John McCain's early love affair with the press has been well-chronicled. He was a "maverick" most loved because he went against his own party--best loved, in fact, when he produced legislation like McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.
As Rich Lowry points out, they liked him for more than just that, they liked him because he gave them such extensive access.
Since 2000, John McCain had thrived on his irrepressible chattiness with the press, talking about anything reporters wanted for as long as they would listen. The press loved the access and avoided “gotcha” coverage, letting McCain explain any seeming gaffes. The arrangement worked beautifully for both sides — until McCain became the Republican presidential nominee.
Once McCain became the Republican nominee for President, he became a threat, not, as in 2000, to George W. Bush, the "hick" they hated, or to his own party (a tack they gleefully supported and defended), but to their annointed, Barack Obama. Or, as Lowry explains it, "the enduring scandal of the McCain campaign is that it wants to win." This is the driver behind all the faux scandals built on flimsy evidence that have cropped up since McCain beat out Mitt Romney & co. for the nomination--the fact that he's playing for keeps.
For most of the campaign, the media has either tried to ignore McCain, or, failing that, write negatively of him. As the Dow Jones Insight-2008 media research highlights, McCain's pick of Palin forced the media to take the latter route because she attracted so much attention to the campaign.
As a result (and as has been documented and will continue to be documented here at NewsBusters), the MSM has ceased (if it ever did) to treat the two candidates equally. Take, for example, lipstickgate. Lowry points out the inconsistencies:
The lipstick controversy indeed represented a silly bit of grievance-mongering. But had the Obama camp’s tendentious interpretation of Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” put-down as a racial slight generated similar push-back from the media? Had Obama’s ridiculous depiction of Geraldine Ferraro as a quasi-racist? Had Obama’s repeated contention — with no evidence — that Republicans were attacking him for looking different?
The media have made it gospel that McCain is attacking Obama dishonestly. Of course, campaign advertisements are the last place to look for a dispassionate rendition of the facts. McCain’s ads are no different. But they are no worse than Obama’s spots.
When Obama distorted a McCain remark about staying in Iraq for 100 years — if we were taking no casualties — into an endorsement of endless war, the media generally tsk-tsked that McCain should be more careful about what he says. Obama just ran an ad saying McCain would cut education funding — with no evidence. His response to McCain’s supposed out-of-control negativity is a new negative ad misleadingly creating the impression that McCain aides are currently lobbying for special interests.
Whether you thought there was anything to Obama's lipstick-on-a-pig comment, or not, it presents, as Lowry points out, an interesting case-study for examining how the MSM responds to each campaigns grievances. You may wonder, as I have, if the McCain campaign floated this "grievance balloon" just to point out the discrepancy in coverage.
If, indeed, this was the case, then all I can say is "mission accomplished." The generalized response from the MSM was complete dismissal--nothing to see here--which stood in stark contrast to their open-armed reception of even the slightest complaing by the Obama campaign.
