"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser

	July 11, 2008
The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America Access denied For years, the media's favorable treatment of John McCain has been so impossible to deny that many journalists have refused to even try, choosing to explain the favoritism rather than contest its existence. One common explanation has always been that the media treat McCain well because he treats them well, offering them unprecedented access and candor. This has always been a troubling explanation to those who think that the media should report candidates' flaws regardless of the candidates' efforts to keep them fat and happy with jelly doughnuts and jocular nicknames. Hours of back-of-the-bus conversations fueled by sweetened baked goods may justify reporters liking McCain better than other candidates, but they don't justify treating him better than other candidates. But that's just what happens. Time's Ana Marie Cox explained recently: This is something that I've said whenever discussions of McCain -- McCain's sort of courting of the press comes up. I think that with McCain, it's not that he's such a great, charismatic guy; it is actually just the simple fact of access that makes people give him that second chance. [...] McCain's traveling press corps, I think, tend to like him very much and are appreciative of that time that he spends with them. And, even though the access is not as good as it used to be, there's a great deal of effort put into making journalists, you know, sort of a part of the process. And his staff, you know, loves to hang out with journalists. And so, there's just sort of an aura of access. [...] Anyway, I mean, I think it's, like, sort of like obvious ... that, like, more access is good for democracy. But access doesn't do much for democracy if reporters don't use that access to help voters understand the candidates' positions. And it is abundantly clear that the reporters who enjoy McCain's company on his campaign bus have not used their access as well as they could. Nearly seven months after John McCain said he wouldn't mind keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years, then explained that he didn't mean American troops would continue fighting in Iraq, political reporters haven't used their vaunted access to McCain to ask him how long he would be willing to keep fighting. Nor have they used their access to ask him to reconcile his statement that American troops would remain in Iraq just like they remain in South Korea with his previous statement that the two situations are not analogous. They haven't asked him to reconcile his previous criticism of the Bush tax cuts as unfairly skewed toward the wealthy with the fact that he now advocates tax cuts that would save McCain and his wealthy wife nearly $400,000 per year. They haven't asked him to reconcile his (and their) claims that he is a "maverick" with the fact that he's voted with George W. Bush 95 percent of the time this year -- a higher percentage than any other senator. They haven't asked him countless other completely obvious questions. Or, if they have, they've kept his answers secret. Instead, they engage in what The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza described as "long stretches of banter punctuated by short, intense discussions of politics and policy." (Not long stretches of policy discussions punctuated by short banter. Long stretches of banter. That's how the political reporters who cover McCain make use of this wonderful "access" the great man grants them. Banter. Long banter.) They haven't gotten any straight answers out of John McCain about exactly how he would, as he promises, reduce the deficit while cutting taxes for rich people like John and Cindy McCain and continuing the Iraq war indefinitely. The bus fills with "the awkward silence of journalists with no more questions" before such matters are explained. But reporters do make sure to talk to McCain about his feelings about a pet chicken and Marlon Brando movies. They ask his favorite word (and, for all we know, what kind of tree he would be if he were he a tree.) According to The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, one reporter aboard the 2000 version of the Straight Talk Express "actually apologized before asking a policy question, apologized to the other reporters." The Chicago Tribune's James Warren agreed: "if you want to see people groan, you should see them in back of the McCain bus when I start engaging him on the subject of U.S. policy toward Rwanda." (Bob Somerby has cataloged these and other examples of the media's misuse and abuse of their access to John McCain at The Daily Howler.) Now, it's perfectly fine for journalists to ask the occasional frivolous question, even if there are serious ones still unanswered. There's nothing wrong with -- every once in a while -- having a bite of dessert before you finish your asparagus. But reporters have had months to press McCain on how long he is willing to continue fighting in Iraq, or on his shifting positions on whether the U.S. can maintain forces there as we do in South Korea, or on why he is now backing tax policies that would save him and his wife hundreds of thousands of dollars when he previously criticized similar tax cuts for being too skewed toward the wealthy. The asparagus is getting awfully cold. The truth is, not only have journalists done a poor job of using the access McCain grants them, but their access isn't as great as they claim. Two months ago, after Newsweek published an article the McCain camp didn't like, McCain aide Mark Salter reportedly threatened to throw the magazine's reporters off the campaign bus. During the 2000 campaign, an Arizona Republic reporter was kicked off the bus after her newspaper ran an editorial questioning whether McCain "has the temperament and the political approach and skills we want in the next president of the United States." In August 2006, a senior McCain strategist allegedly told another Arizona Republic reporter he was "off the bus" after an article the McCain camp didn't like. In late June, The Washington Post reported that McCain's new campaign plane features a "special area" with a couch and captain's chairs where McCain will conduct interviews -- and that Salter said "only the good reporters" would get to sit in the area; "You'll have to earn it." Asked about Salter's comments, the Post's Howard Kurtz wrote: "I think Mark Salter ... was joking and we should all lighten up. Can you imagine the uproar if the McCain campaign actually had a policy of rewarding favorable reporters with access to the candidate on the plane and shutting out those who dared to be critical? There would be a media revolt." But would there be a revolt? McCain's hostility toward Arizona reporters has long been known, and there was no media revolt. His campaign has reportedly kicked at least one off a campaign bus, and there was no revolt. Salter reportedly threatened to throw Newsweek off the bus just a month before he "joked" about reporters having to "earn" a seat next to McCain -- and there was no revolt. Just this week, Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn wrote that "it seem[s] that the McCain campaign has been screening questioners during the conference calls featuring campaign aides and top-level surrogates it mounts for reporters." According to Corn, he and at least one other progressive reporter have repeatedly tried to ask questions during those conference calls, with no success, leading "several journalists who have participated in these calls to wonder: is the McCain campaign screening reporters, and, if so, on what basis?" Corn describes one call on which he was waiting to ask a question when a McCain aide ended the call, claiming "we are out of questions" and another in which "only two questions were taken" -- and both were "soft balls" from conservative bloggers. When Corn contacted the McCain campaign -- multiple times -- about whether it screens questions on the calls, the campaign did not respond. (A McCain spokesperson did eventually -- and vaguely -- answer a question from Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent about the calls, claiming the campaign "take[s] on all comers.") It may not involve a privileged seat on the campaign plane, but Corn's story seems a pretty clear example of the McCain campaign "rewarding favorable reporters with access ... and shutting out those who dared to be critical." And there has been no revolt. "Access" doesn't mean anything -- isn't "good for democracy" -- if the reporters won't use it, and if they are punished when they do. But rather than "revolt," the "good reporters" gush about the access they are granted. It seems reporters who talk about how much access McCain allows probably aren't using it very well. And whatever access reporters used to have is apparently dwindling. The Wall Street Journal's Elizabeth Holmes reported this week: In his fight for the Republican nomination, John McCain allowed almost unlimited access to reporters. Now, as the Arizona senator re-organizes his operation and tightens control of his message, the campaign has taken to cherry-picking who and what media outlets get the most face-time with the candidate. [...] McCain's about-face is not new. For about a month, the national press has had very limited access, which is in stark contrast to the primary season and the early start of the general election contest. The Post's Michael Shear added: Welcome to the new John McCain press strategy. Avoid them. McCain today held a 10-minute press conference, complete with podium, microphones for the questioners, network-quality audio and a camera for a local television station, which allowed CNN to carry it live. And where was the national press corps? Sitting on the runway 27 miles away, having been ferried to McCain's charter plane, totally unaware that a press availability was about to take place until one of the handful of "pool reporters" sent an e-mail alert. The reporters frantically fired up their cellular modems and logged on to CNN.com to catch the end of the press conference, unable to ask any questions. That's interesting -- according to Shear, the national press corps was not only not invited to the press conference, they were "ferried" 27 miles away from the candidate, without being told that the presser was occurring. Sound familiar? It should. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton met at Dianne Feinstein's house in June, Obama's campaign didn't tell reporters about the meeting, instead flying them to Chicago while Obama stayed in Washington for the meeting. The media were so incensed at the treatment that the Washington bureau chiefs of six leading news organizations signed a letter to the Obama campaign complaining: Last night, the press corps traveling with Senator Obama was misled, and was also flown to Chicago without the Senator. The Washington bureau chiefs of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News, and the Associated Press strongly protest the events of last night. Granted, Chicago and Washington are more than 27 miles apart. But the principle is the same: This week, McCain's traveling press corps was "ferried" miles away while the candidate, unbeknownst to the reporters, held a press conference. If any news organization has sent a letter to the McCain campaign complaining, they haven't told anyone else. The bureau chiefs concluded: Going forward, we know from experience that covering a presidential campaign requires that some representatives of the press corps be with, or near, the Senator at all times as part of the "security package," just as the White House press corps is with the president. There may be times when the Senator needs to address the press corps about unexpected and dramatic news events, and there may be times when history demands the press corps be in close proximity to the Senator. This is standard operating procedure for the President of the United States, a job to which he aspires, and for presumptive nominees. The request apparently worked: In late June, Time's Karen Tumulty reported, "The press corps covering Barack Obama has insisted upon what is known as a 'protective pool,' similar to the one that is always on duty with the President." Tumulty then quoted the pool report. But guess what? John McCain does not have such a pool, according to a blog post by Tumulty this week: "Many of our commenters have asked whether John McCain has a similar protective pool arrangement. As it happens, I am traveling with the McCain campaign this week ... and can report definitively that he does not. However, campaign officials have indicated to reporters that establishing one is a possibility in the near future." So, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, and the Associated Press wrote a letter to Obama demanding "protective pool" coverage of Obama, a request his campaign granted. But, it turns out, John McCain has not granted this access -- and the media have kept quiet about it. Yet another excuse for the media's favorable treatment of McCain is in shambles.	Forward This E-mail To A Friend Share your concern about conservative misinformation Sign up Did a friend forward you this email? Click here to sign up to receive Media Matters for America email alerts.
You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking here © 2007 Media Matters for America 1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036