Dept. Of Good Questions
"At what point does an extreme attempt to de-legitimate the press actually de-legitimate the candidate as an extremist in the eyes of the press? If the McCain campaign says the Times is not a legitimate news source, why does the Times have to treat McCain as a legitimate candidate?"
So asks New York University professor Jay Rosen, and it's a pretty good question.
I'd only add this: The McCain campaign says the Times is an adjunct of the Obama campaign. So why do McCain and his advisers keep giving statements and interviews to the paper's reporters, since all that does is legitimize the paper and help perpetuate the ruse that it's a legit news source, thus making its campaign on Obama's behalf all the more effective?
Late Update: I should add that I take Rosen's question to be partly a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that if the paper weren't a legit news source it wouldn't be treating McCain as a legit candidate, which of course it's doing every day.
Advertisement
I guess they keep on sending them info from the campaign cause they are lying hypocrites.
At least when Obama got mad at Fox, he followed through. He froze them out until they came back to him.
September 23, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jed Lewison of "The Jed Report" is now working at the Huffington Post to deliver his trademark vids to a larger audience.
Here is his first offering that exposes McCain as a deregulator(up until last Monday afternoon I guess)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPJr7YWmQ
September 23, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear McCain campaign:
The media will stop calling you liars when you, um, stop the lies.
September 23, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention, citing the Times in their ads?
Of course, what the McShame campaign is doing is utter bullshit, but they are providing a halfway decent lesson in how the Democrats should deal with Fixed News.
September 23, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The memory length in this campaign is shorter than ever.
Obama did deal with Fox early on. Remember? He got mad about the lies they were reporting and froze them out until they turned around and came back to him.
Apparently everyone forgets this shit in about 10 minutes.
September 23, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
hey, can you let me know what commenting tech experiences you've been having?
September 23, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this morning everything froze, nothing would post and I ended up triple posting because I kept getting the "server quit responding" message- just like old times.
It's better now, but still slow.
September 23, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
To: McCain Campaign For President 2008
From: New York Times Publisher
Suject: You
Fuck off.
Sincerely,
NYT Pubs
Pufferfish
September 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Mc Cain campaign sounds like a petulant pre-teen with their phony "evil left wing media" rants. "I hate you! Will you drop me off at the mall?"
They claim to despise these media outlets, yet, they rely on them continually to get out their message, including repeatedly quoting the NYT and others in their negative attack ads.
September 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at ARG poll numbers up at the top of the page, NYT has done a pretty good job lately of selling Obama.
September 23, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARG is 48 O 46 M, not 49 O 43 M as indicated on the poll tracker.
September 23, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow, George Will ripped McCain a new one. I thought I'd never say this but Go George!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html
September 23, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
George Will has hated McCain for a long time and has not been at all shy in this election cycle about reminding folks of why he hates McCain. I am not sure that the points about McCain which really get Will's goat (McCain-Feingold finance reform) bother me in the same way as they bother Will, but I agree that it is nice to have him hitting McCain from the right even as we hurl stuff at him from the left.
September 23, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think that it is a legitimate question. It is tautological unless the NYT considers itself to be illegitimate.
September 23, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I thought it was rhetorical in nature, and posed for it's irony.
September 23, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense. What has the legitimacy of the NYT as a news source have to do with the legitimacy of McCain's candidacy?
His candidacy, as fucked up and venal as it is, is legit without or without the NYT.
September 23, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Department of Silly Diversions and Useless Arguments
The quote is sort of stupid and illogical. An illegitimate news organization can still view McCain as a legitimate candidate. The word "legitimate" is the problem. He may be a bad candidate, dishonest, dishonorable, inconsistent, hypocritical, etc... But there are only two "legitimate" candidates whether you are a newspaper, voter or hot dog salesman.
When college professors start talking like 7th graders we should not be too impressed.
September 23, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense. What has the legitimacy of the NYT as a news source have to do with the legitimacy of McCain's candidacy?
His candidacy, as fucked up and venal as it is, is legit with or without the NYT.
September 23, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes ARG is 48 O and 46 M an improvement of 4 point for O, considering last week the numbers were reversed.
September 23, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep - NYT hasn't been the same since they fired that bastion of truth and patriotism - Judith Miller.
If anything has harmed the NYT - it was putting her stuff out....
Christ - she was essentially working for Cheney.
September 23, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign - with bells on!
September 23, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A very popular political ploy is to 'plant' a story in a newspaper with a sufficiently wide circulation and then two weeks or so later when asked by a reporter the source of - usually something false about the opposition - his information, says, "Well, I read it in the Times."
Not too wise to bite the hand that publishes one's lies.
September 23, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding.
I've enjoyed watching McLame destroying everything he had going for him out of nothing more than spite. The one thing that scared me the most about this election from the start of the general, was McLame's relationship with the MSM. They were his biggest allies in getting him elected. And I'll be damned if he didn't start a war with his best ally.
Amazing spectacle.
September 23, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give up.
I guess I'll just double post this - *heavyfuckingsigh*
No kidding.
I've enjoyed watching McLame destroying everything he had going for him out of nothing more than spite. The one thing that scared me the most about this election from the start of the general, was McLame's relationship with the MSM. They were his biggest allies in getting him elected. And I'll be damned if he didn't start a war with his best ally.
Amazing spectacle.
September 23, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
NY Times reporting of bit a rebellion by the press corp over lack of access to Palin at the UN.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/media-rebellion-over-palin-photo-ops/
September 23, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit!
LMAO!!!
September 23, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the way the post started: Live from New York, it’s Gov. Sarah Palin’s top-secret foreign policy tutorial!
Some in the press are thinking "enough is enough."
September 23, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew this would happen - or at least, I was pretty damn sure.
I'm dead serious about this, acamus - I really believe Palin scares the bejesus out of everyone who isn't insane. I think the media have looked at her and collectively said: no fucking way. Just like sane Repugs have - viz. Lincoln Chaffee.
September 23, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was it who said: "A politician cursing the press is like a ship's captain cursing the sea."?
McCain's relentless MSM bashing says he is still trying desperately to appeal to his righwing base. The fact that he is running so hard to the right, a base constituency he should have sewn up long ago, could mean McCain is not going to close the deal with the number of independents he will need to win.
Football season has started, leaves are falling, and McCain is still preaching to his choir.
September 23, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, isn't the word 'legitimize'?
Isn't 'legitimate' an adjective?
(Just trying to 'impact' the discussion here.)
September 23, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. What are you trying to intimate?
September 23, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I will offer a different take on this; and this is outside of the political posturing of Schmidt's soliloquy in response to a CNN question - maybe just in time to demonize CNN before the first "CNN" Debate and the NYT of course. All of that is fodder on the trail expected from the mouths of cynical strategists.
But, maybe, the NYT opened themselves up to such criticism. I say this to address something bigger than the political party whining and cursing that is obvious. The only ones who can defend the legitimacy of the paper are the journalists themselves; this through good journalism and professional ethics. J Miller aside, give it to them for that, but their reputation can and should absorb that black spot. But when has the NYT or any other news source become "MSM," and why, has the NYT allowed themselves to be considered "MSMedia" and not NEWS. The finger can only be pointed to the journalists themselves for not upholding their professional ideals in spite of the entertainment "creep" that we all complain about. We all know or can debate about the forces behind how most things have become more Media and less NEWS.
I don't mean to pick on NYT, they have certainly held strong better than other sources. But maybe Rosen's sly tone, the audacity of Schmidt's political news manipulation, sounds a little too playground. In the end, it is a good question - but one that journalists should use for introspection before it gets too late. You can't blame the outside actors for trying to steer the conversation. There was a time when NEWS was more magnate media-entertainment, and held the politicians as pawns. The profession of journalism broke free from that by committing to the public before other influences. It almost looks like they might be the next union to be broken, but they have to stay strong and not fall into the trap of this societal or market, circus like gang wars.
September 23, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink