Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) charmed relationship with the national media is the stuff of legend. The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes recently noted, “In 2000, his aides joked that McCain’s base was the media. In truth, it was.”
That’s clearly changing. Bob Novak reported over the weekend that McCain “complains to friends that he is getting much rougher treatment from the news media than his competitors.” The senator “privately expresses the view that [Giuliani and Romney] have gotten off easy.”
If this is true, and it may be, what explains the shift? The most obvious explanation is that McCain has just been giving the media more negative material to work with lately, such as his recent “jokes” about IEDs and bombing Iran. Time’s Ana Marie Cox, who just wrapped up a tour on McCain’s bus, highlights another possibility.
In the past, this tremendous access bred a certain amount of protectiveness among some journalists — you don’t want to play “gotcha” with someone who gives all the time. The dynamic on this campaign is slightly different, and the coverage — including mine — shows it. Those new to covering him want to prove they won’t fall for the old guy’s charm. Those who covered him in 2000 want to prove they never did. Congratulations, blogosphere!
I think this is largely right, particularly on the “protectiveness” point. In October 1999, for example, aboard the campaign bus, McCain referred to the Vietnamese as “gooks.” Not only did reporters not call the candidate on the use of the slur, almost none of them reported on McCain’s ugly word choice. According to an insider that I interviewed recently, there was a “gentleman’s agreement” in place — in exchange for access and freewheeling interviews, most campaign correspondents would knowingly look the other way from some of McCain’s more “candid” blunders.
Moreover, I think Cox is also right about reporters’ sensitivity. No one wants to look like a hack. If reporters have a reputation for fawning, uncritical coverage of McCain, they’re far more likely to push back in the other direction to prove their professionalism.
But there’s one piece to the puzzle to add: McCain may be intentionally antagonizing the media.
I fleshed this out in a recent American Prospect piece. (Yes, I’m blockquoting myself.)
Last week, for example, McCain spoke with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about conditions in Iraq. McCain, a day prior, had told far-right radio host Bill Bennett that Baghdad had areas where Americans could walk about, freely and safely. Blitzer suggested that this assessment contradicts everything Americans know about the violence in Iraq’s capital city. McCain practically called Blitzer a moron.
“General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee,” McCain said with a smug smile. “I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.”
On the substance, McCain’s credibility-killing comments were absurd and illusory (as he demonstrated over the weekend with his instantly-infamous “stroll” down a Baghdad street protected by 100 soldiers, three helicopters, and two gunships). CNN’s Michael Ware asked U.S. military officials about McCain’s assessment and they quite literally laughed at the senator’s foolishness.
But more to the point, McCain’s belligerent attitude with Blitzer appeared to be out of character. The CNN host was, after all, correct. But that didn’t stop McCain from picking a fight, blasting him on the air, and falsely blaming the media for failing to report truths that exist only in the senator’s imagination. For a presidential hopeful more accustomed to charming reporters than alienating them, the exchange was jarring.
What’s more, it wasn’t an isolated incident. Twenty-four hours later, McCain was on Fox News, chatting with morning host Brian Kilmeade about the status of his campaign. The senator expressed optimism, but lamented the fact that he has to let the “jerks from the media” onto his Straight Talk Express bus. (McCain assured Kilmeade, however, “You are welcome on.”)
Three days later, McCain was at it again. Appearing at a Baghdad press conference in the heavily-guarded Green Zone following his farcical neighborhood promenade, the senator was combative with reporters once more. He criticized war reporting that highlights the country’s bloody civil war, and insisted that Americans are not aware of the “signs of progress” because Western journalists covering the conflict are preoccupied with Iraq’s daily violence.
I suspect McCain sees no value in being known as the national media’s favorite Republican right now. His confidants are dishing to Novak about McCain’s frustration with the media, but couldn’t this just be part of the broader strategy?
Fred Barnes urged McCain to abandon his cozy relationship with the media, blaming this for McCain’s 2000 primary defeat. It looks like this won’t be a “problem” in 2008, but there’s a flip side. As Kevin Drum put it, “If McCain merely gets the coverage he deserves, he’s doomed.”