On the June 22 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, while discussing coverage of Sen. Barack Obama's decision to forgo public financing for the general election, host Howard Kurtz asserted: “I have to think the press is cutting him a break here.” Kurtz later added: "[T]hat sort of strikes at the heart of what we do. I mean, if a candidate says one thing trying to win the Democratic nomination, wins the nomination, and then throws that out the window ... and we don't blow the whistle, then ... what is our purpose here?" But at no point during the show did Kurtz mention that, during the primary, Sen. John McCain signed a loan agreement that could have forced him to remain in the race -- even if he had no chance of winning -- in order to be eligible for public matching funds to repay the loan. Nor did Kurtz mention that Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairman David Mason has taken the position that McCain cannot legally opt out of public financing for the primary without FEC approval, and in a letter to McCain, asked his campaign to expand upon its assertion that it had not “pledged the certification of Matching Payment funds as security for private financing.” In fact, a Media Matters for America review* found that Kurtz has never mentioned McCain's loan on Reliable Sources.

As Media Matters has noted, NBC's Nightly News and the CBS Evening News have yet to report on McCain's loan. Additionally, numerous media outlets reported all or part of McCain's statement rebuking Obama for his decision to forgo public financing without mentioning McCain's loan.

The Washington Post reported on February 22: “If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. 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.”

From the June 22 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: Anne Kornblut, this was a total abandonment of a promise that Senator Obama had made repeatedly, and not everybody played it up to the extent that Charlie Gibson just did. In fact, some analysts played it down or just gave it a paragraph. Why isn't the flip-flop the story?

KORNBLUT: Well, it was for a couple of days in some news outlets, certainly in the newspapers. We covered it --

KURTZ: One day at most.

KORNBLUT: It's not the sexiest topic in the world. It's a lot easier to generate interest talking about a dress or something superficial. It involves money. It involves math. That's not a reporter's specialty, for the most part. And there is a sense, rightly or wrongly, that voters don't care about the arcane rules of campaign finance.

Now, I wonder in a year when somebody who's -- two people actually run as sort of anti-establishment reformers, whether voters really do care, but at least that was the treatment that it seemed to be given.

KURTZ: Yeah, although I would argue it's not arcane at all in the sense that, you know, this could be the ball game. I mean, John McCain, who is taking public financing, is going to have $84 million to spend this fall, and Barack Obama could have 300, even $400 million. And all these liberal commentators who've always supported campaign finance reform, getting big money out of politics, many of them are defending Obama. And I have to think the press is cutting him a break here.

JULIE MASON (Houston Chronicle White House correspondent): Right, it's true. And, well, like Anne said, it's not a very sexy issue. And to explain it, you have to get into the weeds about the pros and cons of campaign finance. And I think when we understand covering politics that the economy is the big issue that everyone cares about -- and what are you going to do for me about gas prices -- getting into the weeds on campaign finance seems a little beside the point.

KURTZ: Is it getting into the weeds to say that one candidate could spend three or four times as much as the other candidate, and even though he filled out a questionnaire saying he wouldn't do this and he said it in a debate to Tim Russert and all of that, he has now changed his mind? Is that getting into the weeds?

MASON: Well, I think people feel like as long as they don't have to pay for it, they don't really care.

KURTZ: All right. Lola, John Kerry four years ago was savaged for saying, “I was for the $87 billion before I was against the $87 billion,” and that, of course, a question about war funding.

As a viewer, when you watch the coverage, does this make you think, well, Obama, he's just -- he talks about the audacity of hope but he's just another politician, or is that not your reaction?

LOLA OGUNNAIKE (CNN correspondent): No, not at all. In fact, I mean, I'm inclined to say that flip-flopping is so four years ago. It's just not what anybody is talking about anymore. It's so passé.

I mean, people want to talk about Michelle Obama and her great toned arms and how does she get those pecs. I mean, no one wants to talk about flip-flopping. I'm sorry, Howard, but that's just the truth.

KURTZ: But that sort of strikes at the heart of what we do. I mean, if a candidate says one thing trying to win the Democratic nomination, wins the nomination, and then throws that out the window -- and look, the obvious reason that Obama is doing this is because he has an incredible machine through which he can raise money from small donors over the Internet -- and we don't blow the whistle, then what's -- what is our purpose here?

KORNBLUT: You're absolutely right. And I think that some of the coverage seems to have bought into the logic that, well, it's broken now, once he wins, he can fix it. That's not -- we don't cut all politicians that break and assume they'll do something different than they do in their campaign once they're elected. I don't see why he's any different.

KURTZ: Well, here's --

MASON: Sure, look at Mitt Romney. Look how the press treated him in his flip-flop on abortion and other issues. That was huge.

KURTZ: Right, so I'm not buying the notion -- here's my brief two cents -- I'm not buying the notion that flip-flops are out. Apparently, only certain flip-flops are out, maybe flip-flops by certain candidates.

Now, look, you know, Obama is entitled to do whatever he wants and make the case, but it wasn't a very persuasive case when he talks about how conservative groups may come after him with ads. At the moment, there aren't any of these 527 conservative groups to speak of with any money.

If George W. Bush had done this, blown off public financing, as he considered doing during the 2004 campaign, there would be howls in the media about one candidate trying to buy an election.

* A Nexis search of CNN transcripts for terms “show: (Reliable Sources) and McCain and (Federal Election or loan or Mason or FEC or fidelity or lend! or lent or borrow or matching or public fund! or public financ! or public money)” from 1/1/2008 to 6/25/2008 yielded this result.