When the media buys into McCain’s bogus spin (again)

April 29, 2008

Yesterday, I suggested it would be great if the media highlighted the DNC’s new “100 years” ad against John McCain, and the RNC’s baseless whining (and threats) about the ad. The more publicity this gets, the better.

This national AP article, however, is not what I had in mind.

The Republican National Committee is demanding that television networks stop running a television ad by the Democratic Party that falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.

The ad says President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years, then plays a clip of McCain saying, “Maybe 100. That’d be fine with me.”

The ad “falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq”? No, it doesn’t. In fact, the DNC was extremely careful about the wording of the ad, precisely because it didn’t want to see plainly misleading articles like this one, based on Republican spin.

As Josh Marshall put it:

[W]hat the McCain campaign is pushing for here is a standard in which any negative ad targeting McCain must be delivered with the McCain camp’s own spin included in order to be within bounds — a standard few politicians, to say the least, have ever been granted. And even though the political press has been highly indulgent of the McCain campaign on this issue, I don’t think I’ve seen any news organization so egregiously buy into McCain’s false statements as the Associated Press.

In a case like this, the AP has three choices. First, and most preferably, it would report on the RNC’s complaint, and then explain to readers what’s true and why. Second is the he-said, she-said approach, in which the AP article would simply note the RNC’s attack, without fact-checking. And third is to accept the RNC’s bogus attack as fact, and report a lie as if it were true.

The AP, for reasons that defy understanding, went with Door #3.

Josh added:

McCain’s position is miles away from where the American people are on Iraq. It’s no mystery why his campaign doesn’t want the Democrats to be harping on this point. But the AP doesn’t need to spin or fib on McCain’s behalf.

Beyond all this there is still a simpler point. There is a way foreign policy questions are hashed out in quiet symposia and a way they are fought over in political campaigns. They are not the same. McCain and his surrogates are demanding something no one else gets: namely, the right to have their words repeated only in their fullest context and most generous, most amply spun interpretation. He wants his own set of rules, an election with a stacked deck. If the Democrats have any intention of winning this race, that’s not something they can possibly accede to, or accept reporters going along with.

Quite right. As a practical matter, Democrats may have an electoral edge this year, but they’re at a decided disadvantage in that they have to run three campaigns at the same time — one in support of the Democratic nominee, another in opposition to McCain, and another still in opposition to media outlets that seem a little too anxious to help elevate McCain.

As far as I can tell, Howard Dean and the DNC aren’t willing to give an inch on this. Dean has practically dared the RNC to file a lawsuit, and the party isn’t about to back down.

But now Dems also have to worry about AP articles going to every newspaper in the country stating incorrectly that the ad “falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.”

Once again, here’s the ad:

Except the Old McSame didn’t want to stay in Iraq 100 years even if theings are going great

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/mccain-strongly-rejected_n_99082.html

  • Steve, I know you’re a glass half full kind of guy, but you’ll have to come to the realization that there is no media, we only have propaganda. This admin’s takeover of military analysts was but one wing of the propaganda network that is our “news.”

    YOU are our news. They may fail now (that’s still up in the air) but next time a free Internet will be the only savior from ALL propaganda…and with net neutrality going south, the experiment that was American freedom will be no longer.

  • “We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we’ve decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride.”

    -Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Reporter, as she an Ron Fournier handed McCain his “favorite treat,” a box of fucking donuts (with sprinkles!) at a meeting of the AP newspaper editors.

  • Funny how they never pointed out that the Swiftboat ads were full of false claims.

    . . . no, actually, it isn’t funny at all.

  • Every time Republicans complain about the ad, it should be run twice as often. They’re clearly afraid of it, which means it’s effective, which means Democrats SHOULD NOT BACK DOWN. It’s freedom of speech. If McBush thinks it’s defamatory, fine. He can sue. I volunteer for the jury.

    BTW, does this mean that McBush is planning a pivot for the general election, in which he covers his servitude to the defense industry with Bushian “promises” to “consider” withdrawing the troops that he has absolutely no intention of keeping? We should pounce on that, too.

  • I think there are two things we need to take away from this: 1) John McCain is dumb enough to say some seriously stupid things when provoked, and that his outbursts need to be videotaped and YouTubed far and wide. And 2) the American media is in the process of jumping the shark. Most Americans can tell the difference between serious media and regurgitated spin, and shows like Jon Stewart make a lot of people seriously question the propaganda that is standard media fare. The blogs provide a reality check for millions of us, and we talk to the others. But when we do, we need to remember that the penultimate example is the Iraq war. The media brought pentagon “surrogates” on the air to tell us how great it was going even after it totally went to shit. Think about how useful that fact will be in battling the media conglomerates.

    The American people also will need to be reminded that the billionaires who run the media corporations are the prime beneficiaries of McCain’s policies, so the fact that they’re covering for him should be no surprise whatsoever.

  • The AP, for reasons that defy understanding, went with Door #3.

    No, it doesn’t defy understanding. The media are Republican. They are all as much in the tank as Fox News; some just aren’t as blatant. In this case AP is just showing a little more leg than you are expecting.

  • Isn’t NewsCorpse trying to buy out AP? When Corporations control the Press, it’s no longer a free press.

  • I know I repeat myself but for anyone living in Minnesota, please tell anyone you know to look up on the internet who owns the Star Tribune and see what that investment group is comprised of and what else they invest in. I have been told so often that this is a liberal newspaper but all evidence is to the contrary and I believe it is because of who owns it and what their agenda is. People need to believe that it is a conservative Republican rag and start realizing they are not getting the full story and STOP buying it.

  • The GOP is claiming that McCain’s 100 years wouldn’t be as violent as the ad portrays. The ad, of course, asks viewers to extrapolate from the last 5 years to imagine the next 100.

    It would’ve been just as fair, if not moreso, for the ad to include McCain’s qualifier about no Americans being hurt or killed, and then ask the viewer if that’s realistic. And, more to the point, since Americans not being hurt or killed is *not* the way it is in 2008 or likely in 2009, how many years would a President McCain let US troops remain under those more realistic conditions?

  • SteveA, isn’t the Strib a McClatchy paper? I don’t know about the local editorial board, but in general McClatchy has been one of the few bright lights among the MSM, asking the right questions and writing reality-based stories/op-eds.

  • We should all stand for a moment of silence for the death of the Fourth Estate.
    The Free Press as we knew it many years ago is DEAD. It began its long decline back in the 80’s when St. Ronnie the Teflon was elected and with each passing year turned its back more and more on truth, honor and fair play. As someone whe has a degree in News/Ed Journalism it saddens me to the core of my soul that this once mighty profession has sunk to this incredible low. I see no change in sight as long as the media is wholly owned by corporate America. As long as corporations benefit from the Repugs being in control we stand no chance what so ever of getting a free press.
    What I wouldn’t give to have another Edward R Murrow or Walter Cronkit(sp) or few more Keith Oberman’s. If I could I now would play taps for this sad death and the continual decline of this once proud and great nation.

  • Sadly, I’ve come to the same opinion as MsJoanne at #3, there is only propaganda. But I’m also starting to believe that the only way this will end is more and more of this type of “reporting”. If any reasonable person can listen to McCain’s words:

    “Maybe 100. That’d be fine with me,”

    and then read the words in the article:

    “…that falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq”

    and not feel the manipulation of propaganda they would have to be brain dead. The more the MSM continues to hold up an orange, then go into a discussion of why it is an apple, the more people are going to turn away. Although the American people have disappointed me more times than I can count during the last eight years, I still believe that at their core, Americans hate being lied to, and that there is a limit or breaking point at which they finally revolt.

    No matter how the MSM spins it, the election is still six months away. The more spin and lies they produce, the more they bring home the point to the American people that if they are tired of what we have, vote it out, vote it away, vote FOR change. Or perhaps I am only an optimist…

  • The Republicans can call the ad misleading, disingenuous, incomplete, unfair, a cheap shot, etc. — I’m SHOCKED SHOCKED that an ad is unfair to an opponent (vigorously fanning and clutching my pearls) — if they want, though I don’t think they really have a case. But no way is that ad false and actionable by any stretch of the imagination. And boo hoo, this is politics. If the Repugs can’t stand the heat, get away from the barbecue grill. Good lord! How many cheap-shot, low-blow, out-of-context, barely factual (sometimes not even barely) low-class political ads have Republicans run against Democrats over the past decades? And I don’t recall that the Dems ever threatened a lawsuit, and when they even complained about it, the GOP called them whiners. Repugs can dish it out but they can’t take it. Wusses!

    • Comments are closed.