What if Maliki changed everything, but the media didn’t notice?

July 20, 2008

Following up on the last item, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, unprompted and by name, announced yesterday that Barack Obama’s troop-withdrawal policy is right, while John McCain is wrong about “artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops.” It’s the kind of development that fundamentally changes the geo-political landscape, and creates a seemingly-insurmountable hurdle for the McCain campaign to clear.

That is, if the media actually notices, and is smart enough to recognize the significance of the developments.

You’ve no doubt heard the expression, “burying the lede.” The idea is, in journalism, the most important part of the story should come first. There’s also the “inverted-pyramid” style of reporting, which says the key parts of a news item should be at the top.

Today is a great example of news outlets getting it wrong. The NYT, for example, ran a 1,400-word, front-page article under the headline, “Obama’s Visit Renews Focus on Afghanistan.” Within the article, there were four paragraphs about Maliki’s game-changing remarks, one of which was a lengthy quote from the McCain campaign explaining why the prime minister’s endorsement of Obama’s policy doesn’t really matter.

Now, Obama’s trip is a big deal, and I’m glad the NYT is covering it in detail. But here’s a radical idea: instead of stuffing four paragraphs about Maliki in a story about Afghanistan, how about, you know, running an article about this extremely important development?

Likewise, the WaPo ran a 1,600-word, front-page article about Obama’s Afghanistan visit. It gave the Maliki jaw-dropper five paragraphs, in a he-said, she-said dynamic.

Seriously, are the nation’s major news outlets trying to be awful?

The media did seem amused by the White House distributing the embarrassing article.

An embarrassing slip up for the White House press office Saturday, when an aide hit the wrong button and mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s troop withdrawal plan.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel says, “It was a mistake. Clips list for staff was supposed to be the addressee.”

The Obama campaign quickly took advantage of the mistake, forwarding an ABC report detailing the incident to its press list.

Yes, this is amusing. But if reporters could consider what the article said, instead of just how the article was distributed by the White House press office, the public might have a greater appreciation for the significance of the development.

As of this morning, “The Page,” a project of Time’s Mark Halperin that tends to highlight what the media finds important, only mentions the Maliki story in the context of the accidental White House distribution. Not a word about the substance or significance of the story itself.

Indeed, CNN has been especially egregious, running a report about Iraqis backtracking on Maliki’s remarks, despite the fact that the “clarification” is transparently ridiculous.

To be fair, I should give credit where credit is due. The LA Times’ report did what the WaPo and NYT didn’t — it emphasized Maliki first, then Obama in Afghanistan. The AP report wasn’t bad, either.

But generally speaking, yesterday was a game-changing day, and the media, once again, seems to have largely dropped the ball. Granted, I realize that the prime minister of Iraq endorsing Obama’s withdrawal timeline isn’t nearly as fascinating as, say, Jesse Jackson talking about testicles. That was a huge story, which the media pounced on, and obsessed over, for days.

If journalists could at least pretend to have some kind of professional standards, our democracy would be better off.

Keep in mind, a couple of weeks ago, when Obama reiterated the exact same Iraq policy that he’s had for a year, ABC News’ Rick Klein exclaimed, “There’s been lots of speculation this week about whether Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. He does now.” Time’s Mark Halperin told CNN, “This is one of the biggest things that’s happened so far in the general election.”

And that was when nothing had actually happened. Now, we have the prime minister of Iraq saying that Obama’s right and McCain’s wrong about one of the key arguments on the international landscape. Note to the barbecue-loving, donut-dispensing reporters: this means John McCain has an Iraq problem. Maliki’s unprompted endorsement of Obama’s Iraq policy really is one of the biggest things that’s happened so far in the general election.

Honestly, if there were a way to file some kind of class-action lawsuit against the nation’s editors/producers for crippling malpractice, it’d be worth pursuing.

It obliterates their entire campaign narrative, so they still haven’t figured out whether they have to cover it at all. CNN has basically decided the whole thing didn’t happen. We’ll see soon if the Sunday shows follow suit.

  • Wow. You almost sound angry Steve. First time I think I have ever read this tone from you. The problem is that this story doesn’t fit with their simpleminded narrative. They cannot absorb and analyze information that doesn’t fit that narrative. I have become convinced that a major part of the problem is that they really aren’t very smart on an individual level. Certainly that applies to people like Halperin. But the biggest problem is that as institutions, they have become bloated and lack the agility to really respond to anything that doesn’t confirm the conventional wisdom.

  • “Seriously, are the nation’s major news outlets trying to be awful?”

    Yes.

  • Welcome to the world of corporate-controlled media. Media consolidation? What media consolidation?

    Imagine what the world would be like if we did not have the internet and its independent voices to counter the so-obviously-controlled media machine that is ‘traditional’ media.

    Believe them or your lying eyes. It’s all just so laughingly (and crying-ly) transparent.

  • It is sad, but I have gotten used to it. I figured McCain’s Social Security gaffe from two weeks ago was going to sink him, but it was hardly covered at all.

    The media has their own agenda and it has more to do with making money than reporting the news.

  • The last time I know of a US presidential candidate going to a war zone was 1952, Ike’s visit to Korea. This is historic, but downplayed by the MSM because the candidate is question isn’t their guy.

  • How can you expect our media to cover such an issue, when there’s St John’s coronation to arrange?
    Set aside the Obama/McCain angle for a second. The President of a country we are occupying has publicly said he wants us out – sooner rather than later. This puts him in direct disagreement with the cornerstone of US foreign policy in the Mideast.

    There can only be one reason not to cover this story: It’s bad for McSame. By any other measure, this is a huge deal. I’m sure McCain will be along any day now with a 180 reversal on his Iraq position. His media will call this a ‘refinement’.
    Meanwhile, if Obama edits the punctuation on his website, McSame’s media will insist it’s a flip flop.

    I’m beginning to think MSM stands for McSame’s Media.

  • Steve, your naivete (assuming it’s genuine) is actually amusing. The news media aren’t trying to be “awful”, they’re merely doing their job: Supporting Bush, covering for McSame (as best they can), avoiding any developments that contradict insider (read corporate) created reality, and bashing Obama at every opportunity. Isn’t it obvious by now there are no journalistic standards? Just as the rule of law no longer matters, so journalism has become pure propaganda. Isn’t it obvious that so-called reporters only repeat the accepted, and acceptable, wisdom of the ruling class?

    Steve you can be shocked, shocked all you want about the quality of ‘news’ we are served, but the fact is the media are doing their job superbly well. It’s just that you, I and others have a different concept of what that job is.

  • The media sucks. No doubt about it.

    We have state-run media, and most folks don’t even notice.

    I’m still wondering how John McCain is unscathed from saying Social Security is a disgrace and his surrogate Bud Day saying that Muslims want to kill us.

    Not a word from the media.

    But we still hear about Reverend Wright and Michelle Obama’s proud comment to this very day. The status quo needs Obama to lose, because if he can become President, that means that the people really do have the power, and we can’t have that.

  • And to add insult to injury, the media now talks about how unbalance the coverage is and implies that it is a positive for Senator Obama – never mentioning that much of Obama’s additional coverage is negative and manufactured.

    Whatever.

  • The fact that Halperin is promoting McCain going to the Yankees/A’s game today should tell you all you need to know about the quality of the US media. Keep beating this story Steve. Eventually they will HAVE to cover it.

  • And thus, I quote:

    Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a German magazine that he supports Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

    The apparent endorsement of a cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy drew swift praise from the Obama camp. But the White House stressed that any timelines are contingent on “security gains” in the region.

    “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,” al-Maliki told the magazine Der Spiegel. He said he wants U.S. troops to leave “as soon as possible.”

    The comments come ahead of Obama’s scheduled meeting with al-Maliki. Obama, who is touring both Afghanistan and Iraq for the first time since becoming a presidential candidate, arrived Saturday in Afghanistan, where he is meeting with U.S. troops.

    “Senator Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki’s support for a 16 month timeline for the redeployment of U.S combat brigades,” Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said in a statement Saturday. “This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”

    Al-Maliki said for the first time earlier this month that the U.S. military should work toward a timetable for withdrawal — something President Bush and Obama’s rival John McCain oppose. The White House also reported Friday that Iraq and the United States are discussing a “general time horizon” for reductions in troop levels.

    Both developments gave Obama fuel in his argument that U.S. involvement in Iraq soon must draw to a close. But al-Maliki’s comments to Der Spiegel seemingly were the deepest the foreign leader has waded into the tense foreign policy debate between the two major presidential candidates.

    Al-Maliki told the magazine that his comments were “by no means an election endorsement.”

    But he seemed to refer disparagingly to McCain when he said “short time periods” in Iraq are more “realistic,” while “artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems.”

    That was FOX, as of last night. Here’s the actual link.

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/19/maliki-i-support-obamas-withdrawal-timetable/

    Today, they’re playing the CentCom version full tilt, and no one is citing Maliki in that story. No one at all.

    I expect the comedy of this McLie fiasco-spin to become apparent within the next 72 hours, with Maliki himself standing before a plethora of cameras and reiterating his original comments—the ones that were “misunderstood and misinterpreted.”

    Funny thing about those words—“misunderstood and misinterpreted”—the “government spokesperson” who “corrected” Maliki’s comments apparently wasn’t anywhere near the conversation when it took place. Perhaps he was too busy polishing boots over at CentCom….

  • As a kid I remember reading stories about what it was like in the old Soviet Union, with a state-run media that constantly published transparent lies. I didn’t imagine that I’d grow up to see what this is like firsthand in my own country.

    Pravda didn’t save the Soviet Union, and our MSM isn’t going to be able to save McCain. But they’ll do their damnedest to try.

  • Already “they’re” beginning to say that Maliki’s interview with Der Stern was translated wrong and Maliki really doesn’t support Obama’.

    Just as I predicted yesterday….

  • “Seriously, are the nation’s major news outlets trying to be awful?”

    Decades of abuse from the right has left them scared shitless. Tell it like it is and your boss catches hell. Bad career move.

  • The owners of the media want McCain.

    Those employed by the owners of the media who want McCain want to keep their jobs.

    Need we say more?

  • Twice on MSNBC this morning — first from an Andrea Mitchell report, then from an anchor — they said that Maliki was endorsing a “time horizon” for withdrawal. “Time horizon”? He never said that; the Bush administration did.

    I guess they’re only a little bit away from using Fox News’s “homicide bomber” lingo in honor of the White House’s wishes, too.

  • beeb52 @ 17: Decades of abuse from the right has left them scared shitless. Tell it like it is and your boss catches hell. Bad career move.

    Worse still, that sort of working environment selects for people willing to internalize the values that create the environment in the first place. Check your integrity at the door.

  • Here are my media musings: The media organizations develop a campaign narrative. The narrative trumps all and when facts contradict the narrative, the story gets buried until a new narrative can be developed. The story still has life if we draw attention to it.

    The horserace is crucial for viewer interest and ratings. When one candidate is pulling away on the issues or in the polls, reporters and editors give more scrutiny to the front-runner. The Obama trip is being heavily reported because he is the leader in the race. It is a high-risk, high reward kind of trip. If he withstands the scrutiny, his lead will solidify.

    The al Maliki 16 month withdrawal endorsement is noticed by reporters, even if it isn’t reported. It will frame their coverage.

    If people connected McCain’s trip to Columbia with released hostages, they will connect Obama’s Iraq trip with the Iraqi leader’s withdrawal endorsement.

  • i’d note the fact al maliki was in a totally free environment when he gave his remarks to der stern ..

    and i’d note the “corrections to the translation and understanding is coming out of CENTCOM .. do you think they tied him to a chair when he got back to iraq ??

    whats being corrected is .. imo .. the idea maliki has endorsed a specific candidate for POTUS ..

    the fact he did say .. withdrawal of US Troops from iraq is a goal and desire of the iraqi people.. and those who plan to do so quickly are more on the side of reality than those who have something else in mind .. ”

    shorter maliki:” the iraqi people and it’s government want the occupaion of their nation to end ..and the sooner the better pard’nuh ..”

    there’s no way to sucessfully spin this true iraqi position into a positive for bush or mc cain’t .. the truth will out here .. imo

  • 12. On July 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am, Nashville_fan said:
    Here’s a surprisingly straightforward article about the “dilemma” this news presents for the *ahem* media

    Actually that link is just a syndicated reprint of Kevin Drum’s post on this yesterday. I don’t think it counts as a sign of any kind of self-awareness on the part of CBS. More’s the pity.

  • Blogs like this and others are now the free press that is so important to a true democracy with the newspapers and the television media being extensions of corporations and the government spewing out carefully scripted “messages” also known as propaganda and totally abandoning true journalism. The main stream media is pathetic and need to be ignored. Thank you to the hard working bloggers out there spreading the truth.

  • I hate to say it, but I have become SO disillusioned with the media that I have just given up hope that we will ever change. The republicans just get up and spout out lies that not only never get challenged, they are played (i.e. – McCain’s attack ads) over and over again. And even sadder, it just sinks in deeper and deeper into the uninformed American public’s mindset.

    I thought surely when Bush got re-elected that we would finally see how far from reality and saneness we had gone and a correction would be made – but the perceived “center” just keeps moving further and further to the “right”.

    This is one reason I feel Obama is making a mistake “moving to the center”. “We” (his one time enthusiastic progressive base) are now not feeling the enthusiasm as he is getting painted as another politician making the same moves and decisions based on trying to play to the crowd instead of leading the way.

    Oh well….

  • It’s only July. If something happened that sank the McCain campaign now, what would the news media do between now and November? They have a whole summer of election horse-race coverage scheduled, what do you want? Are they supposed to just say, “oops, it’s pretty much over,” and move on? There are revenue projections to meet, and payrolls. No one will tune in to a race that’s over, and no advertisers will buy ads on blank pages. Plus reporters have blocked out blocked out weeks of following the candidates. Do you want them to have to change their schedules, just because the race is over? Take a long vacation, because McCain is toast? No way.

    Why should they let a little thing like actual news force them to change their plans? They have the power to control this process, and they’ll use it to suit their purposes. Campaign-ending news can’t happen until the fall.

  • …if there were a way to file some kind of class-action lawsuit against the nation’s editors/producers for crippling malpractice, it’d be worth pursuing.

    Hear hear!

  • It has happened too often and is too widespread for the MSM’s complicity in promoting the Republican neocon corporate agenda to be anything other than a coordinated agenda. It is “Operation Mockingbird’s” full implementation and to pretend otherwise is a mistake.

    Any attempt to support Obama or democratic principles is merely a means to make us believe the media is objective or fair. They are not. They are fully corporate owned and operated to push government propaganda and the Money Party’s agenda. Bribed, blackmailed and threatened editors may occasionally sneak in editorials against the corporate agenda but overall reporters are in fear of losing access or their jobs by rocking the boat. We are long passed the need for media reform…we need a media revolution.

    Look at what an octopus of government corruption we’ve allowed in our nation.

  • Der Spiegel is standing by its story and telling the CENTCOM PR boys to go fuck themselves with mahogany chair legs.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html

    A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had “misunderstood and mistranslated” the Iraqi prime minister, but didn’t point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki’s comments “should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates.” The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

    A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki’s office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh’s statement “did not address a specific error.” CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, “how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by “how little effort was made” to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

    SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

    • Comments are closed.