An article I recently read on the New York Times' website discussed Senator John McCain's campaigning techniques, especially focusing on how he now is shifting his attention towards criticizing and attacking Senator Barack Obama.
The article is the normal newspaper article covering the shifting nature of presidential campaigning. However, there are two things noticeable about it: the negative light in which McCain's campaign is portrayed, and an editorial that was printed in the same issue as this article.
The editorial I am referring to slammed the McCain campaign's techniques over the last few weeks, calling the campaign one of the "most appalling campaigns we can remember" and that "Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison."
And this article, which discusses how McCain has begun to "race through" the major issues of tax cuts, health care, and a spending freeze in order to spend the majority of his speech criticizing Obama's judgment and character.
Sure, even a completely objective assessment would put this approach to campaigning in a negative light, and McCain's campaign even acknowledged the shift from issues to criticizing Obama as a strategy to take the focus away from the failing economy, which is considered a weak point in voters' minds for McCain.
But still, reading an article like this makes me question the neutrality of the media. Of course conservatives have been railing on the media as being wildly liberal, and the McCain campaign responded to the editorial by accusing the NY Times of being "150% for Obama" and "an Obama advocacy organization".
And the media plays such an important role in electoral politics, and politics in general. Outside of direct contact from candidates and politicians (debates, speeches, etc.), people rely on the media to be a medium in which they can see an objective portrayal of them.
For example, the article is talking about the stump speeches that McCain and Governor Sarah Palin have been giving in key battleground states, but these speeches are given only to a few hundred in attendance, a great majority of whom are staunch supporters. The candidates and undecided voters alike are relying on the media to relay what happened to the public.
Even with debates, those that didn't watch the debate, and even many of those that do, turn to the media to get their take on what happened.
It's hard to imagine the editors of the Times plotting to cover this process in a consciously detrimental way for the conservatives. But even still, you would have to think that they would be sensitive to furthering the notion that the media is liberal while still working to objective report and cover the news.
This specific article, in my opinion, needed to be a little more conscious of this, especially in the light of the editorial that bashed McCain's campaign. Perhaps the article could have gotten insight from the McCain's campaign as to the thinking behind the change in champaigning strategy, rather than just observe what's going on.
The article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09mccain.html?ref=politics
The editorial can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/opinion/08wed1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I always find it interesting when an editorial aligns perfectly with a front page story. It happens often in the Wall Street Journal. Yet, these news organizations consistently insist that there is a wall between the editorial and hard news departments. Sometimes, I wonder. You did a great job drawing a parallel between the two pieces. I also find it amusing that every election is supposedly the dirtiest in history. As if this is the first time a candidate has attacked another candidate's character. It's politics. John McCain is not reinventing the wheel.
Post a Comment