McCain Gaffe -- It Wasn't on Our Minds

On Sunday's Face The Nation, Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of the L.A. Times (yes, Mr. Zell, they still have a Washington bureau, why do you ask?), gave an invaluable insight into the way stories do, or don't, become "news". Asked about the supposed John McCain gaffe, in which the Senator conflated Iran's interests in Iraq (Shiite) with Al-Qaeda (Sunni), McManus explained that it didn't become a major news story this week because "Iraq wasn't what was on voters' minds."

Forget the fact that the supposed gaffe had been spoken by McCain more than once (including on Hugh Hewitt's radio show), or that McCain had even had to be corrected by Joe Lieberman when he described Purim as sort of like the Jewish Halloween (really). Voters decide, by what's on our minds, what stories make the news. Never knew you had that much power, did you?

Thank goodness the polls, by which Mr. McManus divines what's on our minds, always get it right.

Comments

[go4thegold]

This is the Republican machine at work... Obama farts, its a national disaster. Hillary's a liar about Kosovo and very little is said. McCain demonstrates he's not all the knowing about what's going on in foreign affairs and it's hidden away... Maybe we need to start demanding the press cover the candidates fairly, all three of them, or move on... D.

[eggman]

Probably more of a Corporate Media machine than Republican. If you're correct that Clinton gets more of a pass than Obama , it's not because she is a GOP fave but because she gets more of her money from corporate interests and is therefore in their debt. But there's also a case to be made that some media folk are slobbering over Obama and treating Clinton like a psycho ex-girlfriend. Democracy in America.

[theplaintrutho1]

"...some media folk are slobbering­..." ??? Like all of them that have made Rev. Wright the last two-weeks their continuous talking-point, while not reporting on any other news?

Give me a break, please. Your argument makes them sound credible.

[webmaker02]

The truth is that Edwards was far and away the best candidate for the Democrats. He would have wiped them out in a Johnson/ Goldwater style landslide. The Democrats would have taken a dozen seats in the Senate from Republicans and probably picked up 50 in the House. However, the MEDIA ALONE decided they wanted a race between a black man and a woman (not surprising either since the Media are owned by Republican fat cat billionaires), and the media never would give Edwards any air time. The Democrats, who LOVE to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, co-conspired to allow that to happen, and the young who know NOTHING of politics were swept up in waves of adulation for Obama, who has a terrible amount of baggage from Rezko and the crazy Reverend, so that Obama carried Iowa, which has a habit of picking bad candidates. No Democrat wins the White House from any state outside the South, and it's unlikely it will happen this time either, UNLESS the economy implodes massively before the election, or Iraq blows up into a fiery maelstrom of death and destruction (both of which are good possibilities). It's amazing to me that Democrats haven't got the common sense to know bad choices when presented with them. Hilary would unite the Republican Party like nothing else ever could, except Obama's minister. What a sad situation. Bush has given the Democrats the gift of a lifetime, and they are about to squander it because both of the candidates left standing are too selfish and self-centered to care how much they are damaging the party.

[theplaintrutho1]

In your own words webmakero2, you sound like you are swept up in waves of adulation for Edwards, but this is still the remnant of the good old US of A so you're welcome to your candidate of choice without sarcasm.

In my opinion though, Edwards had his own problems as silly as they may seem. His war-vote in the Senate, $400.00 hair-styles while starting his campaign in ravaged N.O; had excepted some corporate bucks, etc.

To use MSM talking-points to make your claim against anyone is a disqualifier. BUT, you have your right to your opinion!

[darcy]

So utterly and sadly true, webmaker02. Edwards was a virtually perfect candidate, and he was destroyed by the press and the idiocy of the early primary voters. As long as the voters keep falling for the "tricks," this country is screwed.

[TRex86]

The Repugs are brilliant at hijacking the conversation. Their guru, Karl Rove, was a champion debater who is well schooled in all the dirty tricks of argumentation. They have updated the Goebbels playbook of propaganda. It is my hope that the MSM can be forced to call out the trickery as it happens. Olbermann is the only one likely to do it. His instincts are great, but he hasn't mastered the terminology. He might field test this with his Worst Person troikas.
A few examples: Looping 30 seconds of Rev. Wright to tarnish Obama is the old favorite GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. Joe McCarthy made this one a classic. When the rightwing yakkers ask, "Why do liberals like (fill in a name) hate America?" it's called BEGGING THE QUESTION. This tactic is particularly rich because it incorporates empty language into a question that presumes something is happening. (When did you stop beating your wife?) The final concept for today is portmanteau words like "Islamo-fascism," used against all meaning of the root words to describe fanatical religious fundamentalists who are about as distant from fascists as is possible. (The Islamic fascists eg, Saudi Arabia, are our allies).

[JKoos]

Let's face it folks. The Iraq war is not a winning issue. It is definitely back page news now. Strangely, our bizarre policies there have resulted in a an extraordinary outcome. The radical Sunni feeling of inevitability has been broken. Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia as a government were promoting Wahabism and on a roll. Muslims have a simplistic faith. When things go well for the bad guys, like after 9/11, Allah is happy with them. This gives them momentum on the “Arab Street.” Allah is with them, obviously. Now, not so much. By empowering the historically more peace loving Iraqi Shiites we did more to stabilize the Muslim world than is generally given credit for. Saddam was the biggest enemy of the Shiites and a barrier for the Saudis, who flourished and could afford the luxury of supporting hate of the West without opposition or distraction. Now Saddam is gone, Obama hides in a cave, and the Sunnis and Shiites can concentrate on their longstanding historical enmity with more even odds, leaving us alone. Another massive plus is that the theologically more traditional and numerous Iraqi Shiites have risen in power to counterbalance the Shiite loonies in Iran as well. I doubt that all this was planned ahead of time, but who knows?

[syllepsis]

I assume that there was a mere slip that 'Obama' hides in a cave.
The derision of Islam, too, as a 'simplistic faith' casts grave doubt on your knowledge of the subtleties of Islamic theology, including your contrast between "theologically more traditional Iraqi Shittes" and "Shiite loonies in Iran."

[JKoos]

Thanks for noting my slip. Not intentional. I find your other comments less helpful, however. It is not derision to note that Islam has no good answer for suffering or failure in any way. In that sense, it is very simplistic. It also has made it fairly easy to make a muslim enemy lose heart. A successful. forceful response is devastating to them for this reason and is the only reasonable strategy. My preference for the 0Iraqi Shiites is also a position that is often noted. The Iranian Shiites are not happy that their Southern brethren are becoming ascendant with US help.

[nyboomer]

If he can read my mind, I'd better line my hat with aluminum foil. I refuse to have some MSM jerk traipsing around in my head fingering my nearest and dearest thoughts. Ouch my head hurts. Get out, get out!

[GeoNorth]

We are not surprised. Media Programmers today are weak . They work way too closely with marketing. Success in news is not measured by information found and prsented, but rather by sales. That's why Britany is such a big story. That's why they focus on missing pretty white blondes. They will tell you that nobody wants to hear about Iraq. It's depressing, they say.

[WaveFunction]

Nothing else can explain why I know so much more about what Eliot Spitzer's hooker's breasts look like than I do about what is happening day-to-day in Baghdad and Kabul.

Thank God for the Internet, so we, apparently in the "minority" who care about Iraq, in the "long tail" that wants to know what our President is messing up this week, can be given the news we deserve as citizens

OH crap! Are those Ashley's breasts on HuffPost?

[TRex86]

McManus actually let slip that Iraq is not what the corporate MSM want on our minds. Our embarrassing fiasco goes on at a duration and cost on a par with WWII, but it doesn't sell advertising. They want all Rev. Wright all the time! I don't know which is greater, the dumbing of the American mind or the duplicity of the media. WE CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH! Compare the stage managed coverage of Iraq with the horrifying images of Vietnam. The MSM should be deeply ashamed of their role in perpetuating this abomination.
That the Iraq occupation is interminable and costly is beyond their grasp. They are too craven to report that it is a monstrous war crime, embedding within it other crimes such as torture, kidnapping, and murder. How impolite to question the motives of our wonderful leaders. In their stenographic role they recycle the talking points sans question. Thank God for Air America, Pacifica and left wing print journalism. NPR has become a vacuous joke along with the rest of the MSM.
The media have become a cult of celebrity celebrating other celebrities. As journalists they are lazy, cowardly and superficial. I want ot puke every time I see B-roll of Bush strutting and waving. They can't even put fresh images on the screen. And that includes the feckless New York Times with its uncritical cheerleading for the Iraq invasion. They are all terrified of controversy, shaking in fear after Dan Rather was brought down by Rove's dirty tricks. The MSM could spend the next year on mea culpas alone.
Harry, where is the Credibility Gap now that we need them?

[apduncan1]

We re a bunch of dumb goyim (look it up).

[candlewax]

The voters are not to blame for the media's inability to report the news in an unbiased manner. Had Obama made this stupid blunder instead of McCain, it would have been played in an endless loop. Who are they kidding?

[irishmail42]

If Obama or Clinton had made the same "misstatement" you can be sure that it would be on a continuous loop on CNN, FOX and MSNBC. And we would all be asked to question their "experienc­e."

[nick1936]

Look just an old man getting his facts confused so lets put him in charge maybe he will forget to show up

[candlewax]

and then we'd get Joe Lieberman instad? Horrors!

[Larry Kegel]

IrishMail42: It is a big differennce between Hillary & Obama than McCain... McCain is the one that is claiming that he knows more about whats going on over in Iraq than them... This only proves... Not only does he not know more about there but amits he knows less about the economy..

[lastdays]

Americans don't have Iraq on their minds because, simply put, the American people have pretty much decided that we remain the cops of the world (what with our high moral authority, who could doubt it) and besides, if we don't want a personal stake in the war, just don't enlist. Our morality now consists of targeted genocides with vetted mercenaries and there is no killing that can't be justified by rational or irrational fear.

[richardsgirl]

But Americans are content to live with this hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy as long as we don't acknowledge it, especially in our churches where we seek a moral foundation, because to acknowledge our moral missteps, past or present, somehow makes us anti-American and racists! If we actually believe in the values upon which our country was founded, the Iraq war itself is anti-American!

[Larry Kegel]

richardsgirl: You are right... Not only do we go to the Temples & Churchs... But our children go there too... It is not good for Children to be hearing talk like that against the Whites & Our Country!!!! It's to bad that the News doesn't bring out that point... rather than make his speech make things alright!!!

[thebeerdoctor]

Mr. Shearer, I am reminded of something the late comedian, Bill Hicks said: "go back to bed America, here is American gladiators­." Talk about spray painting your third eye black! The vast majority of television content lives by the FUD principle practiced by the Microsoft corporation: fear, uncertainty, doubt. Are you sure you want to hear about Senator McCain's gaffes? Do you really want to hear about the 4000 American dead in Iraq? New updates will be made available.

[deb813]

I am sick to death of the media. I think both the John McCain gaffe and the Bosnia lie are both important stories that pertain to the CANDIDATES. If I see one more videotape of Reverand Wright or hear his name one more time I will scream. Why is a candidate's pastor more important then the candidate's WORDS that come out of their own mouths?

[candlewax]

And no matter how the media try to defend their fixation on Wright, it doesn't explain their near inability to focus that same spotlight on McCain's spiritual advisor or his endorsement by Hagee. It's a double standard.

[richardsgirl]

Nor does it explain how they have ignored the entirety of Wright's sermons, which would provide a "fair and balanced" perspective, but have instead remained fixated on the soundbites that even they now know were taken out of context ... in addition to not focusing that spotlight on McCain's spiritual advisor, or on all of the other "spiritual advisors," such as Roberts and Falwell or even Billy Graham, who clearly espoused an intolerance that contradicts our American values and that is far more egregious than anything Pastor Wright has said, even that which he said that was taken out of context!

[Bienville]

Here's why:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702153.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
"But a presidential candidate is not a mere church member, and he operates in a different context. We examine everything about him for the slightest clue about character.­"
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031808.shtml
It's about the candidate's "character­." It's the media's job to explain his "character" to us. We don't spend 100% of our daily lives meeting people and deciding whether or how much to trust those people - evaluating "character" - and we can't translate that experience to evaluating a presidentail candidate. We need the media to pre-chew our information for us. They will evaluate "character" and re-gurgitate it in a readily digestible form for us.
The candidates will lie, and the media is our truth-detector. It works wonderfully, don't you think?

[richardsgirl]

The MSM "explains" a candidate's character to us as they want to represent his/her character, which is not always an accurate representation. Think about how Fox News has, for seven years, misrepresented President Bush's "character!" And again, how Fox News distorted the content of Pastor Wright's sermons to misrepresent and in effect slander his character and thereby impeach Senator Obama's character as well. The candidates often do "lie" to present an image of themselves that is less than truthful, but the media also lies; and those who depend on the media to know the character of a candidate are often misguided. In addition to doing more of our own independent research and engaging in critical thinking, I think a more efficient way of determining a candidate's character is to simply watch the candidate's campaign, and quite often the integrity, or lack thereof, of the campaign gives much more insight into the character of the candidate than the media ever can, and in fact often contradicts everything the media wants us to believe about a given candidate. Actually, the media has done a poor job of explaining anything to us in the last decade; they've merely, as you said, "regurgitated" what they've swallowed and what they want to push down our throats.

[peggio]

Thank you! I've been screaming at the television since gaffe one and lie 815. The senility and inability to differentiate between Sunni, Shia, Purim, Halloween not to mention traveling on our dime doesn't rate two minutes is amazing. The experience lies that Shrillary keeps taking out of her magic box of Clintonisms, not so important nor the former president impugning Senator Obama's patriotism. It's so much more important to show us Reverand Wrights bits of speeches and not in contrast, Ron Parsley or Hagee's. There has been NO mention of the little prayer group that Senator Clinton shared with Sam Brownback or Rick Santorum because it's secret. The msm is shameless! I cannot believe that I'm having to look to Tweety for fair interperation of the media bias.

[provgrays]

On Easter Sunday, George Will was asked on "This Week" if McCain's gaffe would be damaging.

"Not at all", was his response. That was it. No explanation for his opinion and no justification for it. Conservatives often snort their dismissals of something without elaboration. Will is just another talking head who worships at the feet of William F. Buckley. His smugness and partisanship never fail to offend.

[candlewax]

William F. Buckley at least criticized the war and the administration.

[JTyroler]

Let's see, we don't see the flag-draped coffins, so we don't really know how things are really going in Iraq, after all, there's a celebrity with a drinking or drug problem. Knowing the difference between Shi'a and Sunni requires thought, which, this could be a sign that McCain's not really thinking all that well. Unfortunately, the "media" no longer gives Iraq and Afghanistan that much coverage - there's almost no news coverage of Afghanistan.

When you have "American Idol", Britney's eating habits, and other celebrity news (and I'm using the word very loosely) taking up news broadcasts, much of the public has a problem keeping track of which organizations are Sunni-based or Shi'a-based. Another reason for this is many Americans, myself included, don't have a great understanding of Islam.

Of course, I'm not running for President and knowing who's who in the Middle East and Central Asia IS VITAL for the President to understand. Somehow, I don't think Lieberman won't be standing next to McCain to correct him when he again confuses Sunni and Shi'a.

[candlewax]

It doesn't make any sense. Sunni al quada extremists attack us on Sept 11, 2001 and so we attack Iraq which is primarily shiite with no ties to sunni al quada and now McCain jokes about attacking Iran which is also shiite. Afghanistan, yeah, that makes more sense but Iraq and now the saber rattling toward Iran? No so much. Is it really all about the oil and if so, how much control do the people controlling the flow of oil have over our government. This is the story I'd like to hear the media investigating. But they're worthless.

[KarenZipdrive]

Harry, I think the gaffe was ignored mostly because Americans have accepted that anything the GOP says about Bush's war is probably horseshit anyway.
Bush has set the bar so low for GOP credibility, McCain can literally say whatever he wants and it won't matter. And if it does matter, guys like Dick Cheney will say, "So?"

[jubo]

How convenient that fine line between perception and projection.

Guess he's embedded with the powers.