On the rec list at time of writing are three diaries identifying examples of the traditional media calling out the lies of the McCain campaign.
We seem to be hoping that this represents a thematic change in how the campaign is being covered.
Maybe it is, but Media Matters (DIGG) offers a detailed criterion for evaluating whether the tradmed are in fact doing their job. Two points I'll draw out here.
First, how does the coverage of McCain/Palin compare to the coverage of Gore in 2000? Gore said once that he fought for funding for the Internet, and the media made him a serial exaggerator (interpreting everything he did afterwards in terms that fit that narrative). McCain/Palin have said 31 times, now, that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. If Gore was a "serial exaggerator", then what should McCain/Palin, if the media were judging by anywhere near the same criteria?
Second, the article lays out three ways in which a reporter could approach a lie told by a candidate:
They can ignore it, on the basis that a false claim is unworthy of attention.
They can adopt the false claim as the basis of their report, as they did with this week's stories about whether or not Barack Obama had made a sexist comment about Sarah Palin.
They can produce a report centered on the fact that the candidate is saying something that is untrue. If it is the latest of many falsehoods, they can indicate that. If the candidate is telling more and larger falsehoods than the opposition, they can make that clear. In short, they can make the lack of credibility of the person making the false claim the theme of their coverage.
Which choices are the reporters making, in the pieces currently diared on the rec list?
And, importantly, what proportion of the stories we see reflect which choices? MM gives as many examples of bad choices as we have good ones on the rec list. One in particular:
[Thursday], The Washington Post ran an article about McCain's attacks on Obama, including his false charge that Obama's use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" was a sexist reference to Sarah Palin. Paragraphs 1, 5, 6, and 7 contained the allegation in various forms. Paragraphs 9 and 10 were about McCain allies saying the attacks were working. Paragraph 11 finally brought the first indication that the attack wasn't true.
So what are we really seeing? Maybe baby steps, but I'm not so sure. What's telling is what we're not seeing -- that every thinking pundit is writing that McCain/Palin are unfit for higher office.We understand this, but if Charlie Gibson and Chris Matthews and James Carville and the rest aren't directly making some version of this statement, the tradmed haven't yet aligned themselves to reality, let alone to the point where Republicans get fully the same skeptical treatment as Democrats.