Truth in Editorializing?

Before it's too late, three cheers for the lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal on Friday, "McCain's Scapegoat," which began this way: "John McCain has made it clear this week he doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street" -- oh, wait a minute -- "any better than Barack Obama does."

Hmmm ... make that half a cheer.

The editorial calls McCain "untethered," as well as misinformed and dishonest. It says that in seeking a "scapegoat for [the] financial panic" his "populist riffing" is "both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential." While it does not go as far as calling him "liar, liar, Gasbag on fire," doubtless out of misguided politeness, it says his finger-pointing is not only "unsupported by any evidence" but also misleading and contradictory.

And if you wonder why the scapegoating Gasbag is so untethered, misinformed and dishonest, it's because he's "a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution."

They got that right.

What does the editorial say about Obama? Nada. After equating him with the Gasbag, there is no mention, not one, of how or why he misundertands the Wall Street crisis, let alone misunderstands it as badly as the Gasbag.

The Obama part of their lede? Totally unsupported.

In fact, for the rest of the editorial -- nine paragraphs, 710 words -- there is no mention of Obama at all, until the very last sentence, which says the Gasbag will "never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist" -- oh, and get this -- "like Mr. Gore, circa 2000."

So much for truth in editorializing.

To be fair, I should mention I have no love lost for the Gasbag's chief scapegoat, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christopher Cox, who was appointed by the Bullshitter-in-Chief. Cox was a rightwing BananaRepublican jerk when he represented the Orange County, California, BananaRepublican 48th Congressional district, and he's still a rightwing BananaRepublican jerk. Just like the Gasbag.

Postscript: Sept. 22 -- Here's a headline: "Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million." And not just any adviser. It was the Gasbag's campaign manager, Rick Davis, who was paid $35,000 a month for five years [italics added] to push for less regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae's former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.

So what? So this: Notice the headline (in large type). Notice the commercial (gets free play as news coverage). Notice the denial (is a tagged-on update). Notice it's posted by a major "liberal" daily, no less.

Comments

[CalGoldenBear]

It seems that your post is misleading at least to this time-pressed reader, discussing the WSJ editorial, then adding in comment on a New York Times' headline.

The NYT is arguably "liberal," although considering some of its editorials in the last year, one can wonder whether that characterization is outdated. And didn't the NYT endorse HRC and McCain as the Dem and Repub nominees, respectively?

[JanH]

Thanks for your comment.

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. But if you had clicked the hotlinked word "So this," you would have realized I was referring to The Boston Globe as the "liberal" daily, because the link takes you here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/mccain_hits_oba_7.html

Go there now, and see what I meant.

[CalGoldenBear]

Since when has the Wall Street Journal (and its editorial page) been a "liberal" daily?

Calling the WSJ's editorial page (and hence the WSJ itself) a "moderate" daily would be a stretch. Only if compared to the rabidly reactionary, right-wing editorial page at Investors Business Daily could anyone consider the WSJ's editorial page even remotely "conservat­ive."

But the WSJ's editorial page as "liberal"? Oh, puh-leeze.

Obama/Biden '08 Yes, we can!

[JanH]

Thanks for your comment. I didn't call the WSJ a liberal daily. Its editorial page is rabid rightwing.

As I said in my reply (above), perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. But if you had clicked the hotlinked word "So this," you would have realized I was referring to The Boston Globe as the "liberal" daily, because the link takes you here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/mccain_hits_oba_7.html

Go there now, and see what I meant.