Media Coverage of Obama and McCain: "Nuts" or a "Disgrace"?

By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America. Posted July 17, 2008.

Journalism, by nature, is not difficult. It really isn't. Most of the key attributes for solid reporting and editing come naturally to most people; fairness, hard work, and -- most important -- common sense.

News judgment, for instance, consists mostly of editors and producers using common sense to determine, based on the limited resources at hand, which breaking events and stories should be covered, and which ones can be set aside as less important.

During the slow summer months of a presidential campaign, that judgment and that common sense is usually even easier to put into practice because, traditionally, so little happens on the campaign trail with the candidates that what ought to be covered becomes self-evident.

Yet the Beltway press corps has become so borderline dysfunctional that even the simplest tasks, such as selecting which stories to cover -- such as using common sense -- now escape most of the major players at the mainstream news organizations.

Two events in recent days reaffirmed that sad conclusion, when entire news organizations opted to throw all sorts of time and attention at what was essentially a pointless campaign-related sideshow, while simultaneously displaying blanket indifference to what should have been the campaign story of the week, if not the month or possibly the entire summer.

Last week, after being hyped by Matt Drudge and Fox News, the Beltway press unanimously decided that Rev. Jesse Jackson's whispered comments, picked up on a live television set mic, in which he expressed anger with Sen. Barack Obama and used some crude language to convey his sentiments (i.e. he wanted to cut off Obama's "nuts"), represented a hugely important event. It was the most-covered campaign story of the week.

By contrast, McCain said at a campaign appearance in Denver on July 7 that the Social Security system as structured in America, in which younger people pay taxes to support the benefits of retirees, is an "absolute disgrace" -- but his proclamation was mostly passed over as being irrelevant. The disconnect between the coverage was astounding.

As of Sunday morning, only 17 major metropolitan newspapers in America had reported on McCain's "disgraceful" remark, in a total of 20 articles and columns, according to search of Nexis.

By contrast, more than 50 major U.S. dailies published a total of 126 articles and columns about the Jackson story. Several influential newspapers went back to the story ad nauseam. Combined, the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times and Los Angeles Times published 39 different articles and columns that referenced the Jackson-Obama controversy.

By contrast, the combined number of stories and columns those three newspapers published that made reference to the McCain "disgrace" controversy? One.

On television, the disparity was even more striking. Again, as of Sunday morning there had been nearly 900 mentions of "Jesse Jackson" over the previous five days on the cable and networks news channels, according to a search of TVeyes.com.

On those same news outlets there had been less than 24 references to McCain's "disgrace" comment. And not a single network newscast reported on the Social Security story. For reporters and pundits, "nuts" reigned over the "disgrace." Even days after the Jackson story faded, I was still left scratching my head trying to figure out exactly what significance, if any, the episode represented. Yes, it was embarrassing for Jackson. Yes, Jackson is famous. Yes, it's mildly amusing to hear what famous people like Jackson really think when they assume they cannot be overheard. But that doesn't explain why Jackson grabbed approximately 900 television mentions last week, or why reporters spent an inordinate amount of time "analyzing" the repercussions from the "nuts" swipe.

I could see how it would've been a big deal if the person behind the hot mic had been a prominent Clinton supporter, for instance, and how the same type of crude language might have reflected a larger, possibly still-lingering rift between the two Democratic camps. Thus, the comments coming from that person would have had real political meaning.

But Jackson is a civil rights leader who often speaks for African-Americans -- who, according to the polls, are among Obama's most stalwart, unwavering supporters. I just didn't understand how Jackson's comments could be interpreted as representing a larger, widespread problem for the Obama campaign (i.e., actual news). Jackson, obviously speaking only for himself, said something nasty under his breath about the Democratic candidate whom he supports. That's blockbuster news that has to be mentioned on TV 900 times in the span of just a few days?

See more stories tagged with: media, obama, mccain, jesse jackson, social security

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