s been on his five country tour, that John McCain is not the media's center of attention. Of course, this isn't a new development, as Hillary Clinton complained about being overshadowed by Barack Obama as well. Although its clear that McCain is overshadowed, it's not so clear why, which is why I have made a list of the five biggest reasons why McCain is overlooked, and also five reasons why he shouldn't be.5 Reasons Why John McCain is Overshadowed by the Media-
5. It’s John McCain’s Fault:
One of the main reasons why Barack Obama went to Iraq- which has caused John McCain to feel overshadowed- was due to John McCain’s challenge to do so. Of Course, McCain wanted it to be a joint event, but Obama said that he didn’t want the trip to be political posturing.
To add to that, McCain isn’t the best speaker in the world, and he doesn’t captivate audiences of 70,000 while on the campaign trail. This may not be important in the big picture, as presidents don’t need to be great speakers to be effective leaders, but it does seem to be hurting his exposure.
4. John McCain is a Republican, the Party of “Still-President” George W. Bush.
We have gone through 7 years of President Bush, and as recent polls show, he’s not too popular. Democrats have picked up seats in both the house and senate over the past 2 election cycles, and there is a feeling that a lot of people believe this one is wrapped up, too. Basically, Republicans aren’t the new-hip-stylish thing right now, and no one really thinks they will be in November either (which may or may not lose them votes). John McCain is already feeling the adverse effects of this
3. The Democratic Primary Marathon
This one made a case for the number two spot, but the second reason is just too important to be number three. From February to June, all we heard 24/7 from every news outlet imaginable was Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The primaries affected McCain adversely on a lot of different levels. The first of which did so by adding to the excitement over the Democratic Party. The second of which is by registering a whole lot of new democrats in the primary states (every state). The third of which is by allowing the media to legitimately overshadow John McCain during all of these months. None of these have boded well for John McCain
2. He’s Old, He’s a Male, and He’s White… 
1. Barack Obama Mania- A Craze You Can Believe In
Of course, you can’t be overshadowed unless there is something there to cast that shadow, and in this case, that something is Barack Obama. In a lot of ways, Barack Obama would be a media darling in any election year. Many feel that he is an eloquent and charismatic speaker, and that his words evoke images of JFK and RFK in the minds of his followers. Obama is also the first African-American presidential nominee from either party- headline news any year. As a fresh face in Washington, the nation (and world) is just getting to know him, which has sparked the curiosity of many Americans. But, Senator Obama has fallen into a bit of luck as well, enjoying the benefits of being a post-Bush Democrat, as well as those from a nationally-exposing primary election. In the primaries, Obama became a Clinton slayer, another item to add to the buzz around him.
5 Reasons why John McCain shouldn’t be overlooked-
5. He is Not George W. Bush
According to the most recent Gallup Poll, 77% of the nation should be excited that this McCain is not Bush, and the other 23% (based on the assumption they are republicans) should be happy with him since he is a republican. Using this logic, everyone in the nation has a reason to like John McCain!
4. He, too, Represents Change
There is a reason John McCain has had such a successful career. McCain has a record of bi-partisanship, something that is lacking in Washington these days.
3. Is it Really About Rating
s?
The media has to earn a living, just like everyone else, but is it really just about ratings? A lot of people use NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox as their main source of news, and when their main sources of news show any kind of bias (read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point in the section about the late Peter Jennings), it tends to have major consequences. In an ideal world, neutrality should not be sacrificed for profit, but hey, this is America..
2. He’s an Historic Candidate John McCain is the oldest man to ever run for president, and would be one of the greatest war heroes the office has ever seen. He’s a bipartisan senator, which is rare in this day and age, and has gone through a tremendous amount of hardships in his life to reach this platform. In many ways, John McCain is the embodiment of the American Dream, just as Senator Obama is.
1. He’s Running for President of the United States of America This one should speak for itself. This man has a very good shot at becoming the most powerful leader in the world. There is absolutely no reason why he should be overlooked. One of the most important things to remembers is that John McCain is an honorable American, and he deserves enough air time to allow the American people to make an educated choice for president. Even if we have to listen to him look old and not-too exciting (although Stephen Colbert has helped him out with that).
(Image from Wall Street Journal, Sun News Network, and Textually.org)
23 comments:
Lame article. McCain is too old and too misguided to take on the presidency. I'd imagine many within the GOP aren't to happy with who made it through the primary filter. This country needs someone that listens to the people. Why do you think the media focuses so much on Obama? Because Obama sells more than McCain, why? Because there is a stronger base of interest and support there... Obama will win, it is a given at this point. McCain can't add anything to this office that the people haven't seen before, or sadly had to suffer through.
"Lame article" - I appreciate your comment, but just because something doesn't back up what you believe doesn't automatically give you a reason to push it to the side.
Obama is a hot topic right now, that is why he sells. Your logic is faulty, recent polls show 46% of the nation is for Obama and 43% is for McCain. A much strong support base? Not really. As for interest, yes, there is more interest, and I believe I hit on those reasons...
Its not really a given at this point, how do you say that? You have to give why you think something, words are just words without support.
While you may not agree with McCain and his policies, it doesn't mean that he is an absolute misguided idiot. Also, its important to look back at his career and not just this election when judging him. This has been a common mistake in the judgments from the Democrats. If you actually do this and don't look at people just giving the party line of "4 more years of W", you will see that he does add something different. I find your views as those of the camp that just listens to what politicians are saying and not looking at what they have done in the past.
By no means am I implying that I will vote for McCain (or Obama) or that you should. But the media should give him exposure and the American people should give him some of their time.
Thanks,
John
McCain a change? He takes foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger. Kissinger the man who authorized bombings in Cambodia during troop withdrawals. He still attests that as of 1972 we were winning the Vietnam war and should have kept at it. Phil Gramm is one of his senior economic advisers, and until July, rumored to be his choice for treasury secretary. ARE YOU SERIOUS? This is the guy that said that we're not in a recession, we're just a nation of whiners (mental recession). All of this while he served as a top executive for UBS during a period where the company devaluated at one point almost 70%, in part because of the sub-prime financial crisis we're facing. The president, if nothing else is supposed to surround himself with experts. These examples alone show that McCain can't handle this responsibility, and furthermore, he seems like an exact replica of Bush, surrounding himself with people telling him exactly what he wants to hear. And seriously, "Because he's running for president of the United States." and "he's old?" Really? Did you just run out of stuff to write so you substituted stuff like "He's a change too." This is the most soft-ball blog I've ever read.
"McCain a change? He takes foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger. Kissinger the man who authorized bombings in Cambodia during troop withdrawals." - Stick to what I said, focus on the bi-partisan record he has in the senate- what I specifically mentioned when referring to change. It's not to say that this is all encompassing, but he's not George W Bush. It's hard for anyone to really represent change in every way, its irrational to think any candidate can represent change on all levels.
Your comments on Phil Gramm and McCain's previous statements show that McCain's change wouldn't be all encompassing either, but you might as well argue with the wall over that, no one would disagree with you.
First of all, look at the whole reason you mentioned, not just a bit "He's Old, He's White, and He's a Male" Basically, he is the same type as we have seen throughout history, which is a direct foil of Obama and Clinton, two candidates that excited the media and the country. Do you really not think that this has anything to do with his media coverage? If so you, we don't live in the same country.
Also, if you are implying that the fact that McCain is running for the Presidency is not a good reason to give him media attention, then I just don't think that we are going to agree. Sure, lets let the market decide who is going to get the most exposure. Popularity = $. If we do that, aren't we creating more uniformed people who are only exposed to one side?
We need less people who disagree with everything that doesn't completely back up what they think. Just because you believe a certain way, doesn't mean that you are absolutely correct. It's good to see that you have a passion and commitment to your beliefs, but sorry to see that you are so stuck on them that you can't see those of others without your thick lenses. I hope that we can move past this as a nation, because it makes it really hard to get anything accomplished or have civil conversation, since all of the debate ends up being misguided attacks that stray away from anything relevant. Or, in other cases, people just end up going off on a tangent and finding some way to link someone to something that may partially prove a point which is not really relevant in the first place.
"Stick to what I said, focus on the bi-partisan record he has in the senate"
If he's the same in every other way, I can present evidence of that to help substantiate the claim that the change you're suggesting is insignificant. He won't be in the senate, he is running for...drum roll...president. If his ability to select advisers is no different from the previous president, I think I should be able to mention that on a political blog.
It is fine that he gets media attention because he's running for president. I in no way implied that he shouldn't. What I implied was that your blog was stupid for listing that as a reason. People come to this blog for novel insights. I want a new way to look at things. You basically said, "he's the other guy, I mean, we should probably look at him too." Why didn't you list the planks of his economic policy as an alternative to Obama's. Pick a little understood plank and explain why it would benefit from more media exposure. Or perhaps you could have mentioned that Obama's success overseas may alienate him in the current xenophobic climate of the United States strengthening McCain's foreign policy domestically--so the media should examine that. A little analysis. A little thinking-cap. SOMETHING.
Also, if you intend on writing political articles, hear this now that your blog is really only a month old. People have opinions different from yours and will express them. If they present facts and figures that counter yours, you can't always say something to the extent of "we need less people who disagree (with me) can't we all just get along." If you can't handle this, and feel the need to zoom out to a phrase like "I hope that we can move past this as a nation" every time someone has a different opinion, you need to find a different hobby. The whole "mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." thing has been done, by men much better than you, and me. I'm loathe to close.
Incidentally, this isn't the same person posting all these comments.
Anonymous,
It's interesting you're as set as you are on the notion that a McCain presidency would merely be a continuation of the Bush policies.
The truth is, McCain has only been compared to Bush in recent months as it has become politically advantageous for his opponent to do so. McCain is not compared to Bush for his decision to go to war instead of joining the Texas National Guard; he is not compared to Bush for his long history of voting against the Republican party when he has seen fit; in fact, the men are not friends but rather are still bitter from their long history as political rivals.
You may have heard the quote that "politics makes strange bedfellows." This is a case study. Regardless of whether you agree with McCain, the idea that McCain as president would be as self-insulated and partisan as Bush is nothing more than politics from the Obama camp.
And in response to the second part of your message: we relish the debate brought up by comments such as yours. Keep it coming.
I sincerely appreciate you communicating your point of view. I would hate if everyone came on here and agreed with me. I hope you do not think that I do not hold the belief that "we need less people who disagree (with me) can't we all just get along."
However, I do disagree with the notion of people claiming that what they believe is absolute, and mostly along the lines of political parties. Of course you can show that McCain does not represent a change from Bush somehow, we have to remember they are from the same party and share some similar views, friends, and advisers. Can you honestly say that McCain does not represent some sort of shift from the Bush administration? I don't buy into that. This is just a huge party line from the Democrats.
I'm sorry if you disagree, but this is obviously a misguided attack "And seriously, "Because he's running for president of the United States." and "he's old?" Really? Did you just run out of stuff to write so you substituted stuff like "He's a change too." This is the most soft-ball blog I've ever read."
This is an example of what I am reffering to when I say "I hope that we can move past this as a nation".
But, your comment on Phil Gramm is definitely welcome, but make sure to welcome my argument back, which you didn't
"These examples alone show that McCain can't handle this responsibility, and furthermore, he seems like an exact replica of Bush, surrounding himself with people telling him exactly what he wants to hear."
I'm sorry, but one example of one adviser doesn't make someone an exact replica. Like I said, McCain's change is not all inclusive, and I don't believe Obama's is either. But each of the men do offer their own changes, be it in economic policy (healthcare, for one), foreign policy and the war in Iraq, or social issues, from the current president and administration. Its ludicrous to imply that McCain is McSame, especially because of one adviser.
Also, if you think that I am an idiot and this is a soft-ball blog for me putting that McCain is running for president- or as you put it, the "other guy"- as number 1, then consider that the fact that his policies differ from barack as part of this response.
McCain is-from your view- the other guy, so his econ and foreign policy is different. This is why the media should give him attention. You and I are saying the same thing, except I did it in a sweeping broad stroke.
Thanks a lot for your comments (I will definitely take them into consideration when writing), I do not think that people should agree with me all the time or any of the time. Although, it seems that you are very stuck on disagreeing with my point on McCain being somewhat of a change. I do have a problem with disagreeing without listening, and that is what I was referring to.
By the way, if you were to put your name, it would be possible to tell that you are not the same person as all the others who use anonymous.
Ryan,
You're a really great moderator here. I agree with your level headed analysis of the numerous differences between president Bush and sen. McCain. Things like records in the service are important.
I'm merely pointing out that in other important ways he seems to be similar to president Bush (even if they aren't friends). I used the example of him picking incompetent advisers. Another example would be his reversal from his original economic policy to a remarkably Bushlike "tax-cuts for the wealthy (permanently)" position. Among other things, he voted against renewing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a position GWB also promoted. He voted in 2006 for an initiative for a ban on Arizona GLBTQ unions (though this failed). He recently moved to reinstate the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the army which has resulted in a net loss of over 12,000 soldiers since it's inception in 1993. In recent years, the leading group of people discharged have been Arabic translators which arguably reduces our ability to attain "victory." (not to rehash the Kissinger thing but " “Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.” is Kissinger's view on Terror which is another Bush trait) Both of these examples of McCain interacting with gay and lesbian groups show evidence of similarities with the Bush camp. McCain has pushed away from socialized health care, and openly admitted being against Roe v Wade. These are all important issues and causes why I see similarities between the two.
I'm not saying that they're close, I'm saying that they make similar moves. I'm drawing the association from these things, not the Obama camp (though it is possible that many are). A July 2nd Gallup poll showed that 49% percent of Americans are "Very Concerned" that a McCain presidency will result in a continuation of Bush policies.
You presented interesting historical differences in character, however, I'm looking more at stances they've taken in their time in office. Either way, I respect the way you presented your points methodically and encouraged further debate.
Nice moderating.
p.s. you can't if you don't have a profile on this thing
John,
I can honestly say that he doesn't represent a big enough change from George Bush for me. You can say it's party lines, but I campaigned for Bush the first time, heard his arguments the second time, and don't want anything else to do with him now. I'm not a registered democrat, nor am I a member or loyal follower of the Obama campaign. As an independent, there are just too many similarities for me.
Anonymous,
I believe I should make myself clear. I am with you in a slight sense when you say that McCain does not offer a big enough change from George Bush, for me. In a sense of them being similar in their moves, such as McCain´s recent switch to his new stance on offshore drilling as well as his switch to the bush-tax cuts, I agree with you. However, I would like to bring up another point, which is how much of this do you think is political pandering. With the republican party having such a rift in it (as seen from the primaries) and McCain not being seen as a true consv-repub, I believe that a lot of this is pandering. This is my point when referring to the candidate's past rather than what he is saying now. Does this justify McCain's similar moves, NO! Absolutely not. But, I see that as politics, and I tend to not believe a lot of the pandering, and take McCain's judgment in the past as my true judgment of him. I feel that this is especially true to McCain, since even if elected this first time, he would not (or could not run) for another. However, it is unfortunate that politicians have to pander as they do, but it is up to us to filter out what we think is the truth from them, and i beleive that a lot of Mccain's shifts towards "bushism" have been nothing more than pandering.
Thanks for the comments
Your comment on pandering has some merit. Though, there is evidence to substantiate that the similarities are deeper in McCain's character by examining such things as his legislative history. I provided examples with the LGBTQ legislation and the Assault Weapons ban. Assuming that he is pandering, however, this is a shift to make himself more like Bush, a choice by his campaign to get more of his party's votes. In other words, not the Democratic machine mobilizing against him. Ryan had mentioned that it was in recent months that the Democrats started pointing out the similarities between the two, and it would seem that you're saying it's about the same time he started acting more like him. Either way, you have to be impartial because it's your blog. I don't have to be, because I'm a lowly reader.
Also, if we REALLY want to talk media favoritism, how about CBS editing McCain's comments so as not to show that he made a mistake on the subject he says he is strongest; defense and namely the "surge."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22
/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html
(in case the link didn't make it)
Anyonymous,
"Either way, you have to be impartial because it's your blog. I don't have to be, because I'm a lowly reader."
Two things about your statement:
Thanks for noticing, and by the way, thats not an easy job. And I am new to impartiality...
Your right, you don't have to be, but I just wanted to say thanks for being a "lowly ready". We really do appreciate it. We are glad you have stuck around this "soft-ball blog" (I don't know if you wrote that or not, which doesn't matter, but I just thought it was a pretty funny statement so I had to throw it in there)
Anyways, I think that Obama's spotlight in most of the media, and the McCain bias on Fox and CBS are part of the bigger picture. I will say that I believe Obama has enjoyed more benefits from the media than has McCain. But as you have proven (and could do a whole lot more of, I am sure), a lot exists on the other side as well. The media is definitely not trustworthy enough to be objective, or in this case, report the "truth" without distorting it. That is unfortunate on a number of levels, including the viewers thinking that they are hearing the truth paired with the fact that they are not hearing the truth. Because of that, other stations pop up putting their version of the truth out there, continuing the cycle...
Wow. This is one of the few blogs I've come to where there has actually been healthy debate between INFORMED people ON THE ISSUES. Good work John for trying to be unbiased, although in the coming weeks and months ahead I think I'd like to see yourself and Ryan be a little more forthcoming on where exactly you stand on the most important issues-Iraq, the economy, etc. I know it might be asking too much, but shit, I think it'd be interesting!
Anonymous (I assume a different anonymous)
Thanks for you comment. I am glad that you appreciate a healthy informed debate, that is our goal, and apparently the goal of the other anonymous above. I don't know if you will be hearing our opinions in our work, but if you keep up with the comment boards they will be more likely to show through this medium. Thanks for your visit and comment.
by the way, this is an interesting take on how the huge press for obama's trip abroad could hurt him more than help Obama In Berlin
Great article John!
Haha definitly a different Anonymous. I agree that editing of stories should be impartial
The CBS Manual on News Editing Section 111-5
Interviews are to be edited in a straightforward manner, preserving the sense of the interview. Even a short sound bite should accurately reflect the spirit of the entire interview. An answer may not be taken out of context if the result is to distort the original meaning. If a question to an interview subject is used, the answer must be to that specific question. The question and the answer may be edited, but not in a way that would distort the meaning of either. Answers to different questions may not be combined to give the impression of one continuous response. In short, we cannot create an answer merely because we wish the subject had said it better.
That isn't what happens on any media station. You are correct that people come out of the wood-work creating news in a way by revealing segments of facts, rather than whole facts to let the audience decide. We live in the era of catch phrase though, where would we be without phrases like "Flip Flop." I couldn't have a decent political discussion without it.
-Lowly Reader
"Andrea said...
Great article John!"
Thanks a lot Andrea, I'm glad that someone enjoyed it!
Anonymous,
And they are damn good at it, unfortunately. I still can't help but think of John Kerry whenever someone says flip flop
For those of you that think McCain is too old...know that Augustus Ceasar was still in his 70's and governing the roman empire..and he didn't do such a bad job did he?
Anonymous,
Well, I think it is a valid issue to a certain extent, which is amplified by McCain's health conditions. The fact that McCain is a lot closer to death (sorry to put it so harshly) than any other recent president means that we could essentially be voting for the next two presidents, a situation that is similar to but not as extreme as 1944 with the FDR and Harry Truman ticket.
I mostly agree with you, however, that age in any other consideration should not matter so much, as long as the leader is competent.
Thanks for you comment,
John
Your article fails to acknowledge the more looming issue represented by the favoritism of Obama in the eyes of the media, it is the media impact and their liberal agenda. Where are the daily reports of Iraq? Our soldiers are doing a much more effective job over thier...let's give them some credit. What happen to the story of Senator Chris Dodd and his Countrywide mortgage loan? OR better yet, how long will the media let John Edwards run unscathed. He is a man that claims poverty as his number one issue, yet he leaves a child to grow up in a single mother household with no legal responsibilty...a bit of double standard. Essentially the point is the media has their own agenda and until Americans demand responsible reporting and "fairness" in media then the dumbification of America will continue. Senator Gramm was not too far off base with his claim.
CitizenOpinionated,
Thanks for your comment. However, I think that the "liberal" media bias is a bunch of nonsense. A recent study would agree with me LA Times article.
I do beleive that certain things are ignored in the media (on both sides), mainly real issues and important occurences.
"Essentially the point is the media has their own agenda and until Americans demand responsible reporting and "fairness" in media then the dumbification of America will continue." I agree, but what you are claiming to be responsible reporting and fairness has nothing to do with liberal or conservative notions, its all entertainment anyways.
"Senator Gramm was not too far off base with his claim." I'm sorry, I don't know exactly which statement you are referring to. If it is the one about the country being in a "mental" recession, I must say, I completely disagree with you and challenge you to consider that statement objectively. I hope that you do not think that this recession (or however people would like to label it) is mental.
Post a Comment