I wish to refine and extend my remarks

The last few media creations are far more troubling than those of which I am previously aware. This is because I consider them to be wholly fabricated. Where misinterpretation, deliberate misinterpretation, exaggeration, ignorance and misunderstanding have been the modus operandi of the press, we have moved into new territory. And it is the ease with which it has been done that is frightening. And I am not talking about the blogosphere or the realm of think tanks or the unrepentently biased wing of the media. Some may say it has been this way all along, but I perceive quite a shift. The most recent stirs have been the refine my policies flap, the nonexistent mortgage story, the Wesley Clark remarks and the campaign financing issue. The way the MSM has addressed these stories is beyond disturbing.

First I want to discuss the Clark and the campaign finance stories. I cannot say in either case that the press response was unpredictable, yet I still feel these were in some way transitional to a bolder approach.  Clark should not have had to address the relevance of McCain's wartime experience. That should have been the job of precisely those people who are now so critical of thse remarks, the press. Clark's statement was nothing but reasonable, yet Schieffer found it necessary to respond with a laughing  and incredulous, you mean to tell me, expression. It was incredibly unprofessional, but in this case quite expected. This is because of what I call the new ten minute rule in journalism. Whenever John McCain's service is brought up, you must wait at least ten minutes after, before you say anything that could be perceived as uncomplimentary towards the Senator. And even then, it better not concern his service. Now Clark did the proper genuflect before his remark, but he didn't wait the necessary ten minutes afterwards and his remarks did relate to McCain's service. So the result was  predictable. After all, if the press accepts the legitamcy of Clark's comments, they are actually admitting their own dereliction. So here we have a perfectly legitimate comment about relevant experience deliberately and knowingly turned into a statement maligning character, when it was no such thing. The press reports the story it wants, not the story they have.

The campaign finance issue is another example of the press turning the actual story into the story they want. The MSM pounced on Obama's refusal to accept public financing of his presidential campaign as if he had proclaimed that rigging voting machines would be his principle campaign strategy. Of course this was somewhat expected, since they had been trying to elevate this issue for months. However certain facts about this story conveniently and necessarily got lost along the way to making this an important story.

First, Obama NEVER unequivocally committed to public financing. In those few instances where he addressed the issue, he said under the right circumstances he would pursue an agreement with the Republican candidate to participate in public financing. Those circumstances usually involved his opponent accepting public financing. I would argue that McCain implicitly rejected public financing when he tried to game the system during the primaries to obtain a loan.

Second, public financing is not the issue that has troubled Obama about campaign financing, rather it has always been the source of a campaigns finances. Since he has been raising such an extraordinarily large amount from small individual donations, it has essentially freed him from having to worry about being beholden to interest groups. In essence his fundraising methods and success have made the concerns about not accepting public financing irrelevant. It could even be argued that it is not only the correct strategic position, but also the moral position, not to reject the desires of those literally millions of small donors who want to participate. I would also argue that this is not only about the campaign, but it is also about governance. By allowing Obama to campaign in all fifty states, it will allow him to govern from a more national perespective. He will be the president of the entire country, not just the president of 25% of the country as W is.

Additionally it is John McCain who has trumpeted the issue of campaign finance reform. And it is his gaming of the system during the primaries that is a far more egregious violation of principles. After all this was one of Senator McCain's pet projects, yet as soon as it became necessary, he had no trouble gaming the system, while the FEC had been made impotent. Any examination of McCain's actions reveal his principles only apply to others. So Obama is roasted for an issue which is at most tangential to, and in no way violates, his principles and McCain is essentially given a free pass on a core violation of his ideals.

Now, while I regard these two press treatments as odious and misguided examples of what we have come to expect from the media this election cycle, they are really only a transition to what is now happening. And, after all, part of evaluating a candidate is to look at his ability to deal with a hostile press. Plus there impact was somewhat mitigated by the fact that they were expected and there genesis was at least based in a form of misinterpretation. They were not wholly fabricated. But now we are going to another level.

I thought the mortgage story had the potential to do a lot of damage considering the housing crisis. Here we have a headline saying Obama got a discount on his mortgage. Now discounting implies Obama was supposed to get one rate, but because of favoritism or worse a quid pro quo, he got a lower rate. However if you read the article, there is nothing there. The only thing the article says is his rate was below average. And as most people have noted, aside from those few people who get an average rate, you will either get an above or below average rate. But if you read further you realize that even this is a stretch. As the article reports Obama received a super jumbo loan. As a result there are very few comparables, so even to talk about an average is meaningless. For all we know, there might have been only one other similar loan during that time period. Additionally I would guess such loans are very case sensitive and do not lend themselves to comparison. It's not merely that the headline misinterprets the contents of the article, and its not that it does so with the worst possible connotation, it's that you might as well just print anything. We don't need a campaign. Just get some writers and have them come up with a script. The candidates become irrelevant.

The most recent example is Obama's statement that after visiting Iraq he would be able to refine his Iraq policy. This caused an eruption in the media. Obama was prepared to flip flop on one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Huh? Refine does not mean revise, modify or change. It means to enhance, develop and improve. And if, after speaking with General Petraeus, he could not refine his policy, I would say he was not making very good use of the general's time and probably shouldn't be making the trip. As has been remarked here many times, Obama's Iraq policy has been remarkably consistent throughout the primaries and into the general election campaign. This in my view was a made up issue, done simply because the opportunity presented itself. When the candidate can say precisely what he meant to say and precisely what he should have said, and the press can successfully impute whatever meaning they choose to those statements, what's the point?

So how far will the press go?

Happy Fourth!