Below is a piece on famed media critic Howard Kurtz’s coverage of a central 2008 presidential election issue.
The facts which it lays out are hard to reconcile with Kurtz’s annointment by the media as an objective, “media balance” expert. Or with the idea that Kurtz is committed to actual, reasonably objective, non partisan analysis of the facts, and media coverage of those facts.
Non partisan analysis, in turn, does not refer to the implications of objective reporting — which is fact based, and yet will often have partisan ramifications — but to the analysis itself, relative to the facts, and irrespective of political ramifications or implications.
This is a critical point; one often overlooked by many in the media, and even by some covering the media. For example, there are multiple media studies which incorrectly assess bias based upon whether articles are “favorable” or “unfavorable” toward a candidate or group, as if where the facts lie, rather than the media’s treatment (or omission) of them, is the arbiter of objectivity and bias.
The quote immediately below provides a classic example of the “logic” that the media (and even the Pew Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism) is operating under regarding this topic. It was advanced to support Politico’s own suggestion — of course offered in response to outraged ideologues whose misperception on the issues is further fueled by inaccurate and fearful media treatment of them — that John McCain was getting “hosed” in the press. And it was used in conjunction with the presumption, as if it were a matter of natural fact, that the media was biased against McCain because “more articles were “favorable” to Obama.
Politico was not included in the Pew study. But our researcher Alex Burns pulled out his highlighter pen and did his own study of Politico’s October stories last week: 110 stories advanced a narrative that was more favorable to Obama than McCain. Sixty-nine did the opposite.
What rule of nature is there that dictates that the facts themselves must weigh equally in favor or disfavor of McCain versus Obama? None. (In fact, given human nature, and the way of politics, it is far more likely to be the opposite.) Thus favor-ability versus non favor-ability may tell us more about the candidates than it does about bias. But we can presume nothing about bias from such studies. The only thing that correctly assesses bias is the coverage of the candidates relative to the facts.
Perhaps if the media had covered facts objectively (and covered Fox like the media story that it is, rather than as a media source), lopsided as they at times might have appeared, the Republican party would not have been hijacked by its own far right wing this past decade; McCain never would have transformed from a relative moderate to a wildly inconstent, hypocritical and uncharacteristically dissembling politician with a staff of heavily biased far right ideologues in order to secure that same parties nomination; and an otherwise still exceedingly reckless Vice Presidential selection otherwise beyond the pale would not have ever been made.
The Kurtz piece below helps to illustrate how this phenomenon permeated 2008 election coverage; as the media, far from being critical of McCain in 2008, relative to the actual facts, gave him highly favorable coverage.
Of course, a big part of the McCain Campaign’s strategy, implicit or otherwise, was to work to convince the media, and America, that the media was being unfair to McCain. (And obviously, they succeeded in convincing many in the media that if the facts did not support McCain, and the media reported the facts, that it was being biased.) Perhaps to some degree, the McCain Campaign even believed this to be true. After all, apparently the Editor-in-Chief of “Reason” magazine believes Obama is a liar — worthy of an accompanying picture of him with a Pinocchio nose – for referring to CBO studies in the exact same manner that his own writers repeatedly did on a routine basis: [i]
That is, when it suited their purposes (which was often), “Reason” writers referred to CBO studies in the exact same manner Obama later did; with, obviously, clear approval from the Editor-in-Chief. Then, when Obama did this, he, on the other hand, was a liar, with a big ole’ Obama Pinocchio nose splashed across the page. (Reason’s Editor Matt Welch responds here, in rather unconvincing and somewhat disingenuous fashion — asserting that Columnist Glenn Greenwald’s point to this effect, and just linked to, amounted to “one-fifth” of his critique, when it represented the heart of Obama’s quote that Welch was referring to, and when Greenwald’s point was about calling Obama a liar over that quote; not, as Welch now argues, a broader dispute against Obama or Democrats.)
If Reason can believe this, then certainly the McCain campaign, when the facts painted a poor picture of McCain and were not congruent with the way they saw things, likely believed that it was the media’s reporting, and not simply the facts, which was biased against them.
By way of contrast with this perception by the McCain campaign — a perception still widely promulgated today — here are two more quick examples on a central theme from the 2008 election regarding media coverage and John McCain. First, what you heard from the media on a routine basis. Second, what you often decidedly, did not. Both illustrate a profound favor-ability bias toward McCain relative to the actual facts.
Now let’s take a look at media critic Howard Kurtz covering this same campaign back in 2008 — specifically, an advertisement that wildly mislead American viewers on the most basic of facts:
The title to the Washington Post and (CNN’s media expert designate) Howard Kurtz’ “Ad Watch” in the print edition of Saturday’s Washington Post [published online August 7, 2008], is “McCain paints Obama as a tax hound.” In the online version (story text otherwise the same) the title reads, “New McCain Ad Hits Obama on Celebrity, Taxes.”
Consider this chosen titles, in the context of the following short text of the ad, and the facts:
Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000. He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family. Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama.
Kurtz begins his “Ad Watch” with: “This John McCain ad reprises what has become his signature theme, that Barack Obama is a celebrity with a hidden policy agenda.”
Perhaps the McCain camp has stated it precisely this way. But whether they have or haven’t, it was more than kind of Kurtz to reiterate, or more eloquently state their main talking point for them. Let alone open his piece with it.
Three sentences later, Kurtz writes (emphasis added): “The charge that Obama voted to raise taxes on people making $42,000 stretches a valid point.” Kurtz’ explanation: “Obama voted for a non-binding Democratic budget resolution that would not have raised anyone’s taxes. But it did envision phasing out most of the Bush tax cuts, which would have that effect.”
Since the resolution was non binding, and simply a budget estimate, the charge “voted to raise taxes” is actually not true, since it would do nothing of the sort. This is an example of what Kurtz generously calls a “stretch.” That is, something which is inaccurate and somewhat misleading, but the underlying truth it tries to get at would not be that far off, and so it does not constitute blatant manipulation.
However, what Kurtz completely ignored — and what the McCain ad did here — does.
The resolution, in estimating available revenue, did not envision any new taxes, and assumed that most of Bush’s “temporary” tax cuts would expire as scheduled in 2011. Technically, on its own this would have the effect of slightly increasing the tax amount of those having taxable revenue of $32,550 ($31,850 last year), for which someone would need to make $41,500, assuming no deductions or exemptions or credits other than the base amounts.
As Kurtz points out — though without any accompanying explanation it added little to his ad watch’s analysis — back in July the McCain camp made almost the same manipulative claim. But its crack team of economic aces (led by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office) “confused” taxable income with total income. So when they used the $32,000,00 figure, factcheck.org, feeling emboldened by the fact that not even a technicality was around to rescue the McCain camp, called them on it.
In other words, even after all the contortions and manipulations, it was still untrue even in its intended form.
The fact that so few Americans know about this, but so many know the so called “information” that the McCain camp falsely conveyed, speaks volumes as to why the camp feels like it can dance along the edges of the volcano; and hey, if it goes over into the magma, no big deal, some prissy organization will call them on it — case closed, no major national story — and they can dance back up to the edge. And the mainstream media will go along with it, while largely making their points for them, as Kurtz (see below) does in this piece as well. (And if they ever fail to, conservatives can jump up and down and scream how hard the press is being on McCain, and the media can then convince itself that see, it must be being fair.)
To present this as if Obama voted for an increase, rather than a simple non binding budget estimate, is manipulative. But it is also blatantly misleading, because Obama has repeatedly proposed a middle class tax cut, but not a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans — those making over $250,000.00 a year. Not to mention that the words, “Obama: RAISE TAXES ON THE MDDLE CLASS” appear on the screen as well (in all caps as shown); something which Kurtz either completely misses, or chooses to overlook, even though visual images are stronger and more lasting than spoken ones, and the words on the screen are a blatant lie.
Inherently unfair — the policy certainly benefits most Americans and so voting against Obama on tax policy is against most Americans’ own interest — or fiscally sound policy is for Americans to decide.
This is something which they are not going to be able to if one of the two campaigns continues to exhibit an utter disregard for the truth, and the media continues to obfuscate on or gloss over it so as to make both campaigns seem more equal. Let alone likely learn that according to the CBO (while Eakin was its director, no less), in the years 1979 to 2000, the after tax income of the top 1% of Americans rose on average well over a half a million dollars ($576,000.00) while the after tax income of the middle fifth of Americans rose a little over five thousand dollars ($5,400) and on the more important percentage basis rose only a small fraction of the top 1%, as well. And that this was before the enactment of Bush’s tax cuts that were largely tilted in favor of this same top 1 percent. Or that when all federal taxes are taken into account, many of those in the highest tax brackets pay a lower effective tax rate than those in the middle class.
But to twist Obama’s support for the scheduled expiration of “temporary” tax cuts that McCain the first time and second time around himself called “too tilted in favor of the rich” — and did so when we were facing a smaller federal debt (and as a percentage of GNP) and future deficit projections than we are now — into a vote for raising taxes on those making middle income wages (let aloney when Obama has consistently called for a tax cut for those same Middle Income Americans), is blatant manipulation. Not “stretching” a valid point.
Kurtz next writes: “The ad is selective in saying that Obama would raise taxes on seniors and “your family,” omitting that he would target only families, Social Security recipients and those with capital gains earning more than $250,000 a year.”
First off, the ad does not say “would,” as Kurtz represents. While a minor point, “would,” is at least arguably subjective, even if highly misleading. The ad says “promises,” a far more objective statement, and thus, more egregious if false. But more importantly, the term “your families,” clearly means the average American voter. To believe that any voter would think otherwise, when the ad is speaking directly to voters, is nonsense.
Thus, the ad is not “selective” in saying that Obama “would” raise taxes on seniors and “your family” by omitting that it would only involve families, Social Security recipients, etc., earning more than $250,000.00 (a very small fraction of the population): the ad is once again manipulating, misleading, and for all intents and purposes, effectively lying to, voters. (Actually, under Obama’s plan, those families making more than $169,450, up to $237,040, would see a tax increase of $486, all families making under $169,450 would see a net tax decrease — exactly the opposite of what was represented in three different ways, by the ad.)
The ad also claims that Obama promises to “raise taxes” (again, here accepting the arguable McCain camp assertion that allowing the expiration of temporary tax cuts which McCain himself, twice and four years apart, called “too tilted to the rich” is in fact raising taxes), on “small businesses.”
This is also a blatant, unambiguous, lie.
Even Kurtz on some level seems to recognize this one, because he employs his harshest phrasing yet — brace yourself — calling this portion of the ad “misleading.” And then — brace yourself yet again — bravely calls the McCain camp explanation “lame.”
What is Howard Kurtz now, suddenly, “surfer dude” or something? “Lame”?
It’s not lame (neither the ad nor the McCain camp “explanation.”) The argument that putting the top tax rate on individual income back to the level that it was during the 90’s — when we had one of our most prosperous periods in economic history — will stunt small businesses, is lame. The idea that changing the tax rate of individuals who make over 250,000 a year is changing the tax rate on businesses, even any businesses at all, is a lie. And the assertion that even though it seems like a lie, it really is not a lie because of aforesaid lame argument, is specious and manipulative.
But it is at the conclusion of the piece where Kurtz crosses the line from bumbling, irresponsible, McCain protecting journalist posing as our nation’s top media expert, into something even more partisan and insipid, concluding with: “But more important than the mathematical details is the portrait the Arizona senator is trying to paint of his opponent as an untested leader whose domestic policies are obscured by the media spotlight.”
This is truly an incredible thing to write, and still have a job as a media critic who gets to write the column “objectively” assessing our respective presidential campaign’s TV commercials — commercials where most of Americans get much of their base perceptions and ideas about the candidates from, reinforced, and augmented.
Ponder Kurtz’ statement for a moment: “More important than the mathematical details.”
McCain, on the medium that is more ubiquitous than most other informational sources put together, is running a commercial based around the theme of telling American voters that Obama promises to raise taxes on your basic, average, hard working middle class family on earnings of $42,000 a year, when Obama’s plan actually promises to slighty lower taxes on families earning this, all the way up to $169,450.
Americans may not know which policies are the best for America, or which are really going to be worked out, on the multitude of issues which face us, but they always have their pocketbooks to fall back on. And here is the McCain camp, in an ad, lying to Americans, misleading and manipulating Americans, on this most basic of issues.
And after individual incomes, what is the most respected part of the backbone of the American economy; huge corporations? No. Small businesses. And here is the McCain camp, in an ad, lying to Americans, misleading and manipulating Americans, telling them, falsely, that Obama promises to raise taxes on small business as well. When the truth is again nothing of the sort.
But to Kurtz, these are mere “mathematical details.” That is, blatantly lying to the American voter about the most basic and ubiquitous (and perhaps the most influential) of issues, is a “mathematical detail.”
John McCain used to be against extending the Bush tax cuts. Then he apparently got far right wing religion (or decided he needed to lurch to the right to have any chance of securing a nomination in the party that has been largely taken over by its right wing), and, as noted above, reversed himself regarding cuts he thought were “too heavily tilted to the rich” (his words in 2001 and 2005 both), and fiscally irresponsible.
McCain also joked not long ago about how he has a better understanding of economics now that he has “Alan Greenspan’s” book. Except that Alan Greenspan’s book excoriates the Bush administration for these same tax cuts (which Greenspan, years ago, as a temporary measure, supported when he thought we were looking at fiscal stability), and implicitly calls their proposed extension wildly irresponsible.
Yet to Kurtz, these mere “mathematical details” that in effect amount to the McCain camp blatantly misleading and manipulating American voters on the most fundamental of issues, are not really as “important.” Or at least that is what he implies, when he writes; more important than the ‘mathematical details‘.
And what is it that is more important?
The highly subjective (and some might argue also manipulative) “other” point of the McCain ad. Which point, Kurtz then, in closing, himself essentially volunteers for the McCain camp; “[McCain's] opponent [is] an untested leader whose domestic policies are obscured by the media spotlight” — which, presumably unpaid to do by the McCain campaign, he volunteers are “more important than the ‘mathematical details.’”
Disregard the fact — as Kurtz did — that this same ad had to blatantly mislead, manipulate, and essentially lie to American voters to do it.
As for that ostensible “more important” point of the ad that Kurtz courteously fills in as spokesman for on behalf of the McCain Campaign? Never mind that the “young and inexperienced” Obama has close to the same level of experience (zilch for Ronald Reagan and George Bush before their Governships dealing with mostly state issues) as three out of four of the last Presidents just before the election. Never mind that he is older than Bill Clinton was at this same time, yet Clinton’s age was never an issue. Never mind that the McCain camp, once again parroted by a willing media, has for the first time in American history perhaps managed to turn acting presidential by a presidential candidate, into “arrogance” and “uppityness.”
And never mind that McCain has been given a pass on virtually every issue and gaffe imaginable because of his “core advantage,” and received overly soft media treatment. Never mind that most of the entire McCain Campaign — that portion that has not consisted of constant policy reversals, contradictions, and missstatements — has, just like Bush before him, been based upon mischaracterizing his opponent.
And, since it’s almost impossible to make Obama unlikeable, never mind that the McCain camp has focused like a laser beam to try and turn that likability — here once again well framed by this very same McCain ad — into a liability. This is something which Kurtz, like most of the media — now hypocritically condemning itself, because, its treatment of Obama has been “too soft” when it has given McCain near hagiograpic treatment — has eaten up, hook, line and sinker.
So what if the McCain camp took some liberties on tax issues in order to turn black into white, white into black. Hey, according to Kurtz and the Washington Post, those are merely “mathematical details.”
From an ad that blatantly misleads, manipulates, and essentially lies to America voters over basic pocketbook issues that matter to them, Kurtz and the Washington Post are nevertheless able to boil it down right into its solidly pro McCain core.
_______________________________________________________
Notes:
[i] Further magnifying this unrecognized hypocrisy of calling Obama a liar for something his own writers routinely did, his writers were writing for “Reason,” not spinning things politically, and so should be held to a higher, not lower standard of objectivity than a political leader trying to trumpet up news.