14 December 1999
Our current howler (part I): And Jake makes three
Synopsis: Salons Jake Tapper made it three about what happened at that Dem town hall forum.
The Very Authentic McCain
Richard Cohen, The Washington Post, 12/14/99
The power and the story
Nancy Gibbs and John Dickerson, Time, 12/13/99
Heroes Arent Always Winners
Tucker Carlson, Talk, 11/99
John McCain: happy warrior
William Greider, Rolling Stone, 10/28/99
Commentary by Jake Tapper
Washington Journal, C-SPAN, 12/13/99
Commentary by Heather Nauert
The Edge, Fox News Channel, 12/13/99
Commentary by Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman
Hardball, MSNBC, 12/13/99
Why have we focused on Gore-Bradley coverage? Because coverage
of the GOP race has been much more transparent. This morning,
for example, Richard Cohen writes about the coverage of Senator
COHEN: My colleagues in the news biz are forever declaring
their admiration for the manboth privately and in print. They
find him attractive because he is, among other things, authentic.
I would scoff, but I am one of them. I am already on record as
liking John McCain.
Indeed, there has been no end of stories about McCainand about
the McCain press coverage. Many of those stories describe press
conduct that is simply impossible to defend. Here, for example,
are Nancy Gibbs and John Dickerson in Time's recent cover
GIBBS AND DICKERSON: There is no entourage, no bubble of staff
members around him...And then there are the stories he tellsto which,
if there's a pattern, it's to exalt other people and deflate himself.
A presidential candidate is not supposed to talk at length and
on the record about the rules he broke or the strippers he dated,
or the time he arrived so drunk that he fell through the screen
door of the young lady he was wooing. The candor tells you more
than the content, and reporters sometimes just decide to take
him off the record because they don't want to see him flame out
and burn up a great story.
Others have described the same syndrome. Tucker Carlson, writing
CARLSON: McCain is on a roll, having a great time. "Want
to hear some more of 'em?" he asks. It's more of an opening
line than a question, and McCain is just launching into a new
riff when a reporter sitting nearby cuts him off. "No, thanks,"
she says. "I'm a compassionate journalist." In other
words: Stop, please, before I have to quote you.
William Greider also describes this process:
GREIDER: While McCain continues examining his flaws, the reporters
on the bus are getting a bit edgy. Will somebody tell this guy
to shut up before he self-destructs? No. "This is his campaign,"
an aide mumbles as the candidate disembarks at Plymouth [N.H.].
"It's not like we sit here and try to control him. Do you
think he would listen if we did?"
That last exchange replays a standard tropethe fully authentic
Man of Character whose aides know they can't-shut-him-up. We described
a version of this same old chestnut in recent reporting on Bradley
(see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/26/99, postscript). But the press conduct
openly described by Gibbs is hard to reconcile with standard notions.
Gibbs describes major reporters choosing not to report
because they prefer that the public not know. (More on
this syndrome this week.)
But at least the process is relatively openwe have read one
account after another of the press corps' love affair with McCain.
And some pundits have challenged the conduct described, as we
will see later on this week (we congratulate Brit Hume in advance).
The situation has been different with the coverage of Gore, where
scribes know enough to conceal naughty conduct. Though there are
many interesting aspects of the GOP coverage, we have felt the
larger story lies with Gore, where press agendas lurk in the weedsand
no one, repeat, no one, discusses it.
Well, we'll have to make that almost no one, because
yesterday morning, our incomparable analysts came racing to our
chambers quite early. Jake Tapper, Salon's post-modern
man-about-town, was lead guest on Washington Journal. Please
remind us to tell C-SPAN officials that we now quote Tapper's
word, not our own. Responding to a charge of liberal bias in the
media, Tapper became the third major scribe to describe what went
on in that press room at Hanover:
TAPPER: Well, I can tell you that the only media bias I have
detected in terms of a group media bias was, at the first debate
between Bill Bradley and Al Gore, there was hissing for Gore in
the media room up at Dartmouth College. The reporters were hissing
Gore, and that's the only time I've ever heard the press room
boo or hiss any candidate of any party at any event.
Remarkableand the public has a right to know that the press
corps conducts itself so. Earlier, we have described Time's
Eric Pooley saying that the press room "erupted in jeering"
during Gore's responses that night (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/11/99).
We have described the Hotline's Howard Mortman saying that
the scribes "groaned, laughed and howled" at almost
everything Gore said (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/3/99). But hundreds
of journalists were in the room, and no onerepeat, no one; no
one at allhas complained about the press corps' odd conduct.
Some readers have chafed for news of Rep coverage, and we think
interesting themes are being played out on that side. But we repeatas
we began to tell you back in March when we reported the astonishing
farm chores "reporting," the negative coverage of the
Gore campaign has been the press corps event of the year. Tapper's
accountol' Jake makes it threehelps us see how right we've been
all along. Tapper had never seen the press act like that.
We put you on notice in March.
This week: Some weird reporting about poor old Gore.
And some who have questioned the McCain coverage.
Our incomparable standard disclaimer: We state again
what we've stressed beforeif the press corps has given inappropriate
coverage to McCain, that reflects on the press, not on McCain.
Heathers: Appearing on The Edge after last night's
forum, Heather Nauert explained what pundits look for:
NAUERT: I think what is important to see is how they respond
to questions, what their temperament is, and I don't mean anger
or not-anger but if he's a funny guy or if he has something important
to say or if someone sits or if his body is positioned in a
certain way. I think those things are all very telling as
to someone's character and really what they're all about. And
I think that is what is so important about these debates is that
we can tell that.
Some of the analysts began sassing Nauert for examining the
way hopefuls sit. And they began to say that she's on the
air just because she's so young and good-looking. No real pundit
would care about that, the mocking analysts seemed to say.
Imagine how quickly their japery stopped when we played this,
from the post-forum Hardball:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: George Wmaybe this is a Texas thingbut he
suggested almost a slouch in his public presentation, the way
he sits there. He sits kind of at an angle. He sort of
has an attitude of condescension, it's like a club meeting for
membership and he's sort of deciding, "I'm already in this
club...I'm a legacy." Am I seeing this alone or did you see
that as well?
Happy endingthe talker wasn't alone. Howard Fineman
"completely agreed" with him.