In their book "free ride," David Brock and Paul Waldman spell out how the media, while downplaying critical stories, and applying differing standards, has given John McCain a relatively free ride on many issues that otherwise require far more illumination and examination.  

This trend of skewed coverage and factually off base, pro McCain commentary, is so prevalent in the media that oftentimes, even so called "media liberals" partake of it.  

David Broder, today, in the Washington Post:

McCain benefits from a long-established reputation as a man who says what he believes. His shifts in position that have occurred in this campaign seem not to have damaged that aura.

Hmmm. I wonder why.  Could it have anything to do with the way that the media covers McCain, as well as the way they "cover" his almost constant flip flops and statements of belief that directly contradict his earlier statements of belief?

The 'who could have known' defense

Cross-posted at The Sanctuary.  Please click here to read our latest report.

If your only source of news is cable during prime time, you might be among those who believe that the U.S. government and American society are groaning under the weight of undocumented immigrants. You might believe that there is a terrifying crime wave attributable to illegal immigration. You might believe that undocumented immigrants feast on a cornucopia of social services, while avoiding paying taxes. You might also believe that they are voting illegally in large numbers, and that they bring with them all sorts of diseases. You might also believe that there are secret plans afoot to give away American sovereignty, as the United States joins with Canada and Mexico in a North American Union similar to the European Union. You might even believe that there is an enormous "NAFTA Superhighway," running all the way from Mexico City to Toronto, in the works as we speak.

As a consequence of last week's California Supreme Court ruling overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage, county clerks are saying the phones are ringing off the hook. Thousands of weddings appear to be in the offing. This being California, a number of those will be celebrity affairs. Among the people who have announced plans to tie the knot is 71-year-old George Takei, best known for his performances as Lt. Hikaru Sulu, the helmsman of the USS Enterprise, in the original Star Trek television series and six Star Trek movies. He'll be marrying his business manager and long-time companion of 21 years, Brad Altman.

Takei told Reuters:

"There's no tradition in terms of same-sex marriage. We are designing and shaping our own wedding in our own way, so it's going to be singular and unique," added Takei, who first made his wedding plans known on his website during the weekend. ...

"As an American, I was delighted that we're getting closer and closer to more truly being faithful to the Constitution," said Takei.

Referring there to his boyhood experience as one of thousands of Japanese-Americans sent to U.S. internment camps during World War II, Takei said he was "keenly mindful of the subtle and not so subtle discrimination that the law can impose."

Media Matters Senior Fellow Paul Waldman writes at The American Prospect:

The Backlash That Wasn't

^{The The California Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage will not be important in November -- here's why.}

What a difference four years makes. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in late 2003 that gay couples had the same right to marry as straight couples, the nation had a collective fainting spell, and constitutional amendments affirming the super-straightness of state after state popped up like dandelions. Republican politicians tripped over each other to predict the demise of American civilization if the marriage equality outbreak were not contained, and Democrats tugged at their collars and tried to explain their nuanced and complicated positions on the issue.

Yet last week when the Supreme Court of the largest state in the union issued a similar ruling, making California the second state with full marriage rights for all citizens, the political reaction was remarkably subdued. Yes, there will be a constitutional amendment on California's ballot this November, and the campaign there will be hard-fought. But on the national level, there were no raised voices, no cries of anguish, no calls to man the ramparts -- at least none to which anyone paid much attention. All soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee John McCain could muster was a spokesperson reading from the old script, mumbling that the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

If you didn't know all that much about McCain you might think his muted response reflects a moderation on gay issues uncharacteristic among Republicans. But you'd be wrong.

The Overnight News Digest has been posted and includes Efforts to close Guantanamo at standstill: Gates

Free Ride: John McCain and the Media
By David Brock and Paul Waldman
Anchor Books, New York, 2008

A love affair took place aboard John McCain’s Straight Talk Express during the 2000 presidential primaries, one truly unique in the history of American political journalism. And it has hardly waned in the years since. The media, usually known for their ravenous appetite for scandalous behavior, have conveniently left out the legendary tales of the senatori’s hair-trigger temper, his mean and vulgar sense of humor, and his questionable ties to shady characters. While reporters spill gallons of ink on McCain’s admirable qualities, they have shoved to the side his unattractive traits, features of the McCain personality and record that he is no doubt all too happy to have the public overlook.

The world of politics, with its dueling delusions and realities (and narratives and memes and frames and arcs), can be a bewildering and frustrating one for activists. Nowhere is this more the case than when confronted with the fundamental stories America tells itself about itself--and its leaders, its goals and its destiny. Some bedrock beliefs in this country appear to be almost hard-wired into our nationalistic DNA--"socialized" medicine is horrible, the "heartland" of America is the real America, taxes are bad bad bad bad, always.

And, of course: John McCain is a straight-talking maverick war hero.

The media loves John McSame.  Candidate bowling scores are more
interesting to these people than torture and the 4th amendment.

SusanG will be reviewing "Free Ride: John McCain and the Media" today.
Below the fold is the Sunday Talk interview with "Free Ride" co-author
Paul Waldman and other goodies...

Paul Waldman, co-author with David Brock of Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, will appear today at 5 pm Eastern (4 Cent. 3 Mtn. 2 Pac.) on Mark Levine's Inside Scoop radio show to discuss his book.

In this excerpt from the book, we see how the media have promoted John McCain for a long time, from his days with the Keating Five to his more recent flip-flops kowtowing to the Bush Administration.

Kos listeners are encouraged to call in, comment on the blog, and ask tough questions.  The toll-free number to dial in is 888-488-MARK (6275)

A brand new book takes a scathing look at the cozy relationship between John McCain and the reporters who cover him: "Free Ride: John McCain and the Media" is coming out this week.

This comes from a Newsweek interview with co-author Paul Waldman

McCain’s ‘Free Ride’

Why is that? Is it just that he's a likable 'straight talker'? Or are we all suckers?

It's both. You have to understand that the way McCain deals with the national media is a strategy. He realized that reporters want to be treated differently than the way most politicians treat them, which is very carefully and being measured with what they say, going off the record a lot. And that's frustrating for reporters. What McCain figured out was not to be careful, not to go off the record, to return their calls and talk about anything for as long as they wanted. And the results have paid off very handsomely for him, because he gets the benefit of the doubt all the time.

Today Michael Cooper did a great Times piece that, for a very refreshing change, essentially called Rudy a liar.  I humbly wonder if this in some way could have stemmed from my correspondence with Cooper.

On Monday of this week a Times article by Cooper and Michael Luo on Romney and Giuliani had merely repeated the charges and counter-charges of each campaign about whether crime had gone down in Massachusetts while Romney was Governor.  

Paul Waldman wrote a piece in Tapped about this "he said/he said" approach and I emailed Cooper with a link to it::

The link below contains an excellent suggestion with respect to your piece today and Romney and Giuliani's charges on crime in Massachusetts: that is -- find out which one of them is telling the truth and report that. As pointed out in the link, the truth is ascertainable easily on line. Thanks.

Recently, Republican Senator and Presidential hopeful John McCain urged his party to return to "common sense conservatism".

But is conservatism, common sense or otherwise, good for America?  And does McCain truly believe that "the government that governs least governs best"?  What about Somalia?  Or Iraq?  And is McCain being a hypocrite?  After all, he thinks Washington politicians, like himself, should have the power to restrict womens' reproductive choices.

This morning, I'm looking for the silver lining, and I may have found a few rays of hope (and a mixed metaphor, too!).

The US is giving Iraq over-indulgent love, like a weak, can't-say-no parent.

Better to be a tough-love parent. Let the Iraqis work out their own problems. We'll give them a small allowance and a limited amount of emotional and military support.

Read the quote below the fold.

On May 12th, Media Matters sponsored a panel discussion called "Why Media Matters: The Role of the Media in the Democratic Process" which details the essentials of the differing perspectives of media critics and the members of the press who are on the receiving end of that criticism. Often a hot topic in netroots circles, to be sure.

Many of the arguments that I've heard from both sides were detailed and eloquently stated. And it provides a one-stop shopping spree for those of us like me who are obsessed with the discussion of -- as Greg Sargent puts it the tagline of his blog Horse's Mouth -- the reporting of politics and the politics of reporting. Or, as Brattlerouser and Jamison Foser would remind us: It's the media, you rather-less-than-super-sharp person.

Essentially, the right has been so successful because not only does it effectively label itself, but it also completely defines the left. The author, Paul Weldman, wrote about the core beliefs of the right - their Four Pillars, so to speak: