Dee Dee Myers is totally wrong. The media's intense focus on Obama is cover for McCain.

[ProSense]

The 2008 Election

Is the Media Trying to Elect Obama?

by Dee Dee Myers
July 21, 2008, 5:15 PM

CBS’s Katie Couric will interview Barack Obama from Jordan. On Wednesday, ABC’s Charlie Gibson will chat with him from Israel. And on Thursday, NBC’s Brian Williams will do the honors from Germany. Call it the presidential campaign equivalent of Shooting the Moon.

And to think, a few short months ago the Washington establishment was buzzing about the press’s pending dilemma: With Obama and John McCain looking like the all-but-certain nominees of their respective parties, how would the media choose between its new crush, Obama, and its long-time paramour, McCain? The Illinois senator has been a media darling since he burst onto the scene at the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2004, and during the Democratic primary season, he bested Hillary Clinton in both quantity of coverage (he got more) and tenor (his was way more positive). But McCain has gotten so much favorable media attention over the years that he often joked that the press was his political base. In a head-to-head competition, who would win?

So far, the answer is clear: Obama is The One. In the first quarter of the general election, he has simply gotten more and better coverage than McCain. For those who need more evidence than the enormous press entourage that is treating Obama’s current trip not like the campaign swing of a presidential candidate, but like the international debut of the New American President, there are several new studies which help quantify the disparity.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which evaluates more than 300 newspaper, magazine, and television stories each week, found that from June 9 (after Obama had wrapped up the Democratic nomination) until July 13, Obama was more prominently covered every single week. During one particular week, July 7–13, McCain was a significant presence in 48 percent of the stories—but Obama met that mark in 77 percent of the pieces. Similarly, the Tyndall Report, a media monitoring group, found that Obama received substantially more media attention.

more

The reality is that McCain is a lousy candidate. He's not just wrong, he's careless and cluesless. Rather than focusing on McCain, which would mean pointing out every flip flop and error, the media decided to hype Obama. While the media is trying to pull a fast one (not saying the good press isn't great, but don't be fooled), the blogs are busy documenting McCain's errors and lousy campaign.

John McCain, gaffe machine?

Posted July 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei have an interesting item in the Politico today that’s generating quite a bit of attention, about John McCain’s series of verbal “gaffes.”

<...>

I was struck, though, by the use of the word “gaffe” in the article.

I’ve been listening pretty closely to McCain for quite a while, and it seems to me the bizarre things that he says fall into one of five categories:

1. A gaffe — McCain meant to say one thing, but he accidentally said something else.
   
   
2. Confusion — McCain didn’t quite know what he meant, but he talked about the subject anyway.
   
   
3. Flip-flopping — McCain knew what he meant, it’s just the opposite of what he used to mean.
   
   
4. Lying — McCain knew the truth, but chose to go in a different direction.
   
   
5. Attempted humor — McCain’s sense of comedy is consistently odd.

The piece from Allen and VandeHei pointed to a variety of McCain “gaffes,” but that seems overly-broad. For example, when McCain talks about Czechoslovakia, it was probably a gaffe — he got confused and said the wrong country name.

But when McCain said troops in Iraq were “down to pre-surge levels,” when in fact there were 20,000 more troops than when the surge began, I don’t think that’s necessarily a gaffe. It’s more likely to me he was either confused about reality, or was deliberately trying to mislead his audience about troop levels.

When McCain mistook Sunnis and Shiites, on multiple occasions, that’s not a gaffe, so much as it’s McCain not knowing what he’s talking about. Similarly, the Steelers/Packers story wasn’t a gaffe; it was McCain hoping to score cheap points in Pittsburgh by changing a story to fit the city he was in at the time.

In this sense, “gaffe” is overly forgiving. It implies that McCain means to say the right thing, but tends to misspeak. I don’t see it that way at all. “Gaffe” suggests McCain knows what he’s talking about, but is burdened by the occasional embarrassing verbal faux pas.

But that’s not the real story here. The important point is that McCain, a little too often, seems hopelessly clueless. That’s far more significant than the occasional “gaffe.”

McCain Warns Of ‘Hard Struggle’ On The ‘Iraq-Pakistan Border’:

Of course, Iraq is nowhere near Pakistan. In fact, Baghdad — the capital of Iraq — is over 1,500 miles from Pakistan’s capital of Islamabad:

McCain on Iraq

These are not gaffes (the media's new favorite word for McCain odd comments). They are show errors in judgment and signs of being clueless.


edited to fix name in title

[Diane R]

1. You are right. These aren't 'gaffes'. We need to find our own word for them.

[JuniperLea]

6. They are McGaffes! eom

[ProSense]

12. Good, but how about this:

McBlunder

[elehhhhna]

17. LOL Win one for the gaffer!

[JuniperLea]

21. Gaffer McBlunder! eom

[JuniperLea]

22. Gaffer McBlunder! eom

[ProSense]

23. LOL!

I like it.

[ErinBerin84]

2. yeah, Dee Dee is annoying.

She agreed with Joe Scarborough the other day that Obama has been getting more favorable coverage than John McCain thus far...she of everyone should know that the media always sides with the pubs over the dems in the general. This just gives the media one more convoluted article for them to cite to repeat the meme, from a "Democrat", to make it seem legitimate. Thanks Dee Dee.

[karynnj]

19. She ignores that a better measure is not

the amount of positive coverage, but a measure, much harder to assess, of whether the media represents a candidate's history, position and events - worse than they were, accurately or better than they were. This is hard because that is a very subjective element here where we ALL filter for the best parts with a candidate we like and for the worst parts of the candidates we dislike.

Trying to do this, McCain has gotten better coverage than his campaign and gaffe prone comments deserve. As to record, just the shock in Bob Scheiffer's voice asking Sen Kerry if he was "questioning McCain's integrity?", when Kerry listed accurately McCain flip flops. (Note, Scheiffer did not question the list or say Kerry was inaccurate. Now, back in 2004, do you remember Scheiffer asking the same question when Kerry was accused of flip flopping - when he really hadn't? The rote description of McCain in the Senate is that he is a foreign policy expert, though there is no real record there, and that he is a maverick (not the last 5 or so years) and a reformer (he's violating his own lame McCain/Feingold law and was one of Keating 5). Now, my parenthesis, if presented as the whole McCain would be on the more negative than reality side - but it is clear the media is on the more positive than reality side.

Obama has made some "inartful" statements, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. His portrayal in the media has included the concerns that he less experienced (though his surrogates and his own actions have countered this well), that he is too radical (total guilt by association). He is being treated more fairly than Kerry or dean were in 2004.

The reason behind Meyers comment is likely that she takes it as a truism that the media was unfair to HRC. In fact, looking over the entire post 2004 time period, the media was prepared for a coronation. At the beginning her campaign was good, but it was never "flawless" as the media insisted and though Bill was very popular among Democrats, he was not the "rock star" the media helped define him as in 1992. The media took, without question all the accomplishments that HRC claimed - even when they were overstated.

This was a case where the media covered the past record (as First Lady and as Senator), more positively than deserved. 2004, was the other extreme. Consider in 2004, Kerry was credited only with things where there was a roll call vote and he was listed as the first sponsor. Ironically, SCHIP which used pieces of the precursor bill that he wrote and sponsored with Kennedy (and his name was first) was something Kerry was given no credit for - even though he was a co-sponsor of Kennedy's and Hatch's bill. This year, the media even suggested that Kennedy was being political when he said that HRC did not initiate SCHIP, but was essential to getting Bill to fund it in the budget once it passed - which is what the 1997 accounts said.

I think the turning pointg with the media was the first Philly debate. HRC had done a good job except the immigration comment. The debate itself was not the problem. The problem was the aftermath. Rather than say it was a poor answer to a complicated question and state her policy - HRC went to Wellesley and spoke of the guys all picking on the girl and Bill Clinton spoke of swiftboating! As they simply said she flip flopped - when whether she did or not was viewable by anyone hearing the comments made at the debate. This is not lies, character assassination or as Obama called the real swiftboating national fraud. What this did for many was to bring back the worst of the 1990s - instead of taking responsibility for misspeaking and stating a clear position - both Clintons scapegoated the other Democrats as the problem - HRC saying it was sexism and Bill saying it was swiftboating. As to former charge, ask yourself if a male front runner would have been called on the same thing. The odd thing is they turned a minor bump into a major event.

The increase in negative press for HRC came as the number of Clinton gaffes escalated. Just as people laughed and ridiculed Geraldo Rivera for saying he had more combat experience (because of his covering Afghanistan) than John Kerry, HRC deserved the response to her Bosnia comments. That the press ignored them the first 3 times shows if anything some willingness to cover. (The press knew the truth. It would have been front page in every paper had she and Chelsea come under fire.) The media also pushed the "popular vote" nonsense. It is akin to summing the raw data in a stratified sample ignoring the weights. Without that, the story would have been delegates. Given these 2 things and their very positive 2005, 2006 and most of 2007 coverage - the media was likely too positive, then pretty fair - but negative. (Now, there were some journalists who were unfairly negative.) Now, they are still pushing excuses like "sexism".

[Arugula Latte]

3. She's another Clintonite sell-out.

So many "pundit" sell-outs from that administration. The one who hasn't sold out is Robert Reich. He just gets better and better.

[mod mom]

20. She's focused on 2012.

:mad:

[babylonsister]

4. Yep. Rec'd and

nice to see you around, Pro! :hi:

[ProSense]

9. Thanks.

:hi:

[Life Long Dem]

5. What hype are you talking about?

You can prominently cover someone in a very negative light. Sean Hannity does a very good job of giving Obama the attention this story speaks of.

[ProSense]

8. The hype that keeps insisting the media is favoring Obama.

Like Myers' article. Btw, hype can be negative and positive.

[JuniperLea]

7. Air time would sink McGaffe's campaign like a led zeppelin!

The more he speaks, the more stupid he appears. Let him talk all he wants!

[ProSense]

10. More clips of him actually making the statements would be even better. n/t

[grantcart]

11. While they are giving Obama more time they are also applying a blatant double standard

McCain can say any stupid thing and whatever Obama says has to meet a standard set by FDR.

[ProSense]

13. Exactly. n/t

[Hamlette]

14. McCain was a significant presence in 48 percent of the stories—but Obama met that mark in 77 percent

how is that possible? What am I missing?

[Mass]

15. Because it avoids them to speak about McCain's mistakes. If Obama had made them,

they would spend their time speaking about that and how it shows he is not qualified. By not talking about McCain's mistakes, they allow him to keep the illusion he is qualified.

[Mabus]

16. Exactly

The other substory to this is that McCain shows the media's errors in judgment and demonstrates how clueless they are. They fawned all over him in 1999 and 2000. They bestowed the "Maverick" title on him for those few times when he voted with the Dems or went against Bush (without acknowledging that McCain only did so when it coincided with public opinion. They've promoted him whenever they could. Let's face it, we have McCain because the media swooned over him in 2000. What does that say about their judgment and their level of cluelessness.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Seems like nothing more than a carry over from her primary meme

The D's in DeeDee are starting to stand for DumbDumb.