Propensity of the Press to Pounce

First off today, check out the following pieces in today's Boston papers on our recurring theme of how the two major party Presidential candidates continue to move mainstream and away from their earlier "maverick" styles and positions:

1. "Obama's virtues aside, it's politics as usual" by Peter S. Canellos (Globe bureau chief)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/24/obamas_virtues_aside_its_politics_as_usual/
2. "Ryan's hope may wane - McCain slow in seizing economic opportunity" by Robert D. Novak (syndicated columnist in Herald)

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/06/23/a_chance_for_mccain

Now, let's get to our new issue, the propensity for the press to pounce. The latest example involves Charlie Black, a top strategist for McCain. Black was interviewed in Fortune Magazine as part of a profile of McCain. See

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/
Here's an excerpt from Fortune's profile of McCain, containing Black's controversial remark:

"On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."

Black was attacked mercilessly for this last comment, even being rebuked by his boss. But why? Wasn't he just pointed out the obvious, that one of McCain's strengths compared to Obama is his military experience and leadership? Yet, somehow this comment was construed as suggesting that Black was somehow encouraging or condoning such a terrorist attack. That seems rather preposterous to me.

It also reminded me of the firestorm surrounding Hillary Clinton's remarks responding to media criticism of her continuing to fight for her party's nomination until the last primary election in earlier this month. In those remarks, Ms. Clinton mentioned a couple of historic examples of extended Democratic battles, including the 1968 primaries where "'we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." It seems patently obvious that all she was trying to do was make a point about how sometimes the process of earning sufficient delegates can take the full primary season. Nonetheless, some in the media deemed it to somehow be insensitive to the Kennedy family and/or a subtle suggestion that Obama might be assassinated. Huh?

It's perturbing in this age of the soundbite that little time and effort goes into understanding the context of remarks. Instead, the phenomenon of trying to titillate the audience with seeming controversy prevails. In both of the examples above - Charlie Black's comments on a terrorist attack and Hillary Clinton's on the RFK assassination in June of 1968 toward the end of the primary season- reporters and commentators simply seemed aghast without explaining why. Did they themselves not think through the comments and the context in which they were made, or were they simply trying to make more of the comments than they should have for the sake of attracting the attention of their audience? Obama has also not been immune to this type of "pouncing." How many of the reporters and commentators who lambasted him for his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright after the infamous "God Damn America" sermon actually listened to that entire sermon. Indeed, in listening to that sermon in its entirety on an NPR broadcast, I found it to be, taken as a whole, a rather compelling historical depiction of the abhorrent treatment African Americans have received in the U.S.