Media Matters: Media debunk McCain attacks as lies, then use the lies to drive news coverage

Media Matters for America: The media debunk McCain smears, then promote them
Jamison Foser

....Over the past few weeks, and especially the past week, numerous news organizations and other neutral observers have debunked a series of false claims made by John McCain and his campaign....

The Washington Post has reported that "McCain and his allies" are accusing Obama of "snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true" and noted that the evidence the McCain campaign provided to back up the claim did not do so. The New York Times reported that McCain's recent offensive against Obama has been based on claims that have been "widely dismissed as misleading," which is actually an understatement -- they've been widely dismissed as false. A St. Petersburg Times editorial denounced McCain's "nasty turn into the gutter," adding that he "has resorted to lies and distortions in what sounds like an increasingly desperate attempt to slow down Sen. Barack Obama. ... These baseless attacks are raising more questions about the Republican's campaign and his ability to control his temper." The New York Times editorial board called another McCain attack "contemptible" and "ugly." On MSNBC, Time magazine Washington bureau chief Jay Carney called a McCain ad "reprehensible." MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell reported that a McCain ad is "completely wrong, factually wrong" and that it "literally is not true." The Cleveland Plain Dealer rated a McCain campaign ad a "zero" on its 0-to-10 scale of truthfulness.

All that -- and much, much more -- has come in just the past week.

In short, nearly every recent attack by the McCain campaign on Obama -- and there have been many -- has been debunked by at least one news outlet and in most cases by several.

So what's the problem? Sounds like the media are doing their job, right?

Wrong.

All week, McCain's attacks have been driving news coverage. Those same news organizations that have declared McCain's charges false have given them an extraordinary amount of attention, repeating them over and over. They have adopted the premises of the McCain attacks even as they acknowledge the attacks are based on false claims. The media narrative of the week has not been, as you might expect, that John McCain's apparent dishonesty may hurt him with voters. Instead, the media's basic approach has been to debunk McCain's attacks once, then run a dozen stories about how the attacks are sticking, how the "emerging narrative" will hurt Obama.

But attacks don't just stick and narratives don't just emerge. The only reason that the topic of the week was whether Obama is presumptuous instead of whether McCain is a liar who will do anything to get elected is that the news media decided to make Obama's purported flaws the topic of the week -- even after debunking the charges upon which the characterization is based. It's as though the news media -- so concerned about lies (that weren't really lies) in 2000 -- have suddenly decided that it doesn't matter that the McCain campaign is launching false attack after false attack. That it's the kind of thing you note once, then adopt the premise of the attack....

***

Confronted with a situation in which Candidate A is making false claims to portray Candidate B in a negative light, logic, reason, a basic respect for truth, and an interest in quality journalism all suggest that the media should focus on Candidate A's dishonesty rather than whether Candidate B does indeed have the negative qualities Candidate A is using false claims to establish. How can that possibly be a controversial proposition? The excuse reporters will offer is that the "narrative" is "emerging." But these narratives don't emerge on their own. They emerge because the media keep asserting them, without evidence. If the cable news shows asked every guest this week whether John McCain's repeated false claims will undermine his credibility rather than whether Barack Obama's presumptuousness will hurt him, the "emerging narrative" would be quite different....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808010008?f=h_latest

and it's hardly even started yet.

finally the New York Times declares that it's an important story. That's how these narratives propagate. That's why it's now an "accepted fact" that Obama played the race card and race has become a major issue in the campaign. Cuz the media tells us so.

because the media says it is a fact and we don't need evidence, because remember it is a "fact".

of elected Republicans, corporate heads etc.

They compile the talking points along with Bush and McCain's people and then hand them out to all Republicans and the Mediawhores.

They're just at the front of the line in spreading them.

"There's nothing magical about the criticism that makes it an "effective GOP shot" -- it is effective because reporters choose not to do their jobs. Narratives that are based on false examples don't just "take hold" -- reporters choose not to do their jobs. It's really that simple. And it isn't the difference between good journalism and bad journalism. It's the difference between journalism and something else entirely. A journalist doesn't simply repeat false claims the Republicans make. A journalist doesn't adopt the underlying premise of an attack when the evidence in support of it is false. Whatever you call the people responsible for this nonsense, don't call them journalists."

Thanks for the thread, DeepModem Mom.

Kicked and recommended.

there's simple laziness and "in crowd" mentality at work among our press corps, IMO.

has made it pretty clear that there's more at work here. Each McCain attack (the partial quote by Milbank, the cancellation of the German Hospital visit) was CLEARLY refuted, many many times during the week by MAINSTREAM, NATIONAL people and outlets.... and yet when Sunday rolled aroung, it was as if Wednesday through Friday didn't exist...

How is this not complicit?

I agree that the media, complicitly, works against us every time -- as my posted article makes clear.

ownership or upstream management, they all know who signs their checks and who the boss's favorite candidate is.

I believe some media personalities are hired because either they have Bush's infamous incurious mind or laziness as you would describe it and management considers that an asset, already agree with the top ownership/management's corporate view of the world, or are willing to subjugate their own journalistic talent and integrity for the sake of job security.

As only six corporations own 90+% of everything the American People see on television, hear on the radio or read in print, this mass manipulation shouldn't be that difficult to achieve.

Of course they're pushing for even more consolidation today, the ironic thing is, the more they concentrate the weaker they become to political pressure from the top and that's a large part of the reason as to why U.S. press freedom ranks 48th in the world, Nicaragua is ranked 47th.

This is also a large part of the reason as to why the only freedom of press arguments the corporate media currently supports are the those protecting powerful corrupt corporate loving administration officials; who commit criminal conduct against true whistle blowers, ie: the Plames as just one example.

Sad to say it, the American People's freedom as a whole is intricately tied to the freedom of the press, when they become weaker or more enslaved, we do as well.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24022

:thumbsup:

what we would do without orgs such as mediamatters?!