Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Press Is Only Too Happy to Burnish McCain's Reputation

By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America. Posted May 14, 2008.


There literally would be no McCain brand if the press hadn't methodically built it and then enthusiastically promoted it.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


Campaign aides for Sen. John McCain want very much to sell the American public on the "McCain brand" and to pitch the Republican candidate as a sort of stand-alone, untarnished political entity, according to a recent Washington Post article.



The marketing ploy, if successful, would not only create distance between the candidate and the rest of the Republican Party, which currently suffers from widespread voter disapproval, it would also effectively elevate McCain and make him a larger-than-life figure, the spokesman for his own maverick brand that's built on political independence.



"The campaign's general-election strategy is to sell the McCain brand to show voters that he is distinct from President Bush and other Republicans," the Post reported.



So guess what members of the press, including those at MSNBC, CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, Newsweek, the Politico, and The Boston Globe, have been doing incessantly in recent weeks. They've been making glowing references to the durability and appeal of the "McCain brand." I mean, how lucky can the Republicans get? The press is echoing precisely the message that the candidate's advisers want repeated again and again. What are the odds?



I assume the sarcasm is coming through loud and clear here.



We all know McCain is supposed to be a maverick. That phony meme has been drummed into voters' heads for nearly a decade now. Yet as Media Matters for America has shown, the media use the label "maverick" despite the many times McCain has fallen in line with the Bush administration or the Republican Party establishment, a lifetime rating of 83 by the American Conservative Union, and his recent rightward shift on high-profile issues such as immigration and taxes. (For the longer, in-depth dissections of that McCain's media free ride, go here.)



Now, in a sort of Phase Two, McCain's all-around maverick-ness is being elevated into an iconic brand status, right alongside Ford and Nike.



The media, which admire the corporatization of campaigns, are hugely impressed by the development. Successful branding represents a kind of marketing nirvana in which you're able, via a collection of images and idea, to differentiate yourself -- or your product -- from others that appear to be identical. (High-profile political journalists understand the career significance of branding and work feverishly during the campaign season to create their own media brand.)



Indeed, the term "brand" conjures up an impenetrable, irrevocable image, an entrenched vision that cannot be altered. In the business world, it often takes a catastrophic event to change people's perception of a well-established and respected brand. As the Post article noted, "The selling of McCain is rooted in
one of the oldest theories of product marketing: that a successful brand identity, once established in the American psyche, is virtually impossible to blunt or damage."



So in a way, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the press. By discussing McCain in terms of a formal brand, they're suggesting that McCain's reputation as a maverick has become so embedded, so ingrained, that it has transcended into a formal trademark. And since it's a brand, who are journalists to question it or to alter it?



Of course, when reporters and pundits fawn over the mighty McCain brand, almost none of them acknowledges the central role they played in building it. In fact, the press is almost entirely responsible for the marketing of McCain. So when admiring the McCain brand, journalists are really just admiring their own handiwork.



Branding, and brand management, is certainly nothing new in politics, nor is there anything inherently wrong with it. Campaigns today are often less about the candidates running as themselves and more about them running as an extension of who voters perceive them to be. As Fast Company magazine recently noted, "Politics, after all, is about marketing -- about projecting and selling an image, stoking aspirations, moving people to identify, evangelize, and consume."



In fact, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has won widespread acclaim for the innovative steps it has taken, from social networking and graphic design, to successfully launch the Obama brand. "Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand," Keith Reinhard, chairman emeritus of the advertising giant DDB Worldwide, told Fast Company. "New, different, and attractive. That's as good as it gets."



But Obama's campaign, like most truly national marketing endeavors, has spent an enormous amount of money on mass communications to help build his unique and durable brand.



With the often cash-strapped McCain however, all that heavy lifting has been done by the press, pro bono. Or can you name a single McCain television ad that solidifies his brand, or the ground-breaking communications approach that has become synonymous with his campaign? I suspect you cannot, because in terms of forward-thinking, creative marketing, McCain's campaign remains utterly forgettable. But what he does have is an entire political press corps doing his marketing and branding for him by incessantly tagging him as a maverick.



What's also unique with McCain is that the press itself constantly and openly refers to the McCain brand as its own entity. It wraps the candidate in his own brand and openly refers to his candidacy in that kind of reverential language. By contrast, how many articles and headlines in the political press do you see touting "the Obama brand"?



Here's a recent sampling of the media's obsession with pushing the McCain brand:


  • "Senator John McCain commands one of the strongest brands in American politics: maverick Republican, reformer, willing to challenge the party hierarchy." [The Boston Globe]



  • "McCain has cultivated an image that has branded him as an independent maverick now for more than a decade." [Jonathan Weisman, The Washington Post]


  • "[McCain's] got a pretty strong brand identity as being a maverick and being anti-politics and anti-Washington." [NBC's David Gregory]


  • "John McCain's brand has been pretty well-established since 2000. He's likable. He's a maverick." [John Harwood, CNBC and The New York Times]


  • "The maverick brand is intact for John McCain." [John Harwood]


  • "[T]he perception right now of McCain is someone who's experienced, someone who they see not of the Republican brand or the Bush brand, but of the maverick brand." [NBC's Tim Russert]


  • "McCain's poverty tour builds his brand but raises questions" [McClatchy Newspapers

    headline]


  • "By virtue of his maverick brand, nontraditional stances on key issues and his Western roots, McCain may be able to compete in states that were far out of reach for Bush and that have otherwise been trending away from Republicans." [the Politico]


  • "Polishing the McCain Brand" [headline of a Kenneth Blackwell column in The New York Sun]


  • "[McCain's] out there working on his brand: I'm a different kind of Republican. I'll fight Bush here. I'll reach out with Democrats there. I'm a guy you can trust. I'm a patriot." [CNN's John King]



And again, what's completely missing from the brand discussion is any acknowledgement of the media's central role in its creation. There literally would be no McCain brand if the press hadn't methodically built it and then enthusiastically promoted it.



Worse, the press rarely details instances in which McCain obviously flip-flops -- political maneuvers that any neutral observer would say damage a maverick brand of integrity.



A recent and glaring example was highlighted on May 1, the fifth anniversary of President Bush's Iraq war speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln with the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner hanging behind him. Asked about that five-year remembrance on the campaign trail, McCain said using a banner that asserted "Mission Accomplished" "was wrong at the time."



But back on June 11, 2003, during an appearance on Fox News, when the topic of the "Mission Accomplished" event came up, McCain did not criticize the banner or the speech. Instead, he suggested the event proved that "the major conflict is over" and that, "the regime change has been accomplished."



McCain also said on the "Mission Accomplished" anniversary that while he didn't blame Bush for the "specific banner," "I do say that statements are made, 'a few dead-enders,' 'last throes,' those are, as opposed to the banner, direct statements which were contradicted by the facts on the ground."



But this, too, is revisionism on McCain's part. While he did criticize the administration's overly optimistic descriptions of progress in Iraq at a 2006 campaign event for then-Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), three days later, under criticism from the right, McCain backed down, putting out a press release "commend[ing]" President Bush "for his public statements offering Americans an honest assessment of the progress we have made in Iraq."



McCain has also performed unsightly flip-flops on immigration and taxes. Yet even in the wake of those political contortions, which the press routinely ignores, reporters and pundits actively embraced the "brand" talk -- the same rhetoric that the McCain campaign is actively touting.



Still, reporters defend the incessant maverick hyperbole. Chatting with readers online recently, The Washington Post's Weisman insisted the maverick label stuck because McCain often "clashed" with Bush. Providing an example, Weisman noted that McCain "fought the GOP over tobacco in 1998." It's true that in 1998, McCain backed legislation to regulate the tobacco industry that most of his GOP colleagues did not support. And McCain stressed he would "never" give up his efforts to regulate the industry. However, as the blog Think Progress pointed out:




Weisman's defense of McCain's self-ascribed "maverick" label falls short of the facts. The reality is that McCain's "never" pledge didn't last very long. Not only has he since voted against a bill that would have raised tobacco taxes by 61 cents in order to pay for an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but McCain is now backing away from a tobacco regulation bill that he co-sponsored.

Forget all those facts, though. Because according to Weisman, when it comes to McCain the maverick, "It's going to be hard to break the brand."



And even harder with the press so busy promoting and polishing it.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, john mccain

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
U.S. Major Media: Merely the Ruling Class PR Department
Posted by: lorenbliss on May 14, 2008 6:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No critique of Big Business mass media's alleged coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign is complete without noting the extent to which its propaganda writers perpetuate what is by far the biggest and most maliciously deceptive of Hillary Clinton’s many Big Lies: her claim she supports "universal" health care.

The damning truth, of course, is quite different; excluding the 1994 fiasco by which she (deliberately?) enabled the Harry and Louise campaign to destroy forever any hope this nation will adopt single-payer health insurance -- Hillary has never proposed genuinely "universal" health care. Nor does she now propose any meaningful health-care reform. What she proposes instead is simply MANDATORY payments to the health insurance monopoly.

In other words -- like the closet Republican she is -- she intends to guarantee the survival of the insurance companies by forcing all of us to finance their obscene profits and pornocratic executive salaries. What’s more -- again typical of her Republican values -- she would savagely retaliate against those of us who are too poor to participate in this colossal swindle, imposing on us an impossibly ruinous choice of penalties: either a pay-or-go-to-prison succession of fines and tax-surcharges, or acceptance of stipends in return for total submission to the unspeakable tyranny of the welfare bureaucracy -- the result a terror-stricken state of degradation and abject powerlessness scarcely different from the lot of a prisoner, and in any case unimaginable to those who have not experienced it firsthand.

All of which -- just as Hillary and her financiers intend -- would not only lock the present system in place forever but effectively prohibit any future efforts at healthcare reform. It would also legalize our eternal enslavement to ever-skyrocketing insurance costs and thus to the ever-more-omnipotent insurance lords themselves, much as all of the United States outside the New York metropolitan area is already hopelessly enslaved by Big Oil and Big Automotive. Thus by analogy the true purpose of all such mandatory insurance schemes becomes obvious: not liberation from disease and insecurity, but its diametrical opposite -- yet another step in the methodical reduction of the American people to inescapable serfdom.

Speaking of the BBMM and its ever-more-brazen Voelkischer Beobachter function of propagandizing the U.S. electorate, note that The New York Times online has thus far refused to publish the original version of the above comment, which I filed last night as a response to Katharine Q. Seelye's "Clinton's Universal Bargaining Chip," an opinion piece that falsely portrays Clinton's quest for the presidency as, at its core, a quest for "universal" healthcare. My original version was essentially the same as the text above, though it ended as follows, answering one of the questions posed by Seelye:

As to the identity of Hillary’s suitable running-mate, the only possible choice is John McCain -- for whom, with her vicious agitation of racism, she is already actively campaigning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You should be writing for Alternet Posted by: countingdaisies
Be prepared when the shit hits the fan
Posted by: countingdaisies on May 14, 2008 10:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sheeple better open their eyes, the wolves will be biting soon. I really hate what they have already done to Obama. Hope he manages to make it through when it becomes knee deep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCains Health Care Plan
Posted by: JSquercia on May 15, 2008 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John McCain's health care plan would be a disaster for this country but a boon to the Health Insurance INDUSTRY . He would eliminate the deduction Corporations get for providing Health Insurance . The claim is that the corporations would in turn raise the workers salaries . Yes and if you believe THAT please stop by to buy a wonderful Bridge in Brooklyn . So now you have to purchase Insurance for yourself and your family . You will of course NOT be able to get the same price as your employer was able since you are an individual . Estimate is a policy for your Family would probably cost in the pricey neighborhood of $12,000 but NOT to worry Johnny generously will give a $5,000 tax Credit leaving you with only $7,000 to pay from your pocket . This of course assumes you do NOT have a pre-existing condition as Senator McCain or Elizabeth Edwards do .
Here is my SUGGESTION to the Dems run a NEW Harry and Louise Ad in which Harry discovers that he can't afford HIS Health Insurance and learns that Louise can NOT get ANY coverage due to a pre-existing condition

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

article is good but how can we fight media bias for Mccain
Posted by: whealeydj on May 17, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
other than by poining out that brand name means PR which means propaganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain's "brand" is FAKE and must be exposed
Posted by: MavTX on May 22, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is going to have to be a grassroots effort to fight media bias for McCain. This means blogs, YouTube, emails, publishing the truth about the plasticity of the McCain brand.

McCain has established a disturbing pattern of misusing his role as a lawmaker by creating laws and loopholes that benefits lobbyist, his friends (only the rich and powerful), his family, and indirectly benefit him.

McCain has consistently demonstrated throughout his political career that he is guilty of double-speak. He consistently he attempts to appease whatever audience he's standing in front of at the time.

In a string, spanning decades, of McCain engineered land swaps benefitting "his friends", Rob Smith, director of the Sierra Club's Arizona affiliate states, "When the public trust intersects with private interests, basically, he (McCain) has favored land development . . . in every case,"

Rob's statement can be applied to all of McCain's grandstanding. McCain is an accomplished "Pretender", and all these land swaps, the flip-flops, the McCain-Fieingold bill that birthed the 527’s, the loophole laws demonstrate that upon closer scrutiny of his political life, McCain's brand is just plain scary.

McCain graduated 3rd from the bottom at Naval Academy, not ready for prime time in 2000 and past his prime in 2008 - - clueless on the economy, foreign policy, flip-flops, double-speaks, extremist and flawed spiritual advisors, close ties and friends with unscupulous lobbyist - - at best he’s an enigma and at worse he’s the 16 personalities of Sybil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement