Today Neal Gabler chimed in on a favorite topic of late—press love for McCain—in a New York Times op-ed. His argument, in short, is that, yes, the press likes McCain for his military service, his amiability, his openness, and his apparent candor, but in 2008 “there is also something different and more complicated at work.” You see, McCain intentionally lets the press know he sees this all as a game and that he’s working them, which, in turn, the press appreciates because it echoes their own cynicism about their role in the political media complex. It’s all just a game, and we’re along for the ride.
That’s interesting, but as a journalist, I tend to ascribe most of the credit McCain gets to the simple access theory: the reason the press likes McCain is that he actually talks to the press. But Gabler, a well-known cultural critic, has a take worth considering.
According to the byline, he wrote his piece from Amagansett, New York—that well-known Hamptons campaign nexus. I thought “Could it really be true? Could this man who has, best I can tell, never ridden the Straight Talk Express, have solved the mystery?”
Well, the answer’s “Yes,” according to Time’s Michael Scherer:
Irony, as used by both McCain and Mike Huckabee, is a powerful force, especially in a country where very few actually believe what any politician (or reporter) is telling them. By being ironic, the candidate says, “Hey, wink wink, I know this is all a hoax, you can trust me.” Gabler’s piece is pretty close to spot on when it comes to the press.
If Scherer really believes this, how embarrassing! As Gabler points out, McCain gets away with changing his positions, displaying monumental ignorance, and slandering his opponents because he has clued in the press first. They can’t seriously police such political sins, because, with a wink and a nudge, he warned the press not to take him seriously. They don’t even have to take his positions seriously—considering his history of position switching, there’s ample evidence he doesn’t either.
There’s a huge problem here: McCain, should he become president, will actually, you know, be running the country.
I would suggest you label this "commentary," but what's the point? CJR is leaning so far to the left that mocking the GOP candidate is small potatoes.
It is hilarious to note that was "an editorial intern at Mother Jones." Apparently, he also writes for The Nation, which seems a requirement now for CJR publication.
Posted by DanGainor
on Wed 26 Mar 2008 at 05:05 PM
Typical GOP response, don't debate the question attack the writer. Tell us Dan what exactly is not true in what Clint wrote?
There is absolutely no question the press has, to date, almost completely overlooked McCain's flubs, back pedaling, flip flopping and outright campaign financing illegalities (oh the irony of that from Mr. Straight Shooter). Weeks spent on Obama's link to Wright and not so much as a murmur about McCain's heavy support of and from Hagee (an equally, if not more so offensive, preacher)
Posted by Doug Alder
on Wed 26 Mar 2008 at 06:59 PM
I am shocked that there is another nakedly anti-McCain piece in both the CJR and the NY Times. Shocked I say!
And Dan, dont forget, another "qualification" seems to be writing for Alternet as well.
Posted by TDC
on Wed 26 Mar 2008 at 09:18 PM
Forget true/untrue. Let's talk about the ridiculous left-wing bias of CJR. Where is the "commentary" header. Clint is entitled to appear as a reflexive, wet-behind-the-ears, goofy, young leftie. Thank God we have a Constitution that protects it.
But CJR is also a journalism publication -- or at least it is in theory. To post this nonsense without even an attempt to show it's a silly opinion and not anything more is unprofessional. Of course, that last word should be included in CJR's new statement of principles.
Posted by DanGainor
on Thu 27 Mar 2008 at 07:47 AM
The fear is palpable among the juvenile "watchdogs" here in McLearyland...
The Democratic party is self-destructing in true Clintonian fashion while McCain is already picking out new carpet for the Oval Office.
I don't blame the juveniles for spewing liberal idiocy- that's what juveniles do, after all... But CJR must have some adult editor somewhere keeping watch on the Romper Room, right?...
Posted by padikiller
on Sun 30 Mar 2008 at 09:11 AM