McCain and the Media

Mark Kleiman has a provocative post question the conventional wisdom about why John McCain gets such good press coverage. McCain, Kleiman points out, is a longtime member of the Senate Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over media issues, chaired the Senate Commerce Committee during the bulk of the 1990s wave of media consolidation, and has always been sure to steer the campaign finance reform agenda in media-friendly ways rather than take up causes like free airtime.

Basically, McCain getting good coverage from the corporate media is in part something just along the lines of James Inhof being well-liked by the energy industry. If Exxon-Mobile owned a television network, he'd be a superstar.

Comments

I'm not sure about that. What kind of media treatment do other members of the committee get? I doubt it's as good as McCain.

I seriously doubt most working reporters think about this stuff. I think the much simpler and more likely explanation is the common one: when a reporter (a national reporter, at least) calls John McCain's office, he actually gets to talk to the senator, not some press flack. What's more, the senator almost always says something quotable. Of course reporters like him, he makes their jobs much easier. Also, he seems like a genuinely charming and likable guy in one-on-one and small group situation, unless you cross him.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 12:26 PM

"Basically, McCain getting good coverage from the corporate media is in part something just along the lines of James Inhof being well-liked by the energy industry."

And Barack Obama being well-liked by economically well-off Democrats.

Posted by Petey | February 22, 2008 12:33 PM

This strikes me as a leftish version of traditional rightwing conspiracy theories - reminds me, in fact, of Rush Limbaugh's attack yesterday on the New York Times. Limbaugh's theory is that the reporters are liberals (always and everywhere) and are motivated solely by a desire to crush conservatives, even putatively liberal conservatives like McCain. So it's a conspiracy theory to make stuff up about McCain to git him, according to Limbaugh - when in fact, it's more likely the reporters simply felt they had the goods on him, and probably do.

Sure, corporations that own media would love to curry favor with bigshots like McCain, and would do it if they could. But I don't think they can, because reporters would react negatively to strong-arming, and pass the story to reporters owned by other corporations, who would gladly publish the news. In other words, this theory requires collusion on a scale that's improbable, and would require unusual compliance by reporters. It's simply not credible, and Occam's Razor and all, not the simplest explanation.

Politics is mostly personality - who's likeable, who's not. McCain's likeable. So reporters like him, and probably tend to take it easy on him. Obama's likeable. Bush the candidate was likeable. Kerry was hard to like. Hillary is hard to like. Huckabee was likeable but not credible, but the press took it easy on him anyway, because they liked him.

This response is getting Greenwaldian, but let's not imagine conspiracies where they don't exist. This is not a credible theory.

Posted by the puzzled ibex | February 22, 2008 12:45 PM

Obama is likable, but he doesn't engage the press to the same extent McCain does. Obama gets better press then Hillary just because he's not openly hostile to the media the way she is. Also, Obama's surrogates are happy to engage the media, while Hillary's top people are engaging in war with the media.

Posted by too many steves | February 22, 2008 12:54 PM

Steves

Of course your post is logical, and certainly closer to the truth that this nonsensical conspiracy. The fact that McCain is accessible to the media is very well known. They also like the fact that he dishes dirt on republicans.

Matt and the rest of moonbattia are trying to grasp onto anything that maybe left of the NYT smear job that is now obviously blowing up in their face. Kevin Drum got the memo and is on the same page with a ridiculous post about how McCain is now subbing the media because he knows he is guilty, even after he gave a two hour press conference yesterday and answered every single one of their stupid questions.

Pathetic, but fun to watch...

Posted by JBJB | February 22, 2008 12:54 PM

This reminds me of the idea that was floated back in '03 that a lot of media organizations soft-pedaled their coverage and investigation of Bush's claims about Iraq because they didn't want the administration to turn against their support for media deregulation, which was considered necessary to keep them afloat.

Posted by Tyro | February 22, 2008 12:54 PM

"James Inhof being well-liked by the energy industry. If Exxon-Mobile"

So that's where the missing "e" in Inhofe's name got to.

Posted by Dantheman | February 22, 2008 12:56 PM

Lol, The puzzled box is one naive mofo.

Posted by soullite | February 22, 2008 1:00 PM

Memo.
From: Jack Welch
To: Tim Russert

Timmeh, make sure our very good friend, John McCain, gets plenty of solid face time on your little Sunday morning gabfest.

Please don't embarrass him by asking any tough questions.

See you in Nantucket.

Posted by Garuda | February 22, 2008 1:20 PM

Petey, petulance does not become you.

But I don't even see the parallel. Are you suggesting Obama's in the pocket of "economically well-off Democrats" (i.e., rich ones, I guess you mean) in some kind of institutionalized mutual back-scratching sense? Please enlighten me.

Posted by hello | February 22, 2008 1:29 PM

Eh, this is weak. Daniel Inouye is not a media darling. Furthermore, this only makes sense for television networks, and print journalists at places like Time that are owned by companies with television networks.

It doesn't explain good coverage in print media, for the most part.

The simplest explanation is usually the best - reporters like McCain because he hangs out and drinks with them. Is this really so hard to believe?

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 1:47 PM

Basically, McCain getting good coverage from the corporate media is in part something just along the lines of James Inhof being well-liked by the energy industry.

Is his coverage that great these days? So far this affair business seems as thin as those Rielle Hunter rumors. In the latter case, the Times left the sourceless gossiping to the National Enquirer, where that kind of thing belongs until some evidence exists (though I don't think newspapers should be reporting about any affairs, whether they can prove them or not).

This would suggest that McCain is now getting less media respect than Edwards, whom I don't remember receiving a great deal of media respect.

Posted by Shinyk | February 22, 2008 1:56 PM

"though I don't think newspapers should be reporting about any affairs, whether they can prove them or not"

Unless one half of the tango is running on the platform of being a living saint (not JM, obviously), making political hay crucifying those who aren't, or the other half is someone paid to influence his/her policies.

Posted by cmholm | February 22, 2008 2:49 PM

Just reading this now? Did Matt really write this? Have you ever met a journalist for a major news outlet? Of course you have. Do they strike you as corporate puppets? Not saying there couldn't be a few like that, but most of them would rather quit than tow the corporate line.

Posted by Vail Beach | February 25, 2008 10:48 AM