Anchors Away! (On Obama's Overseas Adventure)

Yesterday, Howard Kurtz reported that the three network anchors would be traveling overseas nextt week to cover Barack Obama's trip to Europe and the Middle East. In his report, he noted that none of Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric accompanied John McCain on his trip to Europe in March, nor his trip to South America a few weeks ago.

Today, the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg explores this difference a little further:

The extraordinary coverage planned for Mr. Obama's trip, though in part solicited by aides, reflects how the candidate remains an object of fascination in the news media, a built-in feature of being the first black presidential nominee for a major political party and a relative newcomer to the national stage.

But the coverage also feeds into concerns in Mr. McCain's campaign, and among Republicans in general, that the news media are imbalanced in their coverage of the candidates, just as aides to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton felt during the primary season.

Let's step back for a moment. Recall what was happening in March while McCain was in overseas: The thick of the Democratic primary — which would not end for three months — and, oh yes, the Jeremiah Wright scandal, followed by Obama's race speech on March 18th, which absolutely dominated the news cycle in that week. Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism estimated that it was the "significant or dominant factor" in 72% of campaign stories, with Clinton at 30% and McCain at 17%.

The speech dominated a big news week, too — on Monday, Bear Stearns had collapsed. Fini. On Tuesay, Obama gave his speech. On Wednesday, it was the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War. There was a lot going on.

That was the week that McCain was overseas — bad luck for him, but that's life. He didn't make much news while he was over there — except for his Sunni-Shia gaffe in Jordan, which also happened on March 18th, so he was damned lucky Obama's race speech was around to distract from it. Otherwise, the trip was meant to position him next to world leaders and pump-up his foreign policy credentials, and that's basically what was reported. Oh yeah, he had a fundraiser in London. Stop the presses!

You can't wish yourself into news, nor can you control what the media will focus on (just ask the Obama campaign after their debut of his faux Presidential seal, which will remain a punchline for the rest of the campaign. Yes, an Obama punchline! Dare to dream!). The fact is, Obama's trip is much bigger news than McCain's was.

Never mind that the McCain campaign was responsible for hyping the fact that Obama hadn't been recently to Iraq — the whole nature of Obama's trip is different. He's the Democratic nominee for president following eight years under George W. Bush, during which the international reputation of the United States took a major beating. Out in the world, the next president will have some serious fences to mend. McCain is the heir to Bush, whether he likes it or not — which means he's more of the same. Obama is different. To put it mildly.

Also: There will be some actual news on this trip. Obama was invited by the Mayor of Berlin to speak before the Brandenburg Gate, in an image that, if it happens, will evoke both John F. Kennedy ("Ich bin ein Berliner")and Ronald Reagan ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"). Come on. Now that's an irresistible image — and television trades in images. Adding to the fun, though, is a wrinkle from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who reportedly isn't thrilled at the historic German monument being used as a campaign backdrop. Will Obama's grandiose plans for political stagecraft trigger an international incident? Details tonight at 6:30!

There's no doubt that Obama makes news differently than McCain or, formerly, Hillary Clinton. But there's a "fairness" difference in covering candidates equally and meticulously allotting them equal time and coverage, no matter what they happen to be doing. The first makes sense, and should be and overarching goal of every news organization. The second is ridiculous and shouldn't even be entertained. In order to make the news, you have to be newsworthy. True, running for president helps, but so does actually doing something worth noting.

p.s. Oh, my God, what is that behind Katie Couric's head in that photo above? Could it be....a NUT? Nooooo! Call the censors!!!!

Comments

[mjc]

John McCain will, probably does already, have a lot more sympathy for Hillary Clinton's problems with the MSM after their coverage of Obama's adventures. Our Fourth Estate has long since forgotten how to non-partisan or non-sectarian. But now the Internet has that ability and thankfully there is some ability to challenge the conventional wisdom crowd.

[Gusto2]

It is sad that all those folks are complaining of the Obama press coverage. I personally will love the media to cover McCain more often and then We the People will see that McCain is really not fit to be President. The reason his campaign does not really want too much media coverage is because he has nothing to offer the American people more than the same old "war on terror" Bush nonsense. He does not have an economic plan and he is really an elitist whom think hard working american are "whinners". It will also show his enormous wealth and out of touch attitute, his temper and to be honest the effect that his age will have on the job. We don't need a man with a volatile temper as Commander in Chief/President in these times. We need someone with some intelligence and calm minded to SOLVE problems and not get mad AT ANYONE that disagrees. McCain temper is the most dangerous threat to this country. Eight years of ARRONGANCE is enough. Look at where we are today, both at home and abroad. Please MEDIA ,COVER THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN, PLEASE.

[iswideopen]

McBush braggs that the media is his "base". So, what's the problem. They have hidden all of his "senior moment" gaffs for months. Obama was going to take this trip anyway. How the hell does he stay secure and safe if he tells the world his plans. McIdiot the second played P and got F. Next time, and from now on, stop telling Obama what to do. He his a man, his own man, unlike you. You seem to continue to underestimate Obama and the American people. Even with the racial bigotry and hatred already against him, mostly by the GOP and their hateful attack ads, you should be concerned. Your message is a non message as you are stuck in a time warp with yesteryear's plans for the future of this country. It requires critical thinking and a fit mind. Those qualities, you do not possess. Time for you to retire and get your check from the system that is a "disgrace", social security. McSenior Citizen...............

[wordvarc]

.

Send John Stewart as well. If not, Rob Riegal! (sp?).


.

[afed27]

The unheard of tag-along of the elite press joining the Obama entourage is disgusting & raises many questions.. Will the media pay for their own reporters? Will Obama treat them as his guests? If so, will this be suspected as bribery? Who will be left to cover McCain's campaign? Will these reporters be as good at reporting as those who are accompanying Obama? The media should address these concerns before they allow their employees to take part in such one- sided political coverage. I am outraged!
May I suggest that these elite reporters do what they are paid to do. Instead of drooling at the sight & the sound of Obama, have them look into all of Obama's political claims, his family claims, his true relationship with Wright, his facts on his own history. I, as an amateur sleuth, have found many lies & twisted statements made by Obama or his campaign. Why haven't these been made public? Why hasn't Obama's assertion this week on CNN's Fareed Zakaria's show that his words of support
for a united Jerusalem in Israel, as told to AIPAC, was "poor phrasing" & not as he feels? Don't the Jews need to know this about Obama when 61% of them trust Obama in his stated promise of
support for Israel?
What has happened to the integrity of our media? Is being moonstruck by a candidate's words worth throwing aside one's own integrity? Is it reason enough to forget why one became a reporter?

[Sixtwo]

You need a rest! Go to bed! Media coverage in and of itself has nothing to do with integrity--these anchors have not yet strated reporting from afar. As for McCain, he didn't need high-powered media coverage for photo-ops--he never held press conferences to share what he did or learned during his travels; and, he did not talk substantively about his trips during his town hall meetings.
He travels while the Dems were infighting for a nominee--that detracted from coverage of most of his photo-ops.

[PaulinaSmedes]

[Chuckle] You are funny [chuckle]

[bruce9432]

Couric is the incarnate of failure. Do people really watch network TV. Fot the sake of God , get a Tivo and find out how bad television really is.

[Marlyn]

"Fot the sake of God , get a Tivo"

or better yet, cancel your TV cable service. Stop giving them your money.

[IAM4CLINTON]

The blatant favorable bias in the media toward Obama is appalling. Senator Obama is NOT on a state visit abroad. Sen Obama is not yet the POTUS. Yet, that the major news anchors would follow him half way around the world just destroys any remaining credibility that our mainstream press has left in covering this election. Why bother with an election- we can simply coronate the Messiah now and save the cost !

[C65]

So you're upset your candidate didn't win,we get it.You didn't win the lottery last
night,are you going to stop shopping for grocery because the store sold the
winning ticket to someone else.YOU PEOPLE NEED TO GROWUP AND REALIZE,
WE DON'T LIVE IN A HAVE IT YOUR WAY WORLD.iF YOU'RE REALLY THIRSTY-
USE THE LEMONS TO MAKE LEMONADE AND PRAY FOR SOME SUGAR.
IT JUST MIGHT BE TASTER THAN YOU THOUGHT.EVERYTHING YOU WANT
ISN'T ALWAYS THE BEST FOR YOU.

[Gusto2]

The truth is the mainstream media lost its credibility when it allowed GW BUsh to lie to all of us in this country and NEVER CHALLENGED him. It also lost its credibilty when it allows McCain's blunders to go easily with out really exposing him, when they allow him to change positions without calling him a flip-flop, when the allow him to surround himself with "radical right wing" preaachers and say nothing; so please, give us a break. McCain did NOT WANT the media covering his trip abroad because he attended a FUND RAISER and did not want to expose his real lack of knowledge of the area(shia-sunni blunder); In Latin America he had NOTHING TO OFFER and visited to countries that have questions concerning human rights(Mexico and Colombia). Get your facts.

[Tulka2]

We have a Delphic oracle and her name is Rachel Maddow.

Quote of July 17, on "Race for the Whitehouse"

[I paraphrase since i have no recording of said quote.] David Gregory put it to the panel to discuss what it meant that in the last few months television news has devoted 114 hours to the Obama campaign and only 48 to to McCain's. No mention that a lot of that time was spent on Obama negatives like the Rev. Wright and Michele's so-called missteps.

Rachel said, "Don't be confused. Media time devoted to Obama is necessarily a good thing. Obama keeps trying to bring the discussion around to Bush/McCain, but if this turns into a media referendum about Obama, Obama will lose." Word.

[chumleypotts]

If he doesn't win in November after all this , the media will be forced to trot out the race issue.

[semperfido]

As someone below said, it's a (desperate) ratings ploy--and it still looks bad, even though everything Rachel Sklar says in her column is quite accurate and balanced. A full phalanx of reporters from each network would be perfectly adequate. But with the anchors there (and never with McCain, regardless of how dull and boring he was), it reflects poorly on the journalistic judgment of the networks, and from an optical point of view, on the Obama campaign as well. Most Americans still get their political news and information from network TV: this looks like piling on, which in turn could bring out underdog support for McCain. The race is too close to be fricking about like that.

And then there's the quality of journalism question. If the Three Big Cheeses go, you know you're gonna get only the most official, officalized, status quo reporting.

[BruceHNV]

That said,

Heh - heh - "A nut!" Rich. Thanks for that.

[BruceHNV]

Hey, Katie - one of my pet peeves is the dumbing down of America - in particular, the news and commentators.

The phrase is NOT "Anchors Away!" It's "Anchors aweigh!" This is a shortened form of the command from the captain "Weigh the anchors!" meaning to get them up off the sea floor and take their WEIGHT on board, in preparation for getting underway.

People who use the English language for a living, or even for pocket change, ought to take especial trouble to become familiar with it.

I also cringe when commentators marvel, as they do more every day, at the "enormity" of an undertaking - meaning that it is huge or significant. NO! "Enormity" means "awfulness, terribleness" as in the enormity of a dreadful crime or a great tragedy.

Just sayin'... I forgive ordinary citizens their ignorance of the language. Writers and talking heads should, on the other hand, be forced to learn it before they get the keys to their offices.

[unitron]

What do you expect from someone who doesn't even know that when things differ, they differ FROM each other, and that there's no such thing as "different than"?

[BruceHNV]

Oh, no kidding!

There is no keeping track of the long list of grammatical corrections I have yelled at my TV!

Back in the day, both anchors and reporters spoke as though educated.

No more.

The worst tend to be the talking heads of the local news. One wonders how they got their high school diplomas!

My kids, 29 and 27, speak English. It is, however, a dying tongue - and and MSM certainly do it no favors.

[MaeScott]

I just know FAUX NOISE is so miffed that they weren't invited....

[TRWSEW]

The fact the Obama is going to Iraq, it ONLY because McCain has pressured him to go. Obama is out to lunch with his knowledge about the war on terror. How anyone could make absolute decisions about something so ciritcal, without ever discussing the strategy and issues directly, in private, with the Commanders, it absolute stupidity. That proves a terrible immaturity and lack of foreign experience. When Obama changes his withdrawl plan, it'll be billed as just a "refining of his opinion" vs. a flip flop. Of course, he may not "refine his position" until after the elections. Oh yeah, I can really trust this guy!!!!

And the 3 major networks are going for exactly the same reason. They ALL want out of Iraq, no matter the dire consequences of a too early departure. That's why they'll support EVERY move Obama makes on this trip. And they all want a Democract in the whitehouse. Doesn't matter who, but a Democrat.

And yes, what happend to Michelle Obama????? It appears she has now been told to stay quiet.

[Sixtwo]

You are so unlearned!! Obama is traveling on his own terms, in accordance with his own timetable. There is an orderliness about the way he conducts himself in his journey to the White House as revealed by the the way he has and continues to run his campaign. He operates from a BIG picuture, world view perspective. McCain (and some other unlearned folks) can't understand why Obama would reveal a strategy for Iraq and Afgan prior to visiting... Real leaders know that it is imperative to have a vision and an overall strategy (foundational) based on what one already knows about a situation (knowledge/facts are found in places other than on trips).After traveling to gain first-hand knowledge from RELIABLE sources (as opposed to photo-ops), Obama and others will be able to more fully develop stragegies to accomplish mission/goals.

[Sixtwo]

Oh yes, I forgot to inform you that the Obamas have their priorities straight: GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY. While the Senator is risking his life outside the country (as well as inside) for America and his family, his wife Michelle is at home caring for their children. She IS NOT runing for President. Mssss Cindy is McCain's shadow because she has to nudge him from time -to-time to assure that he gets his comments right; and, she does not have to care for her ADOPTED, minor child--her other children are grown-ups.

[Gusto2]

You ask ; How someone could make absolute decisions without discussing strategy, well ASK GEORGE BUSH. He got in Iraq on a personal vendetta, WE SOLDIERS can attest to that. Can you?Michelle Obama, just like Cindy McCain is NOT RUNNING FOR Predident. If you want to talk about MIchelle, we can put her and Cindy in a debate and can assure you the WORLD will see which is more educated and intelligent, but of course, you guys does not care about intelligence, that is the reason you voted for Bush twice.

[prpolk1]

aaaaaah! Oh how I love the smell of victory... Sen. Obama is...... shall we say...... classy, intelligent, a family man, compasionate and oh sooooo many other things.That's all news in itself. Honestly, I can't think of one reason to pick Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama....

[barackobama4prez]

Funny part about this....Obama has often reached out to the media. Hillary and John have shut out the media on numerous occasions.