In a May 29 editorial, USA Today asserted that, “for better or worse,” voters' impressions of presidential candidates are “aided by gaffes and unguarded moments that are frequently trivial but sometimes seem to reveal deeper truths or reinforce misgivings about the candidates.” The editorial then offered examples of such “small-but-symbolic moments” regarding former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). But in doing so, the editorial advanced misleading attacks on the two candidates: that Edwards “charged a public university $55,000 for giving a speech” and that Obama misspelled the word “flak” in a recent press release.

The editorial claimed that Edwards' “behavior undercuts his anti-poverty message and good works,” citing several examples of his “elitist” conduct:

Edwards, most prominently, has undermined his passionate advocacy for ordinary Americans by seeming to be anything but ordinary himself. Expensive haircuts reinforce the elitist image of a wealthy trial lawyer who owns a 28,000-square-foot home, worked for a high-dollar hedge fund after he left the Senate and last year charged a public university $55,000 for giving a speech -- on poverty.

Wealthy politicians -- Franklin Roosevelt to name one -- can be effective advocates for the little guy. But Edwards has seemed tone deaf about how his behavior undercuts his anti-poverty message and good works.

However, the editorial did not note that the public university where Edwards spoke in January 2006 -- the University of California-Davis -- charged admission for his speech, which, combined with sponsorship of the event, offset Edwards' fee, according to the Edwards campaign. Indeed, as Media Matters for America has noted, on the May 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported that the Edwards campaign claimed “it was a paid speech, but there were tickets for it -- somewhere between $17.50 for students; about $40 for adults. So it paid for itself.” As Media Matters has also noted, on the May 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume asserted that Edwards' campaign said that “the speech was part of a series at the school and was funded by sponsors and the sale of tickets, which went for as much as $45.” According to UC-Davis' Robert & Margrit Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, tickets for the speech ranged from $17.50 to $45. A May 21 entry to the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog, where the story apparently first appeared, reported that Edwards spoke to “a crowd of 1,787,” meaning that if everyone paid admission, ticket sales would have brought in somewhere between $31,272 and $80,415.

Further, the editorial suggested that Edwards' “elitist” “behavior” is hypocritical:

Now he's [Edwards] trying to recover by telling campaign audiences that America is land of opportunity where the son of a mill worker can grow up to run for president and “pay $400 for a haircut.” Voters dislike hypocrisy, but a little self-deprecating humor never hurts.

But the editorial failed to explain exactly how Edwards' personal wealth and populist message constitute “hypocrisy.”

Additionally, the USA Today editorial -- “Candidates catch fla(c)k” -- addressed Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) recent jab at Obama for spelling “flack jacket” with a “c” in “flack.” As Media Matters noted, in a May 25 press release responding in part to McCain's criticism of his recent Iraq war vote, Obama asserted that “the course we are on in Iraq” is not “working.” Obama said that “a reflection of that [is] the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket” and other military protection when walking through a Baghdad market during a trip to Iraq in April. In his response that same day, McCain took issue with Obama's spelling: “By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket.”

Regarding the controversy, USA Today wrote that Obama was "[n]ot ... entirely wrong" in his spelling of the word, adding that because “so many people have misspelled 'flak' over time ... dictionaries now declare 'flack' to be an acceptable alternative.” From the editorial:

McCain's flacks (press agents) know their flak: The word is derived from the German Fliegerabwehrkanone, a World War II term for “air defense gun.” (Note to the Obama shop: 286 expert spellers are in Washington this week for the annual Scripps National Spelling Bee, and some would no doubt be thrilled to work as campaign consultants.)

Not that Obama was entirely wrong, in the way Vice President Quayle was when he famously added an “e” to the end of “potato.” Language being what it is, so many people have misspelled “flak” over time that dictionaries now declare “flack” to be an acceptable alternative.

All this is somewhat besides the point. McCain's zinger hit home because it evoked the differences he wants to draw between himself -- a Navy pilot in Vietnam, war prisoner, torture victim -- and Obama, who has never served in the military and who has to convince voters that he has what it takes to be commander in chief.

But in asserting that “McCain's zinger hit home” because it highlighted Obama's lack of military service, USA Today ignored the dozens of instances in which “flack jacket,” as Obama's release spelled it, appears on official military websites. Furthermore, on November 19, 2004, McCain himself entered email messages into the Congressional Record in which former Secretary of the Air Force James G. Roche wrote: “I refuse to wear my flack jacket backwards!”