Mainstream media foiled again

Happy 4th of July! Photo of placard, River Street Sweets, Savannah, Ga. The store is famous for its pecan pralines.

Zachary Roth writes in the Columbia Journalism Review that the press missed what Wesley Clark really said about McCain's military record.

So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark. Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s Face the Nation, Clark, in reference to John McCain, said:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.

When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

But many in the press have been unable to. ABC News senior political reporter Rick Klein led the outrage, writing in a blog post on ABCNews.com: "Find me a single Democrat who thinks it’s good politics to call into question the military credentials of a man who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war."

This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.

To be fair, Klein does get to that, eventually. Later in the post, he writes: "Clark’s comments seem to miss a vital point about the McCain campaign: Yes, his military service is part of his stock campaign biography, but McCain is not running on that record nearly as much as he’s running on his service in Congress."

Clark is right that “getting shot down” isn’t a qualification to be president, but McCain isn’t saying that it is.

Ads like this just slipped through, I guess. Even if McCain weren’t running on his military record, it’s undoubtedly something that could convince many voters, rightly or wrongly, that he has the experience to be commander in chief. Why should it be out of bounds for Democrats to argue that McCain’s particular military experience has done little to prepare him for the decisions he’ll have to make as president?

Klein wasn’t alone, of course. NBC’s First Read, written by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro, noted that “American politics can’t quite get beyond this question: Just how big a military hero were you?” before summarizing Clark’s comments—as if Clark was questioning McCain’s claim to military heroism, rather than pointing out that that heroism isn’t a qualification for president. Like Klein, the NBC team couldn’t resist playing political consultants, pronouncing that Clark’s comments “weren’t helpful at all to the Obama campaign,” without bothering to consider whether Clark’s argument might make sense.

Gerald Seib and Sara Murray of The Wall Street Journal arguably do even worse. They write: “The one certainty of the 2008 campaign, it might have seemed, was that Sen. John McCain would be acknowledged all around as a war hero for his service in Vietnam—but apparently not.” Did Seib and Murray even read what Clark said? Where did Clark say anything about McCain not being a war hero?

And in a piece headlined “Clark Hits McCain’s Military Credentials”, Josh Kraushaar of The Politico says that Clark “invoked McCain’s military service against him….” Huh? By this bizarre standard, if Clark were to point out that my record of writing for Columbia Journalism Review is not a qualification to be president, he would have invoked my writing for CJR against me.

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

Comments

[rochambeau]

Hi Friend,
Happy 4th!
xox
Constance

[Sharon]

I heard Clarke's speech, which was very respectful of McCain's military record. His point was that serving in the military and being a POW does not necessarily qualify one to be president! McCain's support of Bush's war certainly illustrates how poor his judgement is, despite having served.

I could not believe the distorted and dishonest way Clarke's comments were reported in the mainstream media!

[Christine]

Maybe I am thinking in simplistic terms, but why would a surrogate of a candidate (with no military experience) attack someone like McCain? I think it is risky. I find it hurtful to our troops. I agree that McCain's experience does not make him the perfect commander in chief and I want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. I just think that their tactic to make Obama look better against McCain is not going to work.

Ideally anyone born in the U.S. can be president without any military experience. I feel better with a candidate that has some military experience. Democrats think that diplomacy is the answer and I would like our country to move in that direction and remove preemptive strikes and invasion. Putting aside any 9/11 conspiracy theories, having lived in NYC on that fateful day, we still need someone in office that can handle making serious military decisions. Someone who understands when and not to sacrafice American lives. Obama is not that guy in my opinion. With the way McCain talks about Iraq he is not that guy either. It is a fantasy to believe that diplomacy solves all problems and isolation is the answer. Can you imaging a president like that the day after Pearl Harbor?

[Christine]

There are reasons why Wesley Clark and Howard Dean never won the nomination of their party for president- they speak before they think. Anyone with any sense would not even bring up McCain's military experience since Obama never even signed on to selective service. Obamamaniacs can stand by there man all they want, but the simple fact is this guy has NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE and I gather no knowledge about it either.

Second of all, this is patent infringement of the Bush/Rove administration. It is pretty clear what Obama is doing here with so many nasty surrogates and this goes back to attacking Hillary. I am fearful that it will work since it has proven effective for Bush.

It is just simply disgusting that anyone would attack a former POW that served in a war admidst in controversy akin to the Iraq war today. And now with Obama flip-flopping on issues like the war, I have no clue how Hillary is supporting this guy.

Tara responds:
I think you're missing the point. No one is disputing McCain's POW experience. But that does not make him qualified to be president. Wesley Clark has far more experience than McCain. I would never consider Wesley Clark, who has served a distinguished career in the military and NATO as a "nasty surrogate." As for infringement of the Bush/Rove administration, I'm not sure what you mean. But certainly that administration has a lot to answer for...and McCain is embracing Bush's policies for a (surrogate) third Bush administration.

Obama hasn't flip-flopped on any issues about the war, although he has changed his stance on FISA. He has said he will see that the immunity clause for telecoms is stripped from the bill currently before the Senate. I do not agree with his position on FISA. If you have concerns about Obama's position on anything, I urge you to check his website, as the mainstream media's reports are often woefully inaccurate.

As for Obama attacking Hillary, you will remember that Hillary also attacked Obama. Alas, this is standard operating procedure in presidential campaigns these days. Those issues are now history. Hillary has rightly called for unity, for the good of our country. We all need to put aside our personal differences and think about who can best solve the critical problems that are the terrible legacy of the Bush administration.