Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
The central question that Michael Tomasky asks in the most recent New York Review of Books is this: âCan a strategy of sidestepping the media defeat a campaign thatâs organized around the media in the media age?â Heâs referring to the notion that Obamaâs campaign, though technologically much more savvy, has distinctly not catered to the daily news cycle, whereas McCainâs campaign distinctly has. Itâs an astute, if brief, rumination on whether a post-media (apologies for the word) approach can work in todayâs political media landscape.
Writes Tomasky: âThe McCain campaign is organized entirely around daily news cyclesâthe belief that winning the media war will win the election.â He cites two decisions that illustrate this philosophy: the Sarah Palin vice presidential pick, and McCainâs choice to âsuspendâ his campaign to return to Washington for bailout negotiations. âVirtually every major move McCain has made has been about trying to win that dayâs headlines,â he adds. If the last few weeks have shown anything, itâs that these make the news priorities havenât been very effective.
A good example of the two campaignsâ approaches lies in the continuing hubbub surrounding Joe the Plumber. Tomaskyâs observation is evident in the way the campaigns have responded to this everyman ânews itemâ: Palin has been trotting it out continually (and introducing a new working class hero every chance she getsâsee âTito the Builderâ). Both she and McCain have taken a âhe said itâ approach, spinning Joeâs words into a cry of Socialism! against Obama.
The McCain campaignâs desire to milk the media fixation on Wurzelbacher and his proliferating compatriots is palpable. (And this isnât the first time. Remember Palinâs approach to the Ayers question? Her comments, then like now, werenât motivated by a desire to clarify; they were designed to inflame.)
Obama, on the other hand, has returned to talking seriously about the economy.
Tomasky doesnât explicitly say that Obamaâs approachâto play the long distance game when it comes to media exposureâis the inherently successful one. He merely says that the Illinois senator has âtripped [McCain] upâŚby not playing the game.â And if Obamaâs lack of grandstanding for the cameras and notepads is a big, trip-inducing wrinkle in the rug for the McCain camp, as Tomasky suggests it is, itâs because the strategies that the latter has employed traditionally thrive when used against an opponent who would consider âlosingâ a daysâ worth of headlines, well, a loss.
Nevertheless, the verdict seems to be in for Tomasky: Obamaâs decision to make his campaign not about grandstandingâand to spend time instead on a carefully spread out field operation that he hopes will prove its worth on election dayâwill prove the more successful strategy.
Itâs a decision that speaks to the levelheadedness of the Obama team just as much as it underscores any distinct philosophy, but itâs still an interesting pointâmade more interesting by the fact that the Obama campaign has been much better at managing tech-aided communications outreach than has McCainâs.
In this sense, itâs a bit misleading when Tomasky writes: âBarack Obamaâs campaign is less concerned about coverage by blogs and television than any other presidential campaign in the short history of this media age, andâŚJohn McCainâs operation seems utterly consumed by it.â
Because while itâs true that the Obama campaign hasnât pandered as much to the media for inches or minutes of exposure, in no way has it shunned or turned its back on coverage of any kind. The Obama team is far from indifferent to media coverage. It may be âless concernedâ with being a news hog in any flashy way, but strengthened by its own media-savvy ways, itâs also just better at appearing as though itâs standing still in the attention warsârather than running full-speed towards the headlines.
What Tomasky doesnât cover in his piece is how the media have responded to the campaignsâ differing approaches. (That wasnât his angle.) But the media response, after all, is the variable that determines what works and what doesnât in those two equations. Itâs also why, even after this election is over, we wonât know if a âstrategy of side-stepping the mediaâ is smart, effective, or just a sidebar to Obamaâs smoothly-run campaign. Thereâs no control group in this experiment of cause and effect.
(For a different angle on Tomaskyâs argument, read the first three paragraphs of this Steve Coll post on the New Yorkerâs Think Tank blog, which argues that the media have been too malleable in printing or running McCain campaign language.)
Whatever the outcome of the attention wars game in political media (and whatever can be said for Obamaâs atheistic approach to such coverage), Tomaskyâs point is really about the following simple summation: losing the headlines battle doesnât necessarily mean losing the election war. And for a political media bombarded by little decisionsâTito the Builder, or Jane the Engineer, or Ed the Dairyman?âthatâs a takeaway worth pocketing.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.