Just a few days ago, Paul Krugman had an interesting item on his blog on the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign as the dominant story shifts from a heated primary race to the general election. When the focus was on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it was in the media’s interest to exaggerate differences between two candidates who agree on almost everything. With the focus shifting to Obama and John McCain, it should make the media’s job easier — there are, as Krugman noted, “stark differences on issues between the candidates.”
There’s no way to argue that Obama and McCain — a classic story of contrasts — offer similar ideas and solutions. Krugman noted that eight years ago, news outlets ran far too many stories downplaying the differences between Bush and Al Gore — stories that look comically ridiculous in hindsight — and wondered whether journalists might try a similar tack this year.
“Impossible,” I thought to myself after reading Krugman’s item. Obama and McCain are so different — personally, ideologically, professionally, temperamentally — the media just can’t screw this up.
I stand corrected. The LA Times ran an editorial yesterday, noting that we “might be surprised at the breadth of issues on which they largely agree.”
Some might complain that this means voters will have little to choose between in November. We say: Welcome to the middle, candidates. We hope you stick around here once you’re in office, unlike the White House’s current occupant.
Specifically, the Times pointed to general agreement between Obama and McCain on national security policy (both want a bigger military and oppose torture), immigration (both want comprehensive reform, including a “pathway to citizenship”), environmental policy (both want to create a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases), and social issues (both oppose gay marriage and support stem-cell research).
This morning, Bloomberg ran a similar news item, insisting that on global warming, immigration, government transparency, and Guantanamo Bay, Obama and McCain are not only in agreement, but are “probably” more aligned “than any major-party candidates since 1976.”
And here I thought the media would revel in their differences. Doesn’t conflict sell better?
First, on nearly all of the major issues dominating the political landscape — Iraq, healthcare, Iran, the economy, Social Security, international diplomacy, trade, taxes and the federal budget, housing — Obama and McCain offer entirely different policies. Why intentionally downplay these issues, in the hopes of erasing the differences between them?
Second, the media’s efforts to de-emphasize the distinctions between Obama and McCain rely on positions that McCain doesn’t actually embrace anymore. This has been going on for a while now, but I’d hoped news outlets would grow wiser as the campaign unfolded and journalists had a chance to do some homework.
The LAT and Bloomberg note McCain’s opposition to torture, without noting his reversals on the issue.
They note McCain’s moderation on immigration, without noting his flip-flop(s) on the issue.
They note McCain’s moderation on global warming, without noting that when it comes to environmental policy, his rhetoric doesn’t meet reality.
They note McCain’s alleged interest in government transparency, without noting McCain’s propensity for secrecy in his presidential campaign, on everything from medical records to tax returns to fundraisers.
They noted McCain and Obama agreeing on gay marriage, without noting that the two disagree on most issues pertaining to gay rights, including states’ rights to legalize gay marriage, civil unions, and the elimination of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
In other words, even on issues where the media says these two agree, they disagree.
Voters have a choice between two very different candidates, offering two very different agendas, at a critical time. Why would media outlets intentionally paper over these differences? Shouldn’t journalists be doing the exact opposite?