John McCain Blames Rise of Internet on New York Times Editorial Board

John McCain shoved his spokesperson out into the fray today and armed him with these words about the New York Times:

"If the shareholders of The New York Times ever wonder why the paper's ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper's editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate."

This is kind of like saying the price of oil is on the rise because people like the smell of gasoline. Papers were cash cows in their days, but then came the Internet and cable and reality tv shows that aired three times a week and their revenue went down. I may be stepping out on a limb here, but I would venture to guess this has very little to do with the New York Times editorial board. The board skews Democratic--we get it. They are more likely to support progressive measures than to not. But that has been true for a very long time, I remember my father complaining about this when I was a child...in the 80s. It's not as if the woes of print journalism can be blamed on economic and technical realities and the woes of the New York Times can be blamed on an editorial board that's had the same political tendencies for decades.

This statement just serves to underscore how out of touch McCain is with every topic. He seems befuddled and slow and unable to find the veracity or vital energy of ideas. The Times has published a series of front-page love letters to him--including one on how McCain refuses to use his veteran son as a political talking point. Even the editorial section had little trouble endorsing him for the Republican candidacy in January. But, despite that, the McCain v NYT fight is deep into round four. First, they had the audacity to report that McCain cheated on his wife, which (incidentally) no one seemed to care about, then they rejected a deeply hackneyed OpEd he wrote on Iraq that no one would have read had they accepted it but ended up getting a ton of play because they didn't, and now they have the temerity to say his new attack ads are "negative" and "belittling." Whoa. That is harsh. (PS -- I'm just confused by these ads. When your only argument is that someone is too awesome and too popular you may be in trouble, but that's for another column.)

It's easy for conservatives to use the New York Times as way to rally their base. "Vote for me or the Sulzberger family will make your grandchildren biracial gays." But this tactic with these arguments will ultimately show just how out of touch McCain is with the independent voters he needs.

Later in the statement, McCain's spokesman went on to compare the NYT editors to a blogger "sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons." But doesn't that sound like what McCain's doing? Screaming that a newspaper is after him makes him sound like a paranoid ex-lover not the great and understanding leader he keeps accusing Obama of being. If anything he is enforcing the stereotypes that are weighing him down; showing himself to be angry, vindictive, unthoughtful, and unable to understand basic economic principles.

Comments

[SamThornton]

Perhaps, my friends, it's the McCain campaign strategy to make him into a more warm and cuddly candidate by playing the fool in public. Don't laugh, it could happen. The beltway types are notoriously insular and probably get most of their "ideas" on the cocktail circuit. It's the same bunch that "make their own reality." Next McCain strategy: funny hats.

[Alony]

I've always been partial to oversized ties and tshirts with that point to other people and imply they are stupid. If McCain consented to these fashion marvels I would totes vote for him.

[SamThornton]

Brilliant idea! How about a T for Elephant-brand voters that says "I' m voting for stupid." No one could possibly be in doubt about the reference.

[larry278]

FYI-not many progressives consider the NYT to be an avant garde bastion of liberalism. The NYT can't be called a centerist sheet. The NYT is now a rightist sheet. Check out what harvest9 & jbatch said.

[oldwiseone]

"If the shareholders of The New York Times ever wonder why the paper's ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper's editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate."

McCane's secret is locked up in this sentence he uttered. "If you do not toe the line, you will lose your job."

Which is what happens when "profits" become the sole determinant

[jbatch]

There's a germ of truth in what McCain is saying although he has it backwards. Conservatives never read the Times, and they're not big readers of newspapers in general. The people who are leaving newspaers in drives are liberals and independents -- wah used to be big newspaper readers.

Why are they leaving? Not because papers are "too lieral," but because they have been putting balance and non-partisanship above truth and accuracy.

Thus we got "he-said, she saided into a war with the likes of Judith Miller repeating white house talking points.

On and on the "balanced" reporting went until thinking people started leaving in droves. Truth isn't a question of balance, accuracy not one of non-partisanship. That's why the web is winning.

[harvest9]

So true. And so tedious. Bashing the "liberal" media, which hasn't been all that liberal for quite a while, is a tactic as old as the hills. Yawn.