far right that say if you're gay, you're going to hell, et cetera" -- despite McCain's embrace of John Hagee and Rod Parsley, and his attempts to cozy up to Jerry Falwell -- who McCain once branded an "agent of intolerance" -- last year. Kelly O'Donnell <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270012">uncritically reported</a> the McCain campaign's claims that they were surprised by controversial comments made by a talk-show host who introduced McCain at a rally -- despite the fact that the host has a long history of making exactly the same inflammatory comments. Chuck Todd <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802140011">calls</a> McCain a "moderate" -- a label even John McCain does not apply to John McCain. Mike Barnicle <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802120009">similarly claimed</a> McCain is "in the middle." In fact, McCain consistently ranks among the 10 most conservative members of the Senate. MSNBC <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801170008">repeatedly</a> gave free air time to a McCain ad that attacked Hillary Clinton over her support for an earmark -- and MSNBC <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801170023">didn't tell viewers</a> that McCain hadn't bothered to show up for the vote. And the cable channel <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804240010">repeatedly</a> aired right-wing advertisements attacking Barack Obama while <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804240002">crediting</a> John McCain for taking a "very strong" stand against the ads -- but without noting that <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804250009?f=s_search">McCain didn't actually do anything to stop them</a>. During the GOP primaries, David Gregory <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802060007">spread</a> McCain's false claim that Mitt Romney had "disparage[d] the service and courage" of World War II veteran Bob Dole. That was not only a false claim by McCain, it was one that was premised on the notion that any criticism of a veteran constitutes criticism of the veteran's military service -- not a standard McCain has applied to veterans like John Kerry, but one that would be advantageous to McCain were it to take hold now. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803070011#20080606">Naturally, MSNBC went along with it</a>. On another occasion, MSNBC gave free air time to a McCain ad that accused Romney of "chang[ing] positions like the wind" on his support for "the Bush tax cuts." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801250011">Incredibly</a>, MSNBC did not note that McCain himself flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts. David Shuster <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804170002">asserted</a> that McCain may be able to "tarnish the image of Obama's political purity" by criticizing Obama for opting out of the public financing system for the general election -- but Shuster somehow forgot to mention that McCain's own "image of ... political purity" might be tarnished by the possibility that McCain is <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804250009?f=s_search">breaking campaign finance law on a daily basis</a>. MSNBC anchors and reporters have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805290006">sat</a> quietly by as McCain supporters falsely claimed that McCain called for Don Rumsfeld's resignation. Norah O'Donnell went further, asserting it herself. When she <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803270006">corrected the record</a> the next day, she didn't mention the fact that McCain himself has dishonestly claimed to have called for Rumsfeld's resignation. David Shuster <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804280006">uncritically repeated</a> McCain's spin that he "flew coach" during the 2007 portion of his presidential campaign -- ignoring the fact that McCain's campaign expenditure reports show he used his wife's corporate jet. When John McCain repeatedly confused Sunni and Shiite Muslims, Joe Scarborough <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090009">leapt to his defense</a>, saying that "99 percent of Americans wouldn't know." (Scarborough did not offer an estimate of the number of Americans who think it is OK if the president of the United States doesn't know any more about Iraq than they do.) Mika Brzezinski <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804070004">suggested</a>, and allowed a McCain surrogate to directly state, that McCain only once admitted a lack of economic knowledge. In fact, McCain has repeatedly admitted he doesn't know much about economics. And Chris Matthews has praised Sen. John McCain's "candor" and "honest[y]" for, in Matthews' words, "admitting that his strong suit is not the economy" -- while <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801300008">ignoring</a> the fact that McCain had recently, and falsely, denied making such concessions. Scarborough praised a McCain ad, saying it would "probably work" -- but <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804030006">didn't bother to note</a> that its central claim was false. Two separate MSNBC anchors <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804150003">claimed</a> that McCain's proposed gas tax "holiday" would cut gas prices by 20 percent. Actually, it would be 5 percent at most. (MSNBC <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804160009?f=s_search">later</a> "apologize[d] for the confusion.") Contessa Brewer <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803270001">described</a> a McCain speech about the housing crisis as "specific and detailed on what the economy needs." In fact, the speech was so short on details, National Journal reporter Adam Aigner-Treworgy responded that McCain "didn't necessarily roll out any new economic policy today. Much of what he said, he has said before," adding, "I don't know necessarily whether it showed that he had a really strong grasp on all the details of a possible solution." Mika Brzezinski has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200803070008">cherry-picked polling</a> to claim "McCain's crossover appeal is apparently even greater than" Obama's -- even though two polls more recent than the one she cited showed precisely the opposite. When news broke that John McCain sent a letter to the FCC on behalf of Paxson Communications, a company with which McCain had close ties and whose employees had contributed to McCain's campaign, Contessa Brewer asked "is it unusual if you get a letter from a constituent or a lobbyist on a matter, and you're concerned about it, that you would move on it?" A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill and a regular MSNBC guest, answered that it is not unusual. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802220005">Neither mentioned</a> that, in fact, Paxson is not a "constituent" of McCain's -- the company was based in Florida, not Arizona -- or that then-FCC chairman William E. Kennard expressed concern about McCain's letter, calling it "highly unusual." Downplaying McCain's letter was a pattern on MSNBC: Pat Buchanan <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210005">said</a> it was "in the normal course of business of a congressman." And, unable to argue with a straight face that the media have not been kind to McCain, MSNBC personnel have instead <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805130008">justified</a> the media's failure to scrutinize McCain. Howard Kurtz, though, forgot to include a single example of MSNBC treating McCain favorably in his assessment of the channel's purported leftward tilt. I've <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801110014?f=s_search">written</a> a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200801180010?f=s_search">great</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080011?f=s_search">deal</a> about MSNBC's sexist and misogynist treatment of Hillary Clinton and numerous other women -- progressives, conservatives, and journalists among them. And about the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200711100004?f=s_search">appalling performance</a> of Tim Russert and Brian Williams during last October's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. (And about <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290020?f=s_search">Russert in general</a>.) Time and space prevent a full recitation of the evidence of misogyny at MSNBC, much of which can be found at the links above. It is worth mentioning, however, that even after David Shuster was suspended for saying Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out" by the Clinton campaign, and even after Chris Matthews was forced to apologize for one of his many offensive comments about women, the boys at MSNBC -- and that is what they act like: a collection of 13-year-old boys with below-average wit -- still haven't learned to behave. David Shuster and Tucker Carlson drove that point home in late April as they mocked Clinton's laughter during a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804220008">segment</a> in which Shuster gave Carlson a pen shaped like Hillary Clinton's head, with a mouth that moves as the pen makes a laughing noise. Thanking Shuster, Carlson said: "I'm really going to miss that cackle." Somehow, Shuster and Carlson managed to stop short of accusing Clinton of having cooties. Pat Buchanan reinforced the point when he <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270004">responded</a> to criticism of his mockery of Clinton's voice by (incorrectly) quoting Samuel Johnson: "To see a woman speaking is to watch a dog walking on its hind legs. ... [Y]ou're surprised not to see it done -- not that it's not done well, but to see it done at all." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200608260001?f=s_search#3">Classy guy, that Pat Buchanan</a>. But the questionable commentary on MSNBC is certainly not limited to sexist remarks -- not on the cable channel that brought you Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and Don Imus. On Morning Joe recently, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski declared themselves "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804080009">sick[ened]</a>" by the story of a pregnant transgender man: <blockquote> Scarborough said, "I'm not going to look at this," and Brzezinski said: "I'm going to be sick. I am going to be sick." Scarborough also asked, "What are you doing to me?" ... Later Scarborough said: "Please, let's move on. I really do feel sick." </blockquote> In February, MSNBC's Buchanan <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290021">bravely spoke up</a> on behalf of white males, whom he defended as "the only guys signing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence" (one assumes that there were quite a few women and black people in America who would have been happy to sign a Declaration of Independence, if only the white males had let them). Buchanan went on to falsely assert that white males accounted for "all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy." And just this morning, MSNBC entertainment reporter Courtney Hazlett <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fgawker.com%2Ftag%2Fvideuhoh%2F%3Fi%3D395265%26t%3Dmsnbc-reporter-calls-spike-lee-uppity">said</a>: "Spike Lee got really uppity about Clint Eastwood and about how there were no African-Americans involved in the filming of Flags of Our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima." *** The examples of conservative misinformation on MSNBC above are limited to this year, with a very few exceptions -- and they are by no means a comprehensive accounting of the problems with the cable channel's political coverage over the past five months. Given that all of that -- and so much more -- has happened on MSNBC in just the past few months, does that seem like a news outlet that is "leaning left"? And that brings us to the other key problem with Kurtz's article (the first being his odd decision not to include a single example of MSNBC treating McCain kindly or Obama poorly): He suggested the cable channel is drifting to the left, but made no attempt to assess where MSNBC was starting from. Kurtz didn't even mention Michael Savage or Ann Coulter or Don Imus. Didn't mention that MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for being critical of the Iraq war. Didn't mention any criticism of Iraq coverage at all. (The day Kurtz's article appeared, two former NBC reporters -- Katie Couric and Jessica Yellin -- criticized the network's prewar coverage; Yellin said she actually <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805290011?f=s_search">felt pressure</a> from colleagues to take a pro-administration approach. Obviously, Kurtz couldn't have included this information in his article -- but the point that MSNBC -- like other media -- was excessively pro-war is not a new one.) Has MSNBC moved slightly leftward over the past six months? Perhaps -- but look where it started: As the network of Imus and Savage and Coulter and Carlson; of relentless misogyny; of mocking Democrats as abnormal and weak and ineffectual and elitists; and of absolutely fawning coverage of John McCain (and, before him, George W. Bush). Even if MSNBC has begun to move leftward, it has a long way to go before it stops regularly trafficking in conservative misinformation. http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060009 Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:18:39 EST "Media Matters"; By Jamison Foser http://mediamatters.org/items/200805300009 Media failures didn't stop when the war started When excerpts from former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book were made public this week, you might have expected McClellan's claim that President Bush cannot remember whether he has ever used cocaine to cause a stir. After all, Bush's alleged use of the drug was one of the few negative stories about him the media had any appetite for during the 2000 campaign. Besides, McClellan's other revelations were years removed from being timely. Does anybody who isn't employed by or related to George Bush still deny that the administration wasn't truthful about Iraq? Or that the news media could have done a better job in the months preceding the war? That second point -- the media's flawed coverage of the march to war -- has been illustrated and explained again and again. Dan Froomkin provided a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.niemanwatchdog.org%2Findex.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Dbackground.view%26backgroundid%3D00255">roundup</a> of some of the more notable examples for Nieman Watchdog this week: The New York Times' May 2004 mea culpa, Howard Kurtz's critique of The Washington Post's coverage later that year, Bill Moyers' Buying The War, and more. Earlier this month, MSNBC's Chris Matthews <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fblogs%2Fmichaelcalderone%2F0508%2FMatthews_MSNBCs_support_of_Obama_is_not_official.html">said</a> of his network: "It was basically pro-war during the war ... the bosses were." CNN's Jessica Yellin, who worked at MSNBC during the months leading up to the start of the Iraq war, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F2008%2F05%2F29%2Fyellin%2Findex.html">said</a> this week that the media "dropped the ball" in part due to "enormous pressure from corporate executives ... to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings." Yellin said, "They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive." And CBS anchor Katie Couric, who worked at NBC until 2006, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805290011?f=h_latest">agreed</a> that the media "were remiss in not asking some of the right questions." But -- incredibly -- some journalists responded to McClellan's statement that the fourth estate didn't perform as well as it should have prior to the Iraq war by denying that there were any flaws in prewar media coverage. NBC's David Gregory, for example, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805290011?f=h_top">said</a> McClellan "also writes in the book that he think that the so-called liberal media got it wrong and was not hard enough on the administration about the war. You know, I don't know where he gets that idea. I don't know where other people get that idea." Later, Gregory said: "I think he's wrong. He makes the same kind of argument a lot of people on the left have made. I tried not to be defensive about it. I <a name="OLE_LINK54" title="OLE_LINK54"></a><a name="OLE_LINK53" title="OLE_LINK53"></a>thought a lot about this over a number of years, and I disagree with that assessment. I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us in the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that." <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.niemanwatchdog.org%2Findex.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Dbackground.view%26backgroundid%3D00255">Froomkin</a>, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F">Glenn Greenwald</a>, and others have convincingly rebutted Gregory's (and Charlie Gibson's) assertions that the media performed admirably prior to the Iraq war. In any case, most people -- including many journalists -- understand the absurdity of the defense. It is worth emphasizing that Gregory et al are not denying that the media's failings are primarily responsible for the rush to war; they are denying that the media did anything wrong at all. If Gregory were merely saying, "We could have done things better, but the bigger problem was a deeply dishonest administration," few would argue. But that isn't what he says; David Gregory says the news media don't deserve any criticism. Instead, Gregory <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805290008?f=s_search">blames</a> ... well, everyone else: "If there wasn't a debate in this country, then maybe the American people should think about, why not? Where was Congress? Where was the House? Where was the Senate? Where was public opinion about the war? What did the former president believe about the prewar intelligence? He agreed that -- in fact, Bill Clinton agreed that Saddam had WMD." But, as I <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709150002?f=s_search">noted</a> when Gregory's NBC colleague Tim Russert suggested last year that the media relied excessively on the Bush administration for prewar news reports because there wasn't an "opposition party," the truth is that the majority of congressional Democrats voted against the Iraq war authorization. (And, as Eric Boehlert <a href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200805280002?f=h_column">noted</a> this week, war opponents included high-profile Democrats like Sen. Edward Kennedy. The news media basically ignored him.) That isn't to say that various war critics couldn't have done more to stop the war, but the effort by Russert and Gregory to duck responsibility for their own failures by pointing to a lack of congressional opposition to the war is ludicrous. Either they know that most congressional Democrats opposed the war, in which case their argument is dishonest, or they don't know -- in which case their ignorance confirms the criticism that their coverage of the war is severely lacking. But even more incredible is that David Gregory is willing to say, with a straight face, that criticizing the media's coverage of the Iraq war is something "a lot of people on the left" have done. Well, yes, technically that's true. But it is also something a lot of people in the center, on the right, and in the media -- including David Gregory's colleagues -- have done. And now it is something a Bush White House press secretary has done. Marginalizing such criticism as merely the complaints of "the left" is grossly inaccurate. It is, instead, something approaching a consensus view. And a well-founded consensus view, at that. Anti-war voices were <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fair.org%2Findex.php%3Fpage%3D1628">marginalized</a> by the media. That isn't something "a lot of people on the left" claim; <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709150002#20080530">that is a fact</a>. News reports that did challenge the administration were buried on Page A17. That isn't something "a lot of people on the left" claim; <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.washingtonpost.com%2Ffact-checker%2F2008%2F05%2Fthe_pot_and_the_kettle_1.html">that is a fact</a>. The false claims in Colin Powell's deeply flawed presentation to the United Nations were reported as though they were true. That isn't something "a lot of people on the left" claim; <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fair.org%2Findex.php%3Fpage%3D1846">that is a fact</a>. Anyone who has "thought a lot about this over a number of years," as Gregory claims to have done, surely must be aware of countless other examples. Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder) -- seen by many as the news outlet that offered the best coverage in the run-up to the Iraq war -- wrote a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwashingtonbureau.typepad.com%2Fnationalsecurity%2F2008%2F05%2Fwhat-happened.html">scathing</a> rebuttal to ABC's Charlie Gibson, NBC's Brian Williams, and other journalists who have denied flaws in prewar reporting: "The news media have been, if anything, even more craven than the administration has been in defending its failure to investigate Bush's case for war in Iraq before the war." But Gregory wasn't alone in dismissing the widespread, and factually sound, criticism of the media's prewar performance as the ravings of a few liberals. Politico's Mike Allen went on a right-wing radio program to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2008%2F05%2F29%2Fallen-mcclellan-sounds-like-the-left-wing-haters%2F">accuse</a> McClellan of adopting "the vocabulary, rhetoric of the left-wing haters. Can you believe it in here he says the White House press corps was too deferential to the administration ... in the run-up to the war?" "Left-wing haters." That's how Mike Allen described critics of the media's coverage of the run-up to the war. Allen's rant serves as a useful reminder that the media's deferential treatment of the Bush administration didn't end when the Iraq war began. Just a few weeks ago, Allen conducted the most obsequious interviews of an American president in memory. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Fblog%2F2008%2F05%2F14%2FBL2008051401929_4.html">explained</a>: <blockquote> Has there ever been a more moronic interview of a president of the United States than the one conducted yesterday by Mike Allen? [...] Allen's interview started off with seven questions about Jenna Bush's wedding, and went downhill from there. The only really critical question came from a reader, who asked: "Do you feel that you were misled on Iraq?" Bush predictably ducked it. Here are some of Allen's own questions: "Mr. President, I know you're going to hate this, but I'm hoping that we may twist your arm and talk about baseball for just a moment. (Laughter.) Mr. President, you're a Major League Baseball team owner again. Everyone is a free agent. You have a Yankees-like wallet. Who is your first position player? Who's your pitcher?" "Now, Mr. President, you and the First Lady appeared on American Idol's charity show, 'Idol Gives Back.' And I wonder who do you think is going to win? Syesha, David Cook, or David Archuleta?" "All right. Mr. President, who does the better impression, Will Ferrell of you, or Dana Carvey of your father?" "And speaking of impressions, our friend, Robert Draper, author of 'Dead Certain,' said you do a great impression of Dr. Evil from 'Austin Powers'." </blockquote> Allen barely managed to stop short of offering to peel Bush a grape. And yet he wonders why people suggest that the press has been "too deferential to the administration." What matters most now are not the few journalists who still deny that they could have done a better job before the war started -- it is the many news organizations that have continued since the war began. Journalists <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005?f=s_search">lavished praise on Bush</a> when he declared "Mission Accomplished" rather than offering a sober assessment of whether it really had been. The U.S. media <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240005?f=s_search#5">did their best to ignore</a> the Downing Street memo -- and the establishment might never have covered it had it not been for the efforts of Media Matters, Rep. John Conyers, and progressive bloggers and writers. News reports <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200606300009?f=s_search">endlessly repeated</a> and reflected pro-war spin during the 2006 congressional debate over the war. In 2007, they <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200709150002?f=s_search">went to work</a> on behalf of Gen. David Petraeus. And this year? This year, the media have all but ignored Iraq. The New York Times' David Carr <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F05%2F26%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2F26carr.html%3F_r%3D1%26scp%3D2%26sq%3Ddavid%2Bcarr%26st%3Dnyt%26oref%3Dslogin">explained</a> this week: <blockquote> Even as we celebrate generations of American soldiers past, the women and men who are making that sacrifice today in Iraq and Afghanistan receive less attention every day. There's plenty of blame to go around: battle fatigue at home, failing media resolve and a government intent on controlling information from the battlefield. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's News Coverage Index, coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has slipped to 3 percent of all American print and broadcast news as of last week, falling from 25 percent as recently as last September. [...] [T]he tactical success of the surge should not be misconstrued as making Iraq a safer place for American soldiers. Last year was the bloodiest in the five-year history of the conflict, with more than 900 dead, and last month, 52 perished, making it the bloodiest month of the year so far. So far in May, 18 have died. Television network news coverage in particular has gone off a cliff. Citing numbers provided by a consultant, Andrew Tyndall, the Associated Press reported that in the months after September when Gen. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftopics.nytimes.com%2Ftop%2Freference%2Ftimestopics%2Fpeople%2Fp%2Fdavid_h_petraeus%2Findex.html%3Finline%3Dnyt-per" title="More articles about David H. Petraeus.">David H. Petraeus</a> testified before Congress about the surge, collective coverage dropped to four minutes a week from 30 minutes a week at the height of coverage, in September 2007. </blockquote> American Journalism Review senior contributing writer Sherry Ricchiardi <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajr.org%2FArticle.asp%3Fid%3D4515">further illustrated</a> the lack of coverage of the Iraq war: <blockquote> A daily tracking of 65 newspapers by the Associated Press confirms a dip in page-one play throughout the country. In September 2007, the AP found 457 Iraq-related stories (154 by the AP) on front pages, many related to a progress report delivered to Congress by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Over the succeeding months, that number fell to as low as 49. A spike in March 2008 was largely due to a rash of stories keyed to the conflict's fifth anniversary, according to AP Senior Managing Editor Mike Silverman. [...] By March 2008, a striking reversal had taken place. Only 28 percent of Americans knew that 4,000 military personnel had been killed in the conflict, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Eight months earlier, 54 percent could cite the correct casualty rate. </blockquote> When important stories have been reported, they have quickly been swept under the rug by the rest of the media. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805020010?f=s_search" title="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805020010?f=s_search">That's what happened</a> when The New York Times revealed previously secret ties between the Pentagon and military analysts who appeared regularly as impartial experts on television news programs despite having financial ties to defense contractors that stand to profit from the war. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F05%2F22%2FAR2008052203751.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203751.html">Reports</a> that the Pentagon cannot account for $15 billion in Iraq spending were likewise met with a yawn. It's bad enough that some journalists still won't acknowledge their profession's role in the nation's rush into war on false pretenses. But we're still stuck in that war, with no end in sight, and the media's performance has barely improved. http://mediamatters.org/items/200805300009 Fri, 30 May 2008 20:01:24 EST "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser http://mediamatters.org/items/200805230008 Why did CNN hire Castellanos, who has a history of using "racially charged" tactics? And why won't it note he's advising McCain? On CNN this week, Republican strategist and CNN contributor Alex Castellanos <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200805210002">responded</a> to criticism of a joke that referred to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch" by saying, "[S]ome women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate." That a CNN contributor would refer to Hillary Clinton -- or any other woman, for that matter -- as a "bitch" on air is obviously grossly inappropriate in its own right. But it also raises the question of why CNN hired Castellanos as a contributor in the first place. Castellanos is best known for creating a 1990 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2F30secondcandidate%2Ftimeline%2Fyears%2F1990_j.html">television ad</a> for Republican Sen. Jesse Helms that is considered one of the most racially inflammatory political ads ever produced. Here's how The New York Times <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fgst%2Ffullpage.html%3Fres%3D9B02E3DD1038F936A2575AC0A9669C8B63">described</a> the ad on September 15, 2000: <blockquote> In 1990, he created for Mr. Helms what is widely viewed as one of the most racially charged political commercials ever, with white hands crumpling a job rejection letter while a narrator criticizes Mr. Helms's black opponent, Harvey Gantt, for supporting "racial quotas." </blockquote> A February 9, 1992, Washington Post article noted that Castellanos "followed the quota ad with one that accused Democrat Harvey Gantt, who is black, of using his minority status to obtain a television station that made him a millionaire. Gantt disputed the charge." The Federal Communications Commission reportedly said that contrary to the ad's claims, race was not a factor in awarding the station license to Gantt and his colleagues. An October 7, 1994, Atlanta Journal and Constitution article explained that the Helms ad was not the only Castellanos commercial that has been criticized for "injecting a racial element into campaigns": <blockquote> Some of <a name="ORIGHIT_14" title="ORIGHIT_14"></a><a name="HIT_14" title="HIT_14"></a>Castellanos' work has been criticized for injecting a racial element into campaigns, such as an anti-quota commercial he made for Helms in 1990 that showed a pair of white hands opening a job rejection letter, or anti-welfare spots he made for Mississippi Gov. Kirk Fordice. He also worked on George Bush's successful 1988 presidential campaign, which produced the ad about furloughed prisoner Willie Horton. </blockquote> And in 1996, the Houston Chronicle reported that Castellanos created an ad "similar" to the Helms ad for Republican Sen. Phil Gramm's campaign against his Mexican-American opponent. Castellanos' history of "racially charged" campaigning should have been enough to prevent CNN from hiring him as a contributor. But considering the timing, Castellanos' hiring is all the more appalling. Castellanos apparently joined CNN as a contributor in March of this year. (March 4 was the first time Castellanos was identified as a contributor; during earlier appearances, he was identified simply as "Republican strategist.") So, with Barack Obama within reach of becoming the first African-American major-party presidential nominee in U.S. history, CNN decided it would be a good time to hire as a contributor the maker of what is considered "one of the most racially charged political commercials ever." That is a shockingly bad decision. And as the presidential campaign unfolds, it looks worse and worse. Just this week, the Politico <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fstories%2F0508%2F10546.html">described</a> "[t]he main obstacle standing between Barack Obama and the White House" as follows: <blockquote> What began as a demonstrably false attempt to cast Obama as a Muslim has now metastasized into something far more threatening to the likely Democratic nominee. The spurious claims about his faith have spiraled into a broader assault that questions his patriotism and citizenship and generally portrays him as a threat to mainstream, white America.</blockquote> That's the political environment in which CNN decided to hire Alex Castellanos as a contributor. Obama opponents are attempting to portray him "as a threat to mainstream, white America" -- and CNN hires a contributor who is best known for portraying a black candidate as a threat to white America. But there's another problem with Castellanos' appearances as a CNN contributor: Castellanos is actively advising John McCain's presidential campaign. On March 25, washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.washingtonpost.com%2Fthefix%2F2008%2F03%2Fmccain_expands_media_team.html">reported</a> that Castellanos is a member of the "McCain Ad Council" -- a "group of advisers ... [who] will serve as outside thinkers and strategists to the [McCain] media effort." Not only has CNN hired Castellanos as a contributor despite his history of racially inflammatory ads, CNN has not disclosed the strategist's relationship with the McCain campaign during his appearances -- even when he favorably compares McCain to Obama. During CNN's Democratic primary coverage on Tuesday, for example, Castellanos <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0805%2F20%2Fse.03.html">said</a>: "Barack Obama contesting John McCain on foreign policy and on strength. I think that's John McCain's turf." On The Situation Room that same day, Castellanos <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0805%2F20%2Fsitroom.01.html">declared</a> national security McCain's "territory," adding, "McCain is the one who's got years of experience, the military background, the credibility in military and foreign policy affairs. So, I think, for McCain, it's certainly playing on home -- the home field advantage there." Viewers were given no indication that Castellanos is an adviser to McCain. Nor were they told of his role in McCain's campaign when Castellanos suggested it is appropriate to call Hillary Clinton a "bitch." Or when he <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0805%2F20%2Fsitroom.03.html">defended</a> John McCain from charges that he had flip-flopped: "I think Senator <a name="ORIGHIT_10" title="ORIGHIT_10"></a><a name="HIT_10" title="HIT_10"></a>McCain's position has been steady and constant." CNN viewers weren't told that Alex Castellanos is advising John McCain when Castellanos <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0804%2F25%2Fsitroom.02.html">said</a> the North Carolina Republican Party's anti-Obama ad -- an ad <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200804250009?f=s_search">McCain claimed to oppose</a> -- raised "a fair question to be asking Barack Obama": <blockquote> WOLF BLITZER (host of The Situation Room): Do you think it's despicable what the GOP in North Carolina is doing running a supposedly this ad linking Democratic candidates in North Carolina, not only to Barack Obama, but to the Reverend Wright? <a name="ORIGHIT_6" title="ORIGHIT_6"></a><a name="HIT_6" title="HIT_6"></a>CASTELLANOS: I think there's frankly a little hype going on here. There's nothing in that ad that hasn't run on every news network in America, including this one, time and time again. Senator McCain nevertheless has said no, it shouldn't be in the campaign. I think the question it really raises is are the people that you find in Barack Obama's life, are they the same kind of people you'd find in a Barack Obama administration. That's, I think, a question of judgment. That's a fair question to be asking Barack Obama. </blockquote> They weren't told that Alex Castellanos is advising John McCain when Castellanos <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0804%2F22%2Fse.02.html">said</a> of Obama and Jeremiah Wright: "Obama is saying he supports someone whose statements put him way out of the mainstream of most American thought." Or when he <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0804%2F22%2Fsitroom.01.html">accused</a> Barack Obama of "elitism." In fact, CNN viewers have never been told that Alex Castellanos is an adviser to John McCain. Not once. Contrast that with the cable channel's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200712010002?f=s_search">treatment</a> of James Carville and Paul Begala. CNN said that Carville's and Begala's ties to Hillary Clinton must be disclosed during every one of their appearances on CNN. CNN president Jonathan Klein said of Carville: "He's not on the Hillary payroll, but he's on the Hillary bandwagon, and that should be disclosed as much as we can." But CNN doesn't apply those standards to Alex Castellanos, who is allowed to praise John McCain and to criticize Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton without it ever being disclosed to CNN viewers, by Castellanos or anyone else, that he is a member of the McCain Ad Council. So CNN is preparing for the general election by hiring a contributor best known for playing on racial divisions and allowing him to praise John McCain and criticize Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton without ever telling viewers that he is a member of McCain's ad team, in direct violation of the standards CNN laid out for contributors who