The Real Media Bias: Closer than You Think

Anyone who's ever watched a football game on television (or any othe sport) should be familiar with announcers who keep pointing out the path by which the losing team can come back. The Cowboys may be down 15 points with five minutes left but stay tuned because they only need two scores plus a two-point conversion to tie. Not only is a comeback a good story, it keeps the eyeballs on the ads.

So it goes with debate and campaign coverage. As I watched the debate last night, I though Obama clearly won. And he's way ahead in the race. But everyone on CNN was saying that it was McCain's best night, that he was the aggressor, yada, yada, yada, even if it may not have been a game changer-- at least until the polls showed that American saw Obama winniing big. When David Gergen said that McCain is really out of options, the other folks on st laughed because Gergen is really not supposed to say that.

The media's real bias is not left or right, it's to hype the story. Nothing in the news is as important as it seems to be when you are watching it. (Also true of life, by the way.) Thus all campaign coverage must be viewed with the knowledge that the TV networks want -- need -- viewers to think this is stlll anyone's game.

Associations and Double Standards

Unlike the ralliers and screechers on talk radio, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, makes a serious case that Barack Obama's associations with "unrepentant terrorist" Bill Ayers (as well as convicted felon and the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright) is a serious issue. The idea is that we choose our friend and the choice speaks to character.

But what the attacks on Obama's association with Ayers (who I believe is repentant as to his methods, but not his goals) omit is the context of their association. Had Obama known and supported Ayers at the time he was planting bombs, of course, that would say something about Obama. But that's not what happened. The two were associated in the educational work of the Annenberg Foundation, work that was not only legal, but laudable. Many others in the Chicago establishment were involved in that work as well. Are they all now tarred by what Ayers had done a generation earlier?

Of course not: the very idea implies that we are all responsible for vetting the life records of everyone we work with and that, even if we know our colleagues' past, there is no such thing as rehabilitation or second chances. To say that is un-American.

There is also a huge double standard at work.

John McCain associated with convicted felon Charles Keating. Not only that, he did so when Keating was committing his crimes, and even carried water for him. But no one says that this old association disqualifies McCain.

McCain is also associated with his wife, whose father Jim Hensley was a convicted felon. Hensley's crime happened many years before McCain met Cindy, but by the Ayer's analogy, McCain should still bear some guilt.

Also: If Michelle Obama's father had gone to jail, that would be a huge issue.

Sarah teen-aged Palin's daughter got pregnant. If Obama's daughter had done the same, people would wonder a lot more about Obama. (Though I suppose in Palin's case, there are so many bigger problems to marvel at.)

Finally, McCain led the charge to make peace with Vietnam, a nation that killed thousands of Americans (and nearly McCain). But we take McCain's work to be to his credit. By the Ayers analogy, McCain would be an associate of unrepentant murderous communists, and not just one, but thousands.

The Idiot from Wasilla is Graded on a Curve

The punditocracy has declared (here, here and here) that Sarah Palin “passed” her big test in her debate with Joe Biden. By that they mean she didn’t sound like a blithering idiot the way she did talking to Katie Couric. True, she was not that bad.

But when the school dumbs the test down enough, anyone can pass, but there’s a catch. People know the standards are low so at the end of the day they don’t give much credit for meeting them. Besides, there were a few moron moments, such as when Gov. Palin was discussing the Constitution as it applies to the vice presidency, the office she seeks:

MODERATOR GWEN IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also. [See full transcript.]

Those founding fathers—God bless ‘em.

It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations applied to candidates for national office.