It's hardly controversial to suggest that many in the corporate media have a fondness for presumptive GOP White House nominee John McCain. As the Washington Post's David Broder wrote recently (4/24/08): "In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest."
Over the past several weeks, many pundits and reporters have explained that while it's probably true that the media have special feelings for McCain, that all will soon change.
--After declaring on the Charlie Rose show (2/8/08) that some of McCain's rhetoric is beyond criticism ("McCain has a license to use words that the rest of us could not.... I mean, he can be pretty out there, using words like 'surrender,' because who is really going to question John McCain?"), Newsweek's Evan Thomas (2/16/08) wrote this in response to the idea that the press showed a fondness for Barack Obama and John McCain:
--On NBC's Meet the Press (4/27/08), PBS host Gwen Ifill explained:
--In an April 25 online chat (cited by ThinkProgress, 4/29/08), Washington Post reporter Shailagh Murray was asked:
MURRAY: This is driving Democrats crazy right now, but just wait. Once the primary battle is over, Senator McCain will get his fair share of scrutiny.
--When Newsweek's Richard Wolffe was asked on MSNBC (4/30/08; cited in Media Matters, 5/1/08) whether McCain received a free pass from the media over his ties to right-wing evangelist John Hagee, he declared:
--NBC's Tim Russert spoke on the Don Imus show (5/5/08; cited in CJR Daily, 5/6/08) on the same subject:
I don’t think the Hagee thing, McCain hasn’t been questioned, has not been scrutinized about that... He’s really been given this grace period to go around the country...
Russert said the same thing that evening on MSNBC (5/5/08; cited in CJR Daily, 5/7/08):
--When author and columnist Arianna Huffington argued that McCain "is not getting the scrutiny he deserves," ABC anchor Charles Gibson (Good Morning America, 5/1/08) said:
--On May 7, a USA Today editorial explained that
It's unusual to hear reporters admitting that a prominent politician and presidential candidate is saying and doing things that deserve scrutiny, but they haven't gotten around to giving his words or deeds any attention.
It is true that McCain's recent activities cry out for media coverage. On April 18, McCain released his own tax returns , showing that he has next to no assets in his own name, while keeping his wife's sizable fortune private--a tactic that attracted intensely skeptical coverage when Sen. John Kerry tried it in 2004 (New York Times, 5/9/04). Or consider McCain's comment that a bridge collapse last year in Minneapolis was a result of earmark spending in Washington--a claim the alleged Straight Talker promptly withdrew (L.A. Times, 5/2/08). Or McCain's assurance that his energy policy "will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East"--a phrasing that implies that all Mideast wars the U.S. has been involved in are essentially about oil, although McCain later claimed that he was only referring to the 1991 Gulf War (AP, 5/2/08).
Journalism, of course, is supposed to hold politicians to account--not some day, but every day. Putting off scrutiny of John McCain until some imagined future moment is really giving him a free pass in the present--and that's a journalistic problem that deserves some self-scrutiny.