Whap! Whap!

“The Surge is working!”, the debate moderators, reporters and pundits keep telling us. Apparently it has worked so well the press doesn’t even have to cover Iraq any longer.

The Surge has worked so well that the press doesn’t even have to ask John McCain what his strategy for the war is. It’s enough to just print his speeches attacking Barack Obama.

The Surge has worked so well that most papers have ignored inconvenient facts such as the ones The Washington Post uncovered here.

The Surge has worked so well that the McCain campaign, through its shadow arm “Vets for Freedom,” can have the press uncritically report on its preposterous ad, claiming that “the Surge worked,” and that the civil war, which conservatives have heretofore insisted never existed, is now “Over!” (The ad, if you haven’t already seen it a dozen times on the news shows, is here.)

So let’s have a surge of news coverage about the surge. Let’s examine all this wonderful progress, all the political reconciliation, economic rebirth, etc. etc.

Mostly, let’s ask George Bush and John McCain and Joe Lieberman one simple question: “What’s next?”

Let’s keep asking it until we get an answer.

If you read the actual report, the “negative” storyline on McCain was that he isn’t conservative enough…. A study by journalism.org says that the press has published far more negative stories about John McCain than about either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Conservatives will have a heyday with this one, citing it as one more example of The Liberal Media.

Only problem is that it’s a crock.

If you read the actual report, the primary “negative” storyline on McCain was that he isn’t conservative enough.

That’s hardly negative. In fact, it reinforces his campaign’s central message, that he is a maverick and hence more worthy of being elected, not less. In primary after primary, that “moderate” image served him well in the big battleground states he needed for the nomination.

Negative indeed.

Update: Mark Jurkowitz from journalism.org responded promptly with this reply:

Thanks very much for your note about our new campaign study. As this paragraph from our overview indicates, the idea of someone not being a reliable conservative could certainly be problematic in the context of a Republican primary race. But in a general election, it surely has more nuanced and complex implications—and would likely broaden his appeal to certain voters.

“For McCain, one master narrative stands out above all in the coverage—that he is not a true or reliable conservative. More than five in 10 of all the assertions studied about McCain conveyed that idea, about six times as many as the number of assertions rebutting it. While this narrative—not conservative enough—might have been a problem for him in the primary race, it is harder to evaluate its implications for the general election. If McCain is seen as a maverick, someone not tied to President Bush, it will likely enhance his standing among independents and moderate swing Democrats. Yet lack of conservative credentials could also dampen turnout among some of the GOP base.”

So reporter Jessica Yellin says ABC News execs told her to go easy on President Bush when his approval ratings were high (here from Politico). No surprise there.

Ironic, though, isn’t it? These same ABC execs defended their attack on Barack Obama during the debate by saying it was justified because he was the frontrunner … i.e. most popular.

Here’s a guarantee. If Obama wins in November, the mainstream media will attack his every hiccup, regardless of how high his approval ratings are.

Glenn Greenwald suggests that Scott McClellan’s new book should once and for all put to rest complaints of a liberal media. It should. It won’t. In fact, expect the cries of “liberal media!” to get louder than ever this summer and fall.

Greenwald’s Salon piece cites McClellan’s criticism of the press for its complicity in the run-up to war:

“In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

Notice, however, that McClellan doesn’t say media people aren’t liberal. They just failed to do their job. That’s not the same as my view, for example, that many large media outlets are little more than propaganda machines for the conservative establishment that did their jobs extremely well.

Nope. Now there’s a new talking point. The disaster was caused by the failure of the liberal media. Liberals are to blame for the war, just like they’re responsible for every other problem in the view of conservatives.

For a glimpse into the future, look no further than the concerted effort of the Republican Party and Fox News to discredit NBC. Ed Gillespie, George Bush’s counselor, is busy whining about MSNBC’s news division blurring with its liberal commentators. We’ve seen many examples of this, such as MSNBC’s almost non-stop bashing of Jeremiah Wright, and of Barack Obama for not repudiating him soon enough. How liberal! Chris Matthews is far left, according to Mr. Gillespie. You remember Chris Matthews, they guy whose gushing adoration for George Bush in his Mission Accomplished costume would have made Bill O’Reilly blush? Yep, that liberal Chris Matthews.

Soon, coverage of McClellan’s book will be further proof of liberal bias in the media, just as coverage of economic problems is dismissed as a partisan attack. The failure of reporters to expose conservatives’ version of The Truth About Barack Obama is another obvious example of liberal bias.

The myth ain’t dead. It’s just getting started.

p.s.: Scott, thanks for the compliment. We always knew that being fair and balanced was the hallmark of a liberal media …

We learn from Romenesko that the Record of Hackensack is “taking seriously” charges of liberal bias, and is requiring editors to seek out evidence of this left-wing plot.

So … will editors be required to look for incidents of conservative bias while they’re weeding out all this evil liberal bias?

Liberal bias is a meaningless phrase. For example, when the Virginian-Pilot refused to honor a high school artist because she sculpted a nude, the forums contained charges of “liberal bias.”

It’s an empty, meaningless phrase, yet publishers use it as an excuse to become ever more conservative at the same time the populace is becoming more liberal.

Papers get more conservative, liberal readers leave for the digital media, papers become even more conservative, so moderate readers leave …

I’m a sample of one, and this isn’t scientific. Yet every one of my conservative friends who complain about liberal bias subscribes to their local paper. My liberal friends complain just as loudly about conservative bias.

The difference is many of them have given up on newspapers, seeking out alternative newsweeklies and digital sources instead.

Getting even more conservative is only going to make it harder to attract young readers. It’s a suicidal business decision, yet publishers drink the Kool-Aid every day. And we wonder why papers are dying …

Why are the mainstream media so focused on whether George Bush was referring to Barack Obama when he made his “appeasement” remarks in the Knesset? Isn’t the real story that he just went to a foreign country and slandered many millions of patriotic Americans by calling them appeasers?

Personifying the comment could be just more of the lazy, horse-race reporting we’ve seen through the campaign. It could be that once again the media is picking up the GOP’s playbook, pinning a label on a Democrat.

And it’s true that Obama created some of the distraction himself by assuming it was a slap at him. That still doesn’t excuse the pundits for not exploring the deeper slander.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy is based entirely on liberal fantasy, according to Michael Goodwin in the New York Daily News.

If he’s right, then other liberals include Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and the entire Iraq Study Group. Obama’s crime is calling for diplomacy with countries such as Iran. Did the conservative press label Reagan a liberal for negotiating with the Iranians who took Americans hostage?

There’s something even more sinister in many of the attacks on Obama, and Goodwin’s piece is a prime example. Obama’s comments about negotiating with our “enemies” included folks like Hugo Chavez, yet Goodwin consistently portrays Obama has being soft on Muslims. Last time I looked, Chavez wasn’t Muslim. Neither are the leaders of South Korea or many other countries we’re not friendly with.

Last time I looked, most Muslims weren’t enemies of the United States. By all accounts, some of our best friends are Muslim, even those who despise George Bush’s policies.

So why twist this into religion? Is it to continue the insinuation that Obama is Muslim? Is it to cast Muslims in a bad light to illustrate why it would be such a bad thing if he were Muslim? Venezuela is overwhelmingly Catholics, but I haven’t heard the President or anyone else suggest that negotiating with Chavez would be wrong because it would be appeasing Christians (to these unreconstructed Cold Warriors, that’s bad because it appeases communists).

Goodwin also dismisses the economic problems that are fueling anger among some Muslims. The conservatives have to dismiss these concerns so people will go on believing that their belief in Islam is the only reason some Muslims want change.

So get ready for the storyline this summer and fall: Obama is Muslim. Oh wait, no he isn’t; he’s a radical Christian who listens to his minister. Oh wait, he disavowed that minister, so maybe he’s a Muslim sympathizer after all.

Since the press obviously isn’t going to drop this story, I hope we continue to read it for the next eight years as the establishment press attacks President Barack Obama.

That’s my liberal fantasy.

I’m going to guess that most of you coming here from the Black Star News aren’t looking for stories about newspaper technology. The more political posts are here. My musings on the coverage of Barack Obama are here. Thanks for visiting!

James Burnett of the Miami Herald makes a great point. Barack Obama is half-black, half-white, yet the mainstream media (and alas yes, I too) call him black. Mr. Burnett suggests that he’s going to start calling Mr. Obama the white candidate because, after all, he’s half white. You really should read this. Why can’t newspapers (instead of their blogs) make this kind of point more often?

Google “can obama win white vote” today and you get about 15,000 responses. Most are duplicates of the same few wire stories, but many are not, and almost all raise the same specter: Barack Obama can’t win in November because he can’t win the white vote.

First, that’s far from a fact. He has won millions of white votes, including mine. Second, Democrats have won three of the last four presidential popular votes, and lost the white vote each time, so why is it necessary for Obama to win it this time? Would Hillary Clinton win the white vote in November? Her husband never did.

So are these news stories really serious analysis of an important issue, or just another way to undermine Obama’s campaign? I would suggest a little bit of both.

Newspaper reporters and editors choose what to define as “news.” Let’s look at the track record so far: Jeremiah Wright is news; John Hagee is not. Bill Clinton’s fortune is news; Cindy McCain’s is not. Barack Obama has never run a business or been a government, which is news; John McCain hasn’t either, but who cares? It’s news that white racists won’t vote for Obama; it’s not news that they apparently will vote for Clinton or Obama …

The analysis so far boils down to little more than stereotypes and assumptions. It’s apparently safe to assume, for example, that white Democrats who have voted for Clinton over Obama naturally will vote for McCain over Obama. Obama is elitist because he’s not winning the blue-collar white vote; Clinton and McCain aren’t winning the blue-collar black vote, but that doesn’t make them elitist.

Not all newspaper columnists have toed the line, of course. Here’s my favorite quote: “Racists should decide the Democratic nomination,” Issac J. Bailey wrote Friday in the Myrtle Beach (S.C.) Sun News. “Sen. Hillary Clinton didn’t use those words in an interview with USA Today, but she came close.” (Which I pulled from an excellent piece in the Black Star News).

Overall, however, the tone of coverage has been “We newspaper folks are not at all racist, of course, but there are so many racists out there that you’re taking a big risk by voting for a black guy. It might be safer to vote for the white candidate instead. That will show those racists!”

I am not suggesting most newspaper people are racist. I definitely am suggesting that most have a conservative bias. Conservative conventional wisdom is that you need the white vote to win elections, even if you have to offend the non-white vote to get it.

Newspapers are reinforcing that “wisdom.”

So I’m a white guy in rural Oregon and I’m more excited about Obama than about any candidate in decades, but that’s not a story to the mainstream media. Now if I hated him, that would be another story.

Literally.