An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Rooting Out Rove

Sarah Palin 2.0 (?) »

McCain’s MMSM attack draws return fire

Posted by MICHAEL GRANT in At TMV, Media, Politics.
Sep 30th, 2008 | Comments

The Mainstream Media needs wingmen. I volunteer. 

Katie Couric and news operations at the radio and television networks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and other national newspapers, are members of the Mainstream Media, or MSM, as it has come to be called. These are the people responsible for encountering, finding, and objectively reporting the news, and they are the ones that really count, in terms of the safety of the democracy. In fact let’s give them an identifier of their own. They are the Mainstream Mainstream Media, or MMSM. 

Besides the MMSM, all MSM organizations also have an opinion operation housing analysis and commentary, but those opinion operations don’t need wingmen. Some of them should BE wingmen for their MMSM colleagues. 

A wingman is a commentator, no doubt about it. I am about to attack those people who have taken the MMSM under attack, and my mission is to keep them under attack for as long as necessary. I am flying a pretty good airplane. I have 35 years of experience at the controls of the media profession, and I know the news side as well as I know the opinion side. 

The mission needs wingmen because the MMSM can’t defend itself without appearing to lose balance and objectivity, particularly in a political season such as this. I can take on the McCain and Obama camps with impunity, however, because I am a declared commentator flying partisan colors, but they are not politically partisan. I am partisan free press. I am pro-MMSM, and anyone who is not is walking on the fighting side of me. The role of the MMSM in American democracy dates to the 1734 Zenger verdict and predates presidents, politics, and the Constitution. A free press is as basic to American democracy as oxygen atoms are to air. Nothing about this republic is more worthy of our regard and our respect. 

I decided to become an MMSM wingman last night when I heard John McCain say to Katie Couric, “This is not the first time I have seen a governor being questioned by some quote, ‘expert’.” Katie Couric couldn’t bite his head off, but I sure can. I can wonder why a man who would aspire to the presidency of the

United States would place his partisan needs before the principle of democratic oxygen. The nation is gripped by fear of financial failure, but no one is asking about the effect on the republic of an MMSM failure, which is far scarier. Rather, it has become open season on the free press. I could hear millions of Americans last night, joining McCain’s attack, cheering his words in the dark. Does he not see the risk? 

In today’s MMSM, speaking of Gov. Sarah Palin’s candidacy, Ron Carey, chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party, said, “Thanks to the mainstream media, quite a low expectation has been created for her performance.” Katon Dawson, the GOP chair in

South Carolina, again referring to Palin, spoke of “a pile-on by the media elite. You don’t have this kind of negative media attack without a question mark being put up.” 

If the MMSM’s reporting – and yes, they are the elites in their business – does not meet the Zenger verdict’s standard of truth, there will be retractions and corrections. In the meantime, the people are free to react to the information with high or low expectations, and with exclamation points or question marks. This wingman mission is all about the people. Taped to my instrument panel are these words: 

“The guarantee of a free press was not in the Constitution, which established the government, but right at the top, No. 1 in the Bill of Rights, which protected the governed. The press belongs not to the Constitution, but to the people, who created it. Thus the source of the power of the press must be the power of the people, who can access their power through only one source, the power of the press.” 

Thus an attack such as McCain’s on the MMSM must in fact be an attack on the people. It is time it, and they, were defended.

  • superdestroyer
    Who cares. Does worrying about someone who has no chance of winning make up for no ever discussing what the Obama Administration will look like. The most important issues in the election is who will be the Sec. of the Treasury will be in the Obama Administration and it is something that cannot be discussed.
  • StockBoySF
    "I decided to become an MMSM wingman last night when I heard John McCain say to Katie Couric, “This is not the first time I have seen a governor being questioned by some quote, ‘expert’.” Katie Couric couldn’t bite his head off, but I sure can."

    I saw a bit of that interview last night and if that particular quote is the one I'm thinking of, the person doing the questioning was actually a voter! And not some "expert". So Palin and McCain are attacking voters who ask questions that Palin can't answer?

    Good for you, Michael for keeping McCain, Obama (and their surrogates) honest.

    The press suffered under the Bush WH and did not dare question any of his policies and statements, which is very dangerous. This is not a dictatorship and we should not blindly accept what our leaders (elected or trying to be elected) would like us to believe.
  • Thank you, wingman. I totally agree with you. Jefferson said democracy depends on an informed electorate, and the MSM under corporate control and beholden to advertisers, plus flagging resources, is doing a less than stellar job of informing the electorate.

    The partisan attacks from both sides seems to have made them timid to the point that some have openly declared that it is not their jobs to investigate, just to report. If Obama says the moon is made of cheese and McCain says no, it's rock, the MSM is likely to quote both under the headline "Candidates differ, clash on moon composition." Someone needs to call up Neil Armstrong who can say "I've been there. It's rock."

    We need you, and others like you, to fill in the large gaps, and help the media to be unflinchingly earnest in ferreting out the facts and reporting those, not just what each side says, what the spokespersons say and what's the state of the race.

    So, SD, who cares? I do, and I'll bet millions of other Americans consider a free press vital to our democracy.
  • DLS
    I want a free press but also want one free of liberal bias, which some dishonestly deny exists.
  • Ricorun
    DLS: I want a free press but also want one free of liberal bias, which some dishonestly deny exists.

    I've been hearing that for the better part of 30 years. I'm beginning to think the argument is at best disingenuous, and at worst dishonest. If you really think that's true it's well beyond time to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Wouldn't you agree?
  • AustinRoth
    GD - if Jefferson could see today's 'informed electorate', I would bet he would tear up the Constitution and start from scratch. That is of course once he had stopped retching.
  • JWeidner
    DLS: Maybe the problem lies in the Conservative's court. If they wouldn't lie so much, the press wouldn't have to call them out on it.

    I don't know about you, but I sure remember how much the press sat on their hands during the Clinton impeachment process. Man, they sure were in the tank for Clinton in those days...

    By the way, that was all pretty snarky...I know both sides routinely spin the truth. Whether Conservatives or Liberals do so more often and with more abandon...well, I have my opinion on that, as I'm sure would a conservative supporter.
  • Ricorun
    AR: if Jefferson could see today's 'informed electorate', I would bet he would tear up the Constitution and start from scratch. That is of course once he had stopped retching.

    I'm guessing you need to read up on your history. Granted, the media is currently going through a transition. But it is not unprecedented. Okay, in detail it is, but not in substance. In fact, in substance, what is happening now is arguably very similar to what happened in the time of our founding fathers. In those times the press was often very partisan. But it was also decentralized. Anyone with a printing press could express their views. Likewise, in modern times, anyone with a web site, radio channel, or cable channel can express their views. IMO, the danger now, as always through our history, lies in attempts to consolidate those outlets.
  • JSpencer
    That wornout "liberal press" rhetoric is nothing but a residual kneejerk from a source that resents having daylight shown on it... and for good reason too.

    SD, so you're back to the McCain can't win shtick eh? I wouldn't bet against the power of obliviousness, it's show itself to be a force in the past. That said, I am one with the "hope" message - as in I hope the electorate gets a clue this time.
  • Marlowecan
    The MSM is liberal and has always favored the Democrats.

    Most folks here at TMV are liberal. They agree with the media, and thus don't see any bias. The media are simply revealing the (liberal) truth.

    Evan Thomas, Newsweek's Assistant Managing Editor, revealed as much in 2004, declaring the media wanted Kerry to win.

    This is not me saying this. This is the Managing Editor of Newsweek. Worse, he even noted how much this bias was worth for a given Democratic candidate: 15 percent.

    (Hey, what does he know. He is just an Editor of Newsweek).

    "There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."
  • mlhradio
    The foaming-at-the-mouth right has been squawking "liberal press! liberal press!" like a parrot for so many years now, most on the right take it as the gospel truth. Reality be damned, repeat something often enough, anyone will begin to believe it's true.

    I find it amusing how the media, which John McCain once endearingly called "his base" has suddenly turned into his greatest enemy.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingt...

    BTW, I noticed a news article earlier today that the McCain team has "banned" Maureen Dowd from their campaign coverage. Oh John, you sly devil you.
  • DLS
    It's a good try, M, though I've found that attempts at remedial education don't work with those who cannot or will not be educated.
  • Marlowecan
    In the current election there is the undeniable incident of the Atlantic magazine cover portrait of McCain.

    The photographer admitted on her website she was astonished the Atlantic would hire her given her fiercely-anti-Republican views. Accordingly, she took very bad pictures of McCain (detailing on her site exactly how every shot was meant to make him look at his worst . . . including the one the Atlantic chose).

    The Atlantic was embarrassed of course . . . not by the negative photo of McCain but by the fact that the photographer detailed how and why her portraits were negative.

    The editor of the Atlantic still did the old MSM line - "Well, it is all a matter of interpretation. I think it is fine photo of McCain" - however, this was undercut by the photographer's detailed description of how she made McCain look his worst.
  • Marlowecan
    MLHradio said: " I find it amusing how the media, which John McCain once endearingly called "his base" has suddenly turned into his greatest enemy."

    You are . . .of course . . . totally right. McCain is a creature of the media. He benefitted from bias in his favor in 2000 . . . covering his anger and his senior moments even then.

    But that was because McCain was against Bush . . . who was far more despised by the media. Enemy of my enemy, and all that.

    But Mlradio . . . the implication of what you are saying is that there IS MSM bias. McCain benefitted from it, as you say.

    Now that McCain is against a Democrat, he is whining that he no longer enjoys the protection of the MSM. And he doesn't. . . Obama currently enjoys that privilege.

    Look at how little attention have been paid to Biden's wacky historical gaffes. They vanish into air, like they never were (much like McCain's gaffes in 2000).
  • AustinRoth
    rico - F you. I do not need you lecturing me to read up on my history. I am very well versed in American History, among other subjects.

    I suggest you take a reading for comprehension class, so that when you read comments, you do not take them to mean what you desire them to mean, but rather instead learn to interpret what the author actually said.

    My comment was directed more at the apathetic, un-informed, sound-bite fed masses than at the media itself. Biased media was, as you said, the norm at the founding of our country (and it was this extreme partisanship that ultimately led to one of the gravest mistakes in US lawmaking, the Sedition Act).

    The difference was that voting was a different world back then. A much larger percentage of the voters were educated, and maintained a key interest in local, national and international issues, trade and business, taxes, etc. Of course, the body of work to maintain knowledgeable on was not as wide or deep back then, in fairness.

    Additionally, the separation of the Legislative branch from 'mob appeal' (Jefferson's quoted concern) was embodied in the combination of the State Legislators handling the selection process for Senators, and the Electoral College.

    The Electoral College in particular was very different than today. You were likely to have real knowledge of your Elector, and he was who you voted for, not the candidate. Granted that Electors usually pledged themselves to a specific candidate, but they expectation was that you trusted their judgment (which is why you voted for them), and if they changed their vote, you would grant to them the conceit that they made the best choice given the fact in front of them at the time.

    So I STILL say that had Jefferson (and to be truly fair, Madison) seen how we have become a populist election system for both Congress and (almost now) the Presidency, he would have written stronger language into the Constitution.
  • "GD - if Jefferson could see today's 'informed electorate', I would bet he would tear up the Constitution and start from scratch. That is of course once he had stopped retching."

    AR, I didn't claim the electorate was informed. I said the MSM has not done a stellar job of helping in that regard.

    As for media bias, people are biased. Newsweek, yes, is the most liberal of the major newsweeklies, followed by Time and with US News and World Report consistently right leaning. The Atlantic is liberal, as is Vanity Fair, while Insight is arch-conservative. The networks are owned by GE, Microsoft, Time Warner, Disney and News Corp, none of them paragons of liberal thought, though they know how to market to partisans on both sides.

    Different media outlets have different twists. Fine. Let them delineate news from commentary. A big part of the problem is that the news department is now managed as a profit center, pandering to an "infotainment" market rather than serious journalism.
  • jagguy
    The main stream media is biased. Biased in favor of the truth. The truth is the conservative press would have the public believe that you can compare a Magna Cum Laude Harvard graduate who worked as a professor of Constitutional Law and VOLUNTEERED to be a community organizer to an obviously uneducated evangelical who cannot BS her way through two lousy interviews. The conservative press also attempts to compare the Couric disaster interview to Biden's "gaffes" taken from over 100 interviews that he has granted sinced being named a VP candidate. The TRUTH is Republicans are horrified by John McCain's incredibly bad judgement choosing this bumpkin with no real attempt at vetting her.
  • You're right about the media going along with McCain talking points, jagguy. For much more along that line, Tim Downing looks at the contrasts and the way the corporate media has gone along with the twisted McCain narrative.
  • AustinRoth
    jag - why are Democrats constantly trying to run Palin against Obama?

    I have never liked her selection, but we have to step back for a second, and admit that neither of them have fully fleshed out resumes (although there is no doubt Obama's is stronger), and we ignore two key points.

    First, where would you rather have the least experienced member of your two-person Executive team? As the President, or as the VP?

    Second, as mentioned above, Palin is NOT running for President, therefore, why do we insist she needs to have the same level of experience as the top of the opposition ticket?

    Historically, the VP selection has been a ticket helper, and for a younger, more inexperienced candidate such as Obama, it is a much more seasoned veteran, and for an already experienced candidate, it tends towards someone to be groomed for a future Presidential run in 4 or 8 years.
  • AR, two reasons. McCain is old (I can say that, cuz he's even older than me), and has had 4 brushes with the most aggressive cancers. There is a much higher than usual risk of Palin having to step in than for a younger healthier president. This is an extremely high-stress job.

    Second, although young, I'll bet Obama's resume far surpasses yours, as it does mine. Top honors at Harvard law, pres of the Harvard Law Review, teacher of constitutional law for 12 years, successful author of two best selling books, author or co-author of over 1,000 bills. Know what? I think his resume is better than McCains. That's from someone who has reviewed thousands of resumes.
  • AustinRoth
    "author or co-author of over 1,000 bills"???

    There are 99 Senators roaring in laughter at that statement. He is known for his LACK of any substance or accomplishment of his own within Congress.
  • So, AR, no other quibbles with his resume? Cmon, admit it. It beats yours. And Palin's. (I already admitted it trumps mine)

    Here you go. The US Senate. More still in the IL state senate. See them all, here

    Number of bills sponsored: 272

    Number of bills co-sponsored: 834

    Number of bills sponsored or co-sponsored that became law: 16
  • AustinRoth
    GD - and the reality is he is known for adding his name superfluously with little to no connection to other’s bills, and putting forth fluff bills with no hope of passage, and/or no substance.

    So, let's see, 16 out of 1106 = a 1.4% pass rate (of bills he either really had nothing to do with, or were of little to no consequence). That compares to the ~4% overall pass rate of recent Congresses, so he is at about 1/3 the normal Congressional rate.

    And according to Politifact, only one (1) of those bills (to provide relief and promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo) that he was the lead sponsor became law. (for those keeping track, 0.4% pass rate for sponsored bills, rounded up!)

    I, for one, am impressed by that stellar display of Senatorial acumen and leadership. Not.

    And I have other quibbles with his padded resume, but already stated it was better than Palin's. "neither of them have fully fleshed out resumes (although there is no doubt Obama's is stronger)" [from post above].

    Better than mine? Well, certainly stronger academically than mine, and as I have never coveted public office, he certainly has more experience there than I do as well.

    However, he does not have my track record in business creation and technological innovation (I own or share WAY more patents than he does, I am sure), and neither do I have his record of being supported and mentored by unrepentant, murdering left-wing activists. But all-in-all, I agree his is a better looking resume than mine.

    But better than McCain's? NFW.
  • Doesn't matter, GD. The bills introduced against a GOP majority with a GOP veto pen are likely to fail. His work was scholarly, as one would expect, and the same bills will likely be reintroduced and passed next year. Passage against overwhelming opposition in no way detracts from the work on the bill.

    And if you look at the links I provided, cosponsorship was only counted if it was at the time of introduction or "as soon as possible after introduction." Obama took leadership on these bills and knows what he's talking about, has intelligently considered both national and international issues. Palin is a lightweight ideologue.

    I'm not trying to convince you. But for other readers, look at the link I provided and make up your own mind. AR is scratching the ground for anything negative to diminish the significant resume of Sen. Obama.

    Oh and yes. Better than McCain's. McCain has probably not even studied constitutional law, let alone taught it. Didn't distinguish himself academically, just the opposite, and has been a lobbyist's lapdog for decades.

    As for the dumb attempt at guilt by association, no sale. The association is weak and there's no evidence of his being "mentored" by Ayers, who was a campus radical (non-murderous as far as I know) when Obama was 9 years old.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC