My single biggest complaint with mainstream political reporting is the he-said, she-said phenomenon. Reporters will let the public know what both sides say about a given issue, but they’re extremely reluctant to let us know when one side is demonstrably wrong. (Fact-checking, apparently, is an example of bias.)
But once in a while, a traditional news outlet will throw us a curveball and report a claim without the he-said, she-said frame — even when should have one.
Consider, for example, this front-page item from Dan Balz in the Washington Post. It notes that John McCain has effectively already won the Republican presidential nomination, so the senator can start planning a general-election strategy. Balz noted, in a matter-of-fact kind of way:
McCain will also run on a biography that has shown character and courage and a willingness to buck convention, and he initially matches up well against both Clinton and Obama, according to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.
I see. It’s not that McCain’s campaign will argue that the senator has “shown character and courage and a willingness to buck convention,” it’s just a factual conclusion that the WaPo runs on the front page. There are no perspectives to the contrary, and no voices that might take issue with the characterization. It’s just presented as an obvious truth.
Except, of course, it’s not really true at all.
“Character“?
McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof, “aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.” McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure.
“Courage“?
This week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) caved to the right wing and skipped a key vote on the economic stimulus plan, despite voicing prior support for the package. CNN’s Jack Cafferty excoriated McCain for placing his personal ambitions over the public’s well-being:
“It was one of those moments that said quite a bit about somebody’s character. What did McCain do? Nothing. He ducked. Instead of representing the people in Arizona who elected him, he simply choice not to vote at all. John McCain, pilot of the Straight Talk Express, wimped out…. This makes it looks a lot like John McCain wants to be president but he can’t bring himself to do the job of senator. Just another politician choosing to do what’s best for him.”
“It was one of those moments that said quite a bit about somebody’s character,” Cafferty said. “John McCain didn’t have the stomach for the tough decision.”
Jonathan Chait hammered the broader point home with exactly the right media analysis, noting that McCain has made a variety of clearly false claims about the economy, but in those cases, reporters refuse to call him on it.
But character — well, that’s a different story. There reporters feel free to pass off completely subjective judgments as fact. Today’s Washington Post offers a classic example. A front page story reports, “McCain will also run on a biography that has shown character and courage and a willingness to buck convention.” That’s a fact? Doesn’t McCain have critics who think he’s a hypocritical opportunist?
I’m not saying I don’t think McCain has shown character and courage — he has, though other times he’s shown the opposite. But this is a perfect example of a completely subjective judgment passed off as fact. And it shows a major reason why McCain will be such a formidable candidate. McCain is weak on policy but is perceived to have strong personal traits. The rules of the media game thus benefit him enormously.
With McCain on his way to the nomination, and fawning media adulation showing no signs of waning, I get the sense it’s going to be a long year.