TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
10.09.2008
McCain Neuters His Press

In his dystopian novel The Time Machine, H.G. Wells describes how the Morlocks, who had originally evolved as a species meant to provide for the more elite Eloi, have come to subjugate the Eloi: The spoon-fed Eloi live up on Earth, separated from the subterranean Morlocks. Since no real tasks are available to them, they spend all day lounging around, feeble, listless, and ambitionless. In the end, it turns out that they now no longer serve any purpose but to be farmed and eaten by their once-servile Morlocks.

I thought of The Time Machine yesterday while driving home from trying to cover a McCain/Palin rally in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, as a member of the press. The McCain press corps -- once the undisputed kings of McCainworld, with the best seats on the bus and unlimited bull sessions with the endlessly-solicitous candidate -- has, in the past couple of months, been turned into nothing so much as the campaign's Elois. Non-local reporters are sequestered in their own charter bus, separated from the Straight Talk Express, and quarantined at events. They are ordered to treat the candidates with "respect and deference," as though they were campaign secretaries. The basic function of a journalist is to ask questions -- fish swim, birds fly, reporters inquire -- but the McCain campaign no longer allows any questions, so there's not much for the traveling press to do beyond take down the minutes at event after event, publish what information the campaign deigns to provide, and bear witness to Sarah Palin's slowly-changing hairdo. 

While I was walking to the thronged gym where the McCain/Palin rally was being held, a man in a black SUV rolled down his window and offered me tickets. (Yes: Thanks to Sarah Palin, McCain events now have scalpers.) Looking back, I should have taken them. Identifying myself as a reporter got me pinned with a series of over-attentive personal campaign escorts, who funneled me up through back doors into the press's playpen, a distant balcony area as cut off from the bustling floor as the women's section at an Orthodox synagogue. Up in our balcony, writers listlessly check their Gmail and mill around the catered food table, which itself subtly telegraphs a message as to what kind of effete prisses the campaign thinks we are: There's caprese salad with fresh minced basil, tortellini, bottles of San Pellegrino, and organic green tea bags labeled "Om: to merely say it releases a vibration of peace."

As the reporters in the balcony see it, the campaign's refusal to let Palin take questions doesn't necessarily mean they're worried about her performance. It's just part of the broader McCain anti-press lockdown, in which there hasn't been a real media availability since something like mid-August. Everyone has adapted handily to the new order. Before the rally begins, one reporter has his story pulled up on his laptop screen: It's pre-written with just a couple of underlined blanks to fill in, like a Mad Libs. 

Suddenly a howl floats up to the balcony. It must be her -- but where the hell is she? Finally I spot Palin's pinlike head among a sea of bodyguards. "Can you hear her?" somebody asks, as she takes to the microphone. No matter. It's her acceptance speech, the reference to her husband as the "first dude," the boast that she put Alaska's statejet on eBay. Looking out the window, I can see that some better-informed rally attendees are waiting outside to shake the candidates' hands, a potential opportunity for some spontaneous coverage. But after McCain and Palin finish, I am regretfully informed that I cannot leave the balcony because somebody has supposedly injured themselves on the exit staircase. 

Why do reporters still bother to travel with McCain? Or, if we have to, why don't we rise up en masse, flout the quarantine or demand more access, an active press being fundamental to a democracy? Normally, cutting off the press poses at least the risk that reporters will turn against you. But a bit of Stockholm Syndrome has developed within the McCain press corps, a sense of awe at how deftly and brazenly the McCain campaign has rendered them useless and plugged its ears to their investigations. Reporters demolished the claim that the Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, and yet the McCain campaign insolently still uses it. Writers dismantled the McCain campaign's untrue assertion that Barack Obama compared Sarah Palin to a pig yesterday, and yet the campaign put out an audacious ad featuring the ridiculous allegation, presumably on the assumption that Real Americans don't care what the elite press says anyway. The press has started to buy into that theory, too. "It's great, right?" one reporter who travels with the campaign told me in the balcony, summing up the prevailing it's-evil-but-it's-brilliant view of the new McCain press strategy. "I mean, it's smart. Why should they talk to us? What's in it for them?"

--Eve Fairbanks

Posted: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:39 AM with 25 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

lamh31 said:

Because you guys are idiots, and have no self-respect or pride left.

September 10, 2008 10:08 AM

dbhuff said:

Well, simply, it is time for the press to assert itself. This is exactly the kind of roll over we got in the run up to the war in Iraq. Clearly McCain has learned. BUT if the press begins to cooperate, if the big new orgs begin to talk about this, or worse, start to paint their own picture of McCain, they'll get attention. Sorry Eve, you don't have the platform, but CNN has started ripping McCain, yesterday on Hardball and AC360. This kind of thing has to build until it hurts. The press should be respected and feared by candidates. It is the representative of the people.

September 10, 2008 10:11 AM

bondf said:

If Palin's a pin(like)head, what are you?

September 10, 2008 10:49 AM

michael said:

A cross-post of my reply to Michael's comment on sticky lips:

An exchange between Anderson Cooper (CNN) and Mark Halperin (TIME) last night:

HALPERIN: They knew exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign in the sense that every day they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more.

But I think this is a low point in the day and one of the low days of our collective coverage of this campaign. To spend even a minute on this expression, I think, is amazing and outrageous.

COOPER: Mark, has there ever been a vice presidential candidate who has yet to talk to the press at this point in the race?

HALPERIN: No. It's another thing that, again, I'm embarrassed about our profession for. She should be held more accountable for that.

The "bridge to nowhere" thing is outrageous. And if you press them on it, they'll fall because they know they can't defend what they're saying. They're staying it on the stump as a core part of their message, it's in their advertising.

I'm not saying the press should be out to get John McCain and Sarah Palin. But if a core part of their message is something that every journalist -- journalism organization in the country has looked at and says it's demonstrably false, again, we're not doing our jobs if we just treat this as one of many things that's happening.

The other three people who are on the national ticket have been scrutinized for months and in cases, years. We've got less than 60 days to do this. We'd better get about doing it. And if she doesn't cooperate in that more than she has, the public should be told that clearly.

[Toward the end Cooper asks if the GOP will continue this strategy]

HALPERIN: And now that the press and the Obama campaign is so sexist, of course she's not going to come forward and speak. I actually think now that they could probably keep her relatively sequestered for most of the remaining days. I really do.

==

Halperin was spot on and his last thoughts were what I'd expect from a campaign who has seen this much success with a sequestered Sarah. We may see file footage of her first two weeks for a month or so as she hides, I mean, as she is protected from the press.

September 10, 2008 10:54 AM

michael said:

As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They're Undone

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

<http://tinyurl.com/68ap6a>

===

At the bottom I notice this: "Staff writer Michael D. Shear, traveling with the McCain campaign, contributed to this report."

Sleep with the lights on, Michael.

September 10, 2008 11:19 AM

2736298 said:

here's an idea,

just as McCain boycotted Larry King, why not the entire press boycott McCain?

just a thought.

according to one theory, the selection of Ms Palin was designed to distract the public attention from GWB and conversations about how that administration has failed (clearly if they had not, there would be no desire to avoid the conversation by the GOP). and it's working really really well.

Boycott McCain. not the GOP just the same clowns that are boycotting americans by not answering questions.

September 10, 2008 11:23 AM

MichLib said:

This post is pretty disappointing. Having journalism as one of my degrees, I can say that the situation you just described is nothing else but pathetic. Reporters with "Stockholm Syndrome?" I didn't end up going down the route of political correspondent, but if I did I sure as hell would have more balls than any of you in McCain's press corps.

September 10, 2008 11:48 AM

RRB52 said:

The protestations of Eve Fairbanks regarding the lack of press access ring hollow;  she is complicit in her own neutering.  Apparently, it is now the intent of the McCain-Palin campaign to intimidate the press and limit legitimate inquiry.  It also appears that the press is more than willing to go along, becoming another weapon in the McCain-Palin arsenal.  What a surprise.

September 10, 2008 12:20 PM

GSpinks said:

"I mean, it's smart. Why should they talk to us? What's in it for them?"

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a summary argument for the decline of the American Civilization.

September 10, 2008 12:32 PM

JSmith125 said:

Eve, you mean "FLOUT" (resist) the quarantine. "Flaunting" (showing off) is what the McCain campaign is currently doing with Palin.

September 10, 2008 12:38 PM

cbeb said:

Why can McCain-Palin get away with keeping her away from the press? Here's one good reason: "55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations."  from a Rassmussen poll of a few days ago. WOW!

I think McCain-Palin will use the "Disney Vault" strategy. Keeping her away from the press in long enough intervals to have them salivating over getting the next avail. Here's a prediction, tomorrow night, Sept. 11, 2008 ABC World News Tonight will score the highest rating of any nightly newscast of the 21st century to watch Charlie Gibson and Gov Palin oversee her son's Iraq deployment. She'll answer some "tough" questions (how tough will depend on your political-leaning) from GIbson. She'll have a sound, witty, well-prepared retort to the "Bridge-to-Nowhere"/liar question which will certainly be asked. They'll spend the next day-and-a-half touring Alaska, with an occasional question lobbed her way, all the while with the breathtakingly beautiful Alaskan wilderness as the backdrop. She'll handle any and all questions deftly, but certainly not the the satisfaction any Democrat or Obama supporter. It will now have been a full two weeks of All-Sarah, All-The-Time in the media. Then she'll hit the road (no more press for a while) while the media and Dems slice and dice every word to every answer she gave Chuck, as she gives her stump speech to ever-larger, more adoring crowds.

Then this cycle will be repeated, maybe once (in Ohio) or twice (somewhere in PA) before the debate. That's my 2 cents. I've been wrong before, but we shall see.

September 10, 2008 12:39 PM

michael said:

It is not in a broadcaster's interest to provide quality programming. They don't increase their revenue because they aren't spanked at Fact Checker Inc. The endless attention they gave to Wright was not a pursuit of truth, justice and The American Way. The silliness of the primaries brought in viewers which meant higher ratings which meant a higher rate for advertising and they made more money from the chaotic Hillary and Barack show than any missing white girl in the Caribbean.

Plus, 24 hour news channels have a built in demo because 30% of the population will buy a ticket to anything that slams the left.

It's easy! One third of the total audience is up for grabs. The right may claim they don't trust the media but they'll flow to the source who fills their need. So, it's tough to survive without them and the only question is "How can we get more of them than the competition?"

Since Palin is the hottest ticket she'll drive the coverage. Think: OJ Trial.

I expect some wonder why the left doesn't have any bargaining power as the percentages are fairly even at either end of the spectrum. During a short, sensational cycle the networks know the left will be as addicted to seeing their candidate smeared in the same way people slow down to check out an accident on the Interstate. The left hates it but they just can't stop watching.

The strategy for broadcasters matches that of McCain toward the press. (See quote above.) We're further down the garbage chain but why should the networks talk to us?  "I mean, it's smart. Why should they talk to us? What's in it for them?"

I spent ten years in the biz but anyone who hung around for a few weeks would realize the GOP Circus is the best thing to hit Broadcastville.

"With 500 channels and the Internet available, you'd think a candidate could get the word out."  Larry King

Thanks, Larry...

September 10, 2008 1:00 PM

ChanRobt said:

If the media has lost all credibility, if the media can get no traction, the media has only itself to blame.

MSNBC's having to capitulate to popular outrage and put their grotesquely biased "anchors" on a leash is a watershed in the descent of the media.  Although, by no means the only one.

P.S.  I feel a bit sorry for Chris Matthews.  He's a good guy, a smart guy, and an insightful one.  But he ought not have been thrown into the role of "anchor".  

But, what really killed Matthews was being placed so close to the unredeemable Olbermann, a moron of the highest order, who is too stupid to even know that he is.  

Most self respecting village idiots do know their stupid.  But, Olbermann thinks he's Edward R. Murrow.

Good night.  And good luck.

September 10, 2008 1:22 PM

ChanRobt said:

The Left has no bargaining power, Michael, because the Left can always be counted on to do things that are stupid, outrageous, and counter productive to its own interests:  GENERAL BETRAYUS.

The Right may do things that are outrageous.  But, rarely stupid.  At least as it affects their own fortunes.  Cheney, notwithstanding, the GOP handles its weapons better and rarely shoots itself or its friends.

September 10, 2008 1:25 PM

ChanRobt said:

SPEAKING OF VILLAGE IDIOTS, CORRECTO:

Most self respecting village idiots do know they're stupid.

September 10, 2008 1:26 PM

lsernoff said:

Eve:  Will you be following up this piece with one on the rollicking good time the ink-stained wretches following Obama are having.  Just a few weeks ago the press were whining that they had inadequate access to him.

September 10, 2008 2:00 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Limbaugh and his ilk do things that are stupid all the time, not just outrageous. People on the right just choose to give them a pass because they help to feed the sense of resentment and outrage that underlies so much of Conservative reaction (and electoral strength).

September 10, 2008 2:36 PM

teplukhin2you said:

A suggestion: if you want your credibility back, create a Chinese Wall, in finance parlance, between blogging and reporting. Those journos who blog can snark all they like-- in fact, sarcasm, smirks' 'n' sneers will be their stock in trade. For the rest, play it straight, report the facts, ma'am.

September 10, 2008 3:54 PM

michael said:

Chan, your comment ("...the Left can always be counted on to do things that are stupid...The Right may do things that are outrageous.  But, rarely stupid") is a critique how information is presented to networks. A broadcaster doesn't care if content or the creator is objectively smarter or outrageous. The quality of content of is rarely a reason for inferior or superior ratings. Sport ratings (WWF versus Olympic Wrestling) or television drama (CSI Miami versus Masterpiece Theater) reveal little about quality. There is no correlation between artistic standards and an entertainment division's ratings.

I could argue that there is an inverse relation and inane, shocking and superficial programs achieve higher ratings. However, news programing does not rely upon the genius of either party.

Scandal or shock are not even presented in proportion to political significance as it occurs within each party. The thirty second clip, the three minute package and an hour documentary are of value when they draw the largest audience, not because they are pertinent or necessary to a voter's need to make an informed decision. However, the demos on the right do have an advantage even if their share of the market is roughly the same as the left. Most surveys reveal the right believes the media shares a left leaning bias. Yes, marketing information to consumers who are suspect is a challenge and success requires pandering to them.

But I do credit the GOP with choosing a VP that meets the needs of higher ratings or the public's preference for likability rather than fitness for the position or ability or need to be accountable for her position on the issues. I've written that it isn't difficult to perpetrate a fraud or a hoax for two months and a weakness in a democracy is short term success doesn't require proof of honor or integrity. We can both agree the success of McCain or Obama should not depend on which candidate has to do the least to achieve success.

The left could have chosen a less qualified candidate and only sought to manipulate the media and consumers for 60 days. I am more impressed by Obama's judgment. I am objective and would be no less outraged had Barack been risky with the choice of his potential successor. I admit that McCain may be rewarded for his carelessness but it was a shameful decision. Chan, both of us should be cautious in praising either party for their ability to succeed when the consequence of winning transcends ratings. This is a Presidential Election, not American Idol.

September 10, 2008 4:14 PM

RRB52 said:

I agree, generally, with the comments of cbeb concerning the upcoming Palin interview.  ABC has already been outmaneuvred by the McCain campaign, and the liklihood of Charles Gibson asking tough questions of Palin ranges from slim to none.  No doubt he will ask a general question about the bridge to nowhere, and he will receive a rehearsed, general answer.  He will not keep his questions short and structured so that they may be answered with a simple yes or no, thus allowing obfuscating explanations.  Exposure of the truth is less important to Gibson than the maintenance of his good relations with the McCain campaign, and his wish to be seen as a "gentleman."

One last thought: how might Palin respond if she were asked "Do you support the passage/ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment?"

September 10, 2008 4:16 PM

GSpinks said:

"the unredeemable Olbermann, a moron of the highest order,"

So what's your excuse for Sean and Bill? They out-match Keith pound for pound on blowhard, but neither of Fox's Golden-Boys has met a fact they couldn't distort or lie they wouldn't tell.

September 10, 2008 4:54 PM

ChanRobt said:

GSpinks, one big difference is that Hannity and O'Reilly are billed as commentators and act in the opinion capacity only.  They are never used as anchors, a position which people understand is supposed to be as neutral and evenhanded as possible.

The second difference is Hannity, and even O'Reilly to the best of his ability, leaven their opinions with some wit.  

Third, Hannity, especially debates with other people, starting with the hapless Colmes, whom I'll admit is a weak sister who gives him little competition.  But, Hannity has plenty of people on with opinions opposite of his who are worthy opponents.  That leavens his opinionating.

I am not in love with O'Reilly.  He is often a pompous and clueless bloviator.  But, he does go out of his way to air opposing opinions.

And as I said before, I have no problem with Chris Wallace.  He is bright, nuanced, insightful, makes original comments, and has some apparent and interesting life experience.

Olbermann is simply not that smart.  He's a witless poseur.  He is a constant pontificator, impressing himself mightily with his alliteration and erudition.

And most pathetically, he truly does seem to think he's a newo Murrow, underlining it with that pretentious good night and good luck thing every night.

There are plenty of people who write columns or are on air commentator with whom I do not agree, but whom I respect for iintelligently and skillfully presenting their points of view.

Olbermann is an immature man appealing to a sophomoric audience.  A real insult to the legacy of NBC-- Huntley, Brinkley, Brokaw and many more.

September 10, 2008 6:46 PM

ChanRobt said:

michael, the Left has a lot of talent in the arts.  We could both name dozens of actors, writers, and directors of impressive talent.

But, for some reason, on the political propaganda front, the Left and the Democratic Party have essentially been hijacked by the likes of MoveOn.org and Kos.

Both of the above are puerile and very unskilled in communications.  And I say this from the perspective of a professional propagandist with a long career in the advertising business.

GENERAL BETRAYUS is just tuypic of the kind of stuff that dominates the Left's attempts at agitprop.  (I'll give credit to Michael Moore, a veritable Lefty Goebbles, very skilled in the long form.)

Because your agitators still operate in the style of 60s street  types, but with no sense of humor, they make your side look foolish and stupid on a regular basis.

You may dislike Limbaugh, for instance.  But, objectively speaking-- and even his opponents acknowledge this-- he is no idiot.  His many years of success in annoying and outmaneuvering the other side prove it.  Not to mention his immense audience.

September 10, 2008 6:51 PM

mdortiz said:

I hapen to agree with the last comment, inspite of its tone, I think the press and individual journalists like yourself should assert their right to question and demand answers. We are, still, a democracy! I have watched "Democracy Now" since 2000 because I relized the regular mainstream so called cooporate media have abandoned thier duties for more conforatable less demanding cushing jobs. Yes, why do you choose to sit in the balcony... can you refuse to follow their shepering?

Please get some self-respect! With all due respect.

A hopeful member of the American polity.

September 10, 2008 9:17 PM

teplukhin2you said:

What Chan said. Spoken like a pro-- which he is. Listen to him.

September 10, 2008 11:32 PM