If that was Obama or Clinton there would be lots of press about it. The talking heads would have a field day. The press where all over the sniper thing and the preacher thing. The content in that video shows that there are lots of solid reasons to put McCain under pressure.
So why aren’t the alleged “liberal media” not putting pressure on McCain?
Also how will he be able to win debates when whomever is his opponent has this kind of ammo?
The media isn’t tearing him apart because he buys them donuts onboard the “Straight Talk Express”. And because he tells them off-color stories that crack them up.
I dunno. Why aren’t the “conservative media” on Obama’s case for his When Kennedy Met With Khrushchev gaffe?
I don’t think we will be subect to listening to him in the white house so not to worry.
Because everyone is still focused on the Democrat nomination of course. Why does the question keep getting asked?? No one is paying much attention to McCain (yet)…and won’t be until the Democrat race is locked up and the REAL race gets going. Until then no one cares what McCain is saying…after that McCain will be under the same microscope that Obama and Clinton currently are under.
Or, maybe it’s just a big conspiracy by the right wing controlled media…
-XT
What’s that about?
An alternative explanation is that they simply don’t take him seriously, they don’t think he will be President, so they don’t worry about the wacky shit he says. And, apparently, believes.
The media wants a race. The Dems will likely have an advantage over the GOP once they pick a candidate. Bashing McCain now only widens the Dem advantage and detracts from the entertainment value of the race (i.e., ratings).
…or maybe not. Just a thought.
I think that the media covers what people want to hear. Nobody cares about McCain right now.
Well, here’s one member of our ‘liberal media,’ WaPo op-ed pundit Richard Cohen:
Along the way, of course, he completely missed McCain’s 2004 moment when he shifted gears from cosponsoring lots of high-profile legislation with Dems and being critical of Bush, to being a total Bush suck-up. Not to mention his pandering to fundie ministers Falwell, Hagee, and Parsley, his Straight Talk bus packed full of lobbyists, and his flip-flopping on everything from taxes to torture.
But it’s okay:
Because, don’t worry, he’ll eventually take off the costume, and the true McCain, the straight-talking maverick reformer John McCain, the one who sucks up to reporters, will reveal himself once again.
All of the above has been an act, but it’s OK - the Washington press corps is in on the ruse. They know he’s just fooling various unpleasant constituencies for the good of the country. Nothing to worry about here.
And we can’t overlook the cover story in this week’s NY Times Magazine:
Sure, he’s dishonest sometimes, but he’s dishonest in an honest way, you see, and he tips off us reporters that he knows he’s putting on an act. Again, we reporters are in on the ruse, and we know the real McCain’s really okay. Nothing to see here.
Rt, c’mon, Cohen is an Opinion writer…not a reporter. His job is to HAVE opinions and provide reasons for them. You’re basically being ticked off at him for doing his job at this point.
No, I think even a pundit’s job is to look at the world critically, regardless of his/her underlying political predispositions. If a pundit’s job is just to provide propaganda for one POV or another, why have pundits at all? There’s an endless stream of propaganda from all points of the compass, without newspapers’ having to pay anyone to provide more.
Haven’t you all seen McCain being challenged by reporters on things he actually said, and he just denies it? “I didn’t say that.”
“Yes you did.”
No I didn’t."
And no one seems to mentions that he caved in on torture.
And that’s why I don’t like the word ‘pundit’. It is far more accurate to say that Cohen and the others who perform that task are the ‘opinion’ in the OpEd page. By holding them to journalistic standards you’re doing both them and the media at large a grave disservice.
A standard front section of a newspaper consists of these sections:
I’d like to think that most of us can agree that straight reportage should be as non-biased and fact-based as possible.
Editorials are the third person ‘we’ of editorial response. They give papers official pronouncements and positions. I, frankly, have some doubt about the value of such things even though I write a few of them each week at this point.
Opinion pieces, on the other hand, state their opinion and interpretations of happenings and events. They are persons that, for whatever reason, are well-enough regarded by editorial boards, that they get the audience for their opinions.
Cohen, in the article you link, defines at the outset his connection to McCain and his favorable opinion of McCain, and then proceeds to kick McCain in his metaphorical balls regarding his positions and campaign style. Some quotes:
“He’s [McCain] been running around the country costumed as a George W. Bush conservative. McCain’s tax plan is a joke, and his foreign policy is frightening.”
“The Middle East desperately needs supple minds that are not mired in the past. I look at Gaza and don’t know what to do. I have supported Israel in its policies there, but I have to admit that nothing has been gained from the non-recognition of Hamas. War doesn’t work. Isolation doesn’t work. For Israel, leaving Gaza didn’t work, and, surely, McCain’s threat to Hamas will not give it a headache – a belly laugh is more like it.”
And this, the paragraph from which you quoted Cohen, in its entirety:
“In 2000, I boarded John McCain’s campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express, and, in a metaphorical sense, never got off. Here, truly, was something new under the political sun – a politician who bristled with integrity and seemed to have nothing to hide. I continue to admire McCain for those and other reasons, but the bus I once rode has gone wobbly. Recently, it veered into the mud.”
Emphasis mine. I note with sorrow that you left that part, the actual lede for the opinion piece, out of your quote.
If anything, I’m pretty certain that McCain’s people perceived Cohen’s column as a slam and detrimental to their goal of positive media coverage. What we have there is a columnist saying “I dig McCain, but he’s being a dick and I’m rethinking whether he’s still worthy of support.”
That’s not exactly the most supportive thing a writer can say about a candidate.
They are busy trying to influence the Dem nominee selection. Once Obama is succesfully chosen they will waste no time in turning their guns on McCain.
Actually, now that most of Washington believes that Obama has it wrapped up, the anti-McCain campaign will rise from background sniping to full-fledged negativity. McCain is one of those Republicans who liberals can support, providing he isn’t actually running.
But never fear, I don’t doubt that the mainstream media will begin acting as the de facto Obama publicity wing soon enough.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think so. I think they see 2 likely Dem nominees and therefore 2 people to destroy on behalf of the Republicans.
So the fact that they’ve been unfair to Obama is of little concern. The real problem is that in the future they’re going to be unfair to McCain, even though they haven’t yet, but they will.
Why would the media want to do that?