home

Be Careful What You Wish For: McCain Cancels Press Conference

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Yesterday, John McCain wanted more Media attention. Today, Matt Yglesias notes Ben Smith's piece on John McCain cancelling his press availability:

[McCain] hasn't explained what he meant by juggling the timeline on the surge and Awakening . . . ; whether he meant that Obama was deliberately selling out the country; whether he shares his campaign's grievance with the press; or what he thinks of his staff's genocide-themed attack. And now he's canceled the avail.

I guess McCain did not want more Media attention after all.

By Big Tent Democrat

< "What If . . .?" | Reid Battles Obstructionism >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Be Careful What You Wish For: McCain Cancels Press Conference | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    With all due respect... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    McCain is a doddering old fool, and he's shooting himself in the foot every day.  The responses to Obama's trip have been disastrously over the top.

    I have no idea how he's going to climb down from the outrageous statements that attempt to portray Obama as a traitor that wants the U.S. to lose, and abets holocausts.  He canceled press access today to huddle with his gang of idiots to figure out how they're going to clean up the mess.

    Kind of makes you appreciate (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM EST
    ... the skill and discipline that go into the coordinated attack machine that has been deployed so effectively in previous campaigns.

    How can we say he's passed the Commander-in-Chief test given his ineffectiveness in directing this most formidable of fighting machines.


    Parent

    FOrmidable Fighting Machines (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    His poor record as a pilot as a predictor of poor CIC? Nah, I think the fact that he has been wrong about almost every military opinion he has uttered since Viet-Nam, is a better indicator of how bad a CIC he would make.

    Experience is a millstone for McSame.

    Parent

    I was referring to ... (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM EST
    the right-wing attack machine. He doesn't quite know what to do with it, though he'd sure like it to work its magic on his behalf.

    Parent
    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    This sure looks like a right wing attack machine to me.

    Parent
    So here we are.... (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jeannie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:40:54 PM EST
    A doddering old fool and a young fool who thinks he is president before he is even the candidate. It is so very sad for us all.

    Parent
    You can say it all you like (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:19:11 PM EST
    but Obama is certainly no fool.

    Now, the guy who graduated 894 out of 899...

    Parent

    I know lots of people who are (none / 0) (#59)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:08:20 PM EST
    very book smart, but that's all they are. Bigger doesn't make you better, it only makes you bigger!!! Graduating 894 out of 899 doesn't mean you are learned smart, only book smart.

    Parent
    So You're Saying That McSame (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    Is not only dumb but stupid as well? Couldn't agree more.

    Parent
    I don't think McCain is dumb or (none / 0) (#63)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:16:22 PM EST
    stupid. I don't think Obama is dumb or stupid either. I think that book smart doesn't necessarily translate to "street smart" or any other kind of smart. You have to earn your way up. McCain has done that, whether you agree with him or not. I don't believe Sen. Obama has done that. He floated from place to place and job to job and never seemed to stay in one place very long to learn. It's arrogant to think you know everything there is to know after such a short time. I respect your opinion to agree with me.


    Parent
    But You Would Think (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:46:10 PM EST
    That at Naval Academy, his ranking 894 out of 899 was not only indicative of him being a poor scholar, but a poor flyer and leader. The naval Academy more of a vocational school.  

    Parent
    So, in your opinion, ranking (none / 0) (#72)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:08:38 PM EST
    894 out of 899 translates to calling him names.  
    Ranking 894 out of 899 entitles you to disrespect and belittle him. And, if the above is true, then this sort of attitude should apply to anyone who didn't do well in school (college) for any reason?
    Haven't we had enough after almost 8 years of rank, vile, name calling and gotcha(s)? The Naval Academy is just waiting for you.

    Parent
    Yes Yes And Yes (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:19:45 AM EST
    We do not need another 4 years of another moron running America into the ground. And yes that would be McSame.

    Parent
    Be sad (none / 0) (#55)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    Most of us here are happy or content with the choice we have on the left.  

    Parent
    I agree with your second point and (none / 0) (#61)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:12:13 PM EST
    that indeed it is very sad for all of us. This country is in deep trouble, imo!

    Parent
    perhaps mccain and obama (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    have agreed to take turns having their campaigns self-destruct. last month was obama's turn, this month it's mccain's.

    to be honest, i'm still kind of at a loss to see how obama's trip is going to suddenly give him foreign policy/national security cache', i always thought that came with training and experience.

    It doesn't (none / 0) (#25)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    No one is suggesting that Obama's trip to the Middle East somehow gives him national security cache<sic>.

    However when Maliki agrees with Obama and goes against what McCain says, that certainly adds credibility to Obama.  Which is why the McCain campaign was so determined to claim that Maliki didn't say what he said.

    Parent

    McCain should stop complaining... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    ...and be happy the press still softballs him so comprehensively.  This is the malevolent fool who talked about how safe Baghdad was, how Peraeaus drove around without protection, yap yap yap, then showed up in Baghdad surrounded by so much security it was laughable.  McCain, then and now, was either completely out to lunch or completely lying.  And he gets a pass.
    Again and again and again.
    Obama - Nothing But Net! (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by john horse on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:50:40 PM EST
    I think John McCain has had a Terrible, Horrible,
    No Good, Very Bad Week.  No wonder he wanted to cancel his press conference.

    On the other hand, did anyone see Obama's three point shot in front of an auditorium of cheering soldiers in Iraq?  To followup on this success, I think Obama should challenge McCain to settle this on the court - a little one-on-one winner-take-all.

    Ohh Alexander (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM EST
    Anyone that can spin the tales of Judith Viorst into politics gets a 5 point play.

    Parent
    And Points to You (none / 0) (#71)
    by john horse on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:58:46 PM EST
    for picking up on that.  As you can probably tell, I liked the book.

    Parent
    Some days are like that (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    even in Australia.

    I used Alexander as part of a high school psychology class back in my days of teaching. That little first grade reader should be standard reading for all at any age.


    Parent

    Ha! (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    The link:

    The one scheduled McCain press conference of the week has just been canceled, we are told. No word as to why. Grumble, grumble.

    Why? Scheduling. Which is like answering "food" to "what did you eat for breakfast."

    My bet is that the campaign much prefers local and regional interviews. Us national press folks will ask qualitatively different questions -- McCain v. the press, McCain v. history, McCain v. Obamania... The priority here in northern Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district is on getting good local news coverage.

    By the way, BTD, did you see the email I sent you a couple days ago?

    Same strategy as Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    Obama used the local media over the national during the primary.  I know voters were asking questions, but not the media.  There has been very little discussion over Obama's media control.  In fact, it was complimented.  Seems not to be good strategy for McCain as he needs more coverage, but I would do just as Obama does and control the message.  Focus on picking up states.

    Parent
    This would be (none / 0) (#2)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    a good example for all of those arguing that each candidate should have equal coverage in spite of the newsworthiness...

    How do you cover a candidate who cancels his pressers? I guess this will be one more news day that Obama's World Tour 2008 will dominate.

    Poor Saint Mccain.

    running for president (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    is newsworthy in and of itself.  I agree that the press can't cover a "presser" that has been cancelled.  But, the press can still certainly cover the other events that McCain will be having.

    All the coverage coming out of Obama's trip is certainly not coming just from "pressers".  It isn't "pressers" that each of the network  anchors are doing with Obama this week.

    And my point hasn't been that McCain deserves the coverage.  It's tho voter who deserve the coverage of both candidates.  The voters deserve fair coverage of both candidates that includes the good and the bad.  If the press feels the need to report gaffes from a candidate then let's hear just as prominently about the gaffes of both candidates.  If the press is going to do in-depth interviews with a candidate, then lets do in-depth interviews with both candidates.

    Parent

    Dare to dream (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    The voters deserve fair coverage of both candidates that includes the good and the bad.

    Long since. But I don't expect to see it any time soon. Failing that, the best you can hope is that the bias works in favor of your own horse.

    I hate the word objectivity in relation to journalism because it's impossible. But what does seem a reasonable expectation is the independent assessment and presentation of facts whether they tell against your guy or not.

    Nowadays, journalistic objectivity seems to mean giving lies and their contradictions equal air time.

    Parent

    Hmm. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by pie on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    Nowadays, journalistic objectivity seems to mean giving lies and their contradictions equal air time.

    That's very true.  All one has to do is read the quite different coverage of "Obama goes to Europe" in both the foreign and US media to see that.

    Suffice it to say that some are not impressed.

    Parent

    that's what fries me.... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    you watch a reporter or a pundit questioning a politician.  The politician gives an answer that even I as a viewer know is BS but the reporter doesn't call the pol out on it.  Now, that means either I know more than the reporter does or the reporter does feel any responsibility to get the truth to the public.

    Parent
    Like Couric's interview of McCain (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    where he says the surge predated and caused the Sunni Awakening, and CBS's editing out that gaffe....

    I wish some people would stop trying to build the bridge over the river Kwai.

    Parent

    probably a good example (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    but, I wouldn't doubt the possibility that Couric didn't know the details herself to be able to call McCain on it.

    Parent
    They'll get equal time (none / 0) (#18)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST
    when they have the debates with each other.

    Obama's making news right now, Mccain isn't. Is has nothing to do with fairness. Your argument is equivalent to saying that two baseball players in a game should warrant the same amount of commentary even though one's at bat with a full count and a runner on third and the other is on the DL in the dugout.


    Parent

    with the exception (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:13:04 PM EST
    that in an earlier comment I made the point that this ISN'T A GAME.

    Running for president is newsworthy.  McCain is campaigning every day.

    It's the voters who deserve the coverage, not the candidates who have to "earn" it.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    Whether you like it or not this was a big news week for Obama.  McCain is playing catchup.  He isn't going to change the situation by crying about media coverage.

    He WILL change the game by saying incredibly dumb things like he did about the surge and Anbar Awakening.  Unfortunately for him it will not be a change for the better.

    Parent

    I'm not trying to make a point (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:28:37 PM EST
    that the CANDIDATES deserve coverage.  I'm trying to say that the VOTERS deserve coverage.

    But, you seem to think that it is ridiculous for anyone to expect the media to perform its responsibility of informing the public whether or not it earns the media big ratings.

    McCain is the republican nominee for president.  I don't care if his entire campaign consists of him stepping out onto his front lawn every morning in his bathrobe to discuss his policies and programs.  If that is the case, then I expect the media to be on his front lawn everyday to get that information to the voters.

    there are certainly enough members of the media and enough available airtime to cover both candidates.  Not for the sake of the candidates but for the sake of the voters.

    Parent

    Ohhhhh (1.00 / 2) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    I see.

    It's about the voters.

    So I assume you demand that the media cover Bob Barr's campaign in detail as well?

    Oh and Chuck Baldwin's campaign.  

    Can't forget Brian Moore.

    And of course Cynthia McKinney.

    The voters DESERVE to know what each one of them ate for breakfast.  And the media should have no expectation of making money.  Informing the voters should be the primary concern.

    Parent

    first (none / 0) (#36)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:01:34 PM EST
    I don't care what any of them has for breakfast and don't believe any post i made could be construed to say that.

    And, are you honestly going to compare the nominee of the republican party to all the other third party candidates that may throw their hat into the ring?  Come on.

    You may not believe me but this isn't about Obama.  I made the same kind of comments during the primaries when the press totally ignored all the dem nominees except Clinton and Obama.  They never covered Biden, Richardson, Dodd.  They only covered Edwards to call him a "pretty boy".  They only covered Kucinich or Gravel when they could ridicule them.

    Parent

    I am highlighting the silliness (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM EST
    of your argument.

    The reason that Gravel and Kucinich are ridiculed is because they are not legitimate candidates.  

    I do find it ironic that you think that Kucinich and Gravel didn't get a fair shake yet in the same sentence say that third party candidates aren't legitimate.

    Parent

    do you see in my comment somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    something I didn't write?  Did I discuss the "validity" of each of the contenders for the dem nomination?  Or, rather, did I just explain the treatment each of them received?

    I never said I believed Kucinich or Gravel should have gotten equal coverage.  They should have gotten some and it should not have been ridicule.

    But, certainly Edwards, Biden, Richardson and Dodd were not treated fairly by the media.


    Parent

    and are you suggesting (none / 0) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    that informing the voters should be the first concern of the media?  Isn't it part of the FCC licenses given to TV media for their use of the public airwaves?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:07:43 PM EST
    Their license requires the stations to provide some level of public service broadcasting.  Has nothing to do with what they do or do not cover.  

    The primary role of a news organization is to make money.  Want better news?  Make news consumers pay for higher quality news rather than lowest common denominator stuff.

    Parent

    what they did and didn't cover (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    used to matter before the republicans got rid of the equal time requirement.

    And, in the heydey of actual responsible news reporting by the likes of Murrow or Cronkite, the news divisions were not "profit centers" expected to make money for their networks.  They were something for their networks to point to with "pride".

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#46)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    that this "heyday" you long for actually existed. I would argue that ratings were MORE important then, because of the lack of options. Uncle Walt and Ed Murrow were great newsmen, but they didn't work for free.

    I think the difference now is that news consumers don't demand the same standard of reporting now. Plus, an ever-shrinking number of corporate conglomerates own all the news outlets...

    Parent

    well i contend that it did exist (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    Certainly the "Fairness Doctrine" existed.  You can't be arguing that it didn't.  And, everything that I have ever read backs me up on the fact that the news divisions, of TV anyway, were not money makers.

    You are correct the Cronkite didn't work for free.  My point is that the networks didn't cover their expenses for their news divisions by selling commercials that aired during news broadcasts.  And, coverage decisions were not made by what would bring in the most audience, but by what was deemed important.  Coverage of the likes of the Paris Hiltons of the era was left to entertainment media and certainly would never be the lead story on the nightly news.

    Parent

    Of course it's not a game (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    but the analogy stands. Mccain and Obama's policy proposals are in the public domain, on their websites. Both their policy speeches are attended and reported on by the press. Now, however Obama is making a major tour of the Middle East and Europe and Mccain is canceling press conferences. what should the media do in this instance?

    Additionally, when Mccain went to S. America, that was a big story and it overshadowed much of Obama's moves that week. I don't recall any whining about unfair media treatment then...

    Parent

    I don't want you (none / 0) (#30)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    to get the impression that I'm defending the MSM. they are doing a horrible job and have been for a while now. I just think it's misleading to claim that Mccain's not getting equal coverage just because he's not making a momentous trip abroad too.

    Parent
    ok (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    but, the point about the coverage was brought up BEFORE McCain cancelled a "presser".

    And, my point is that even if McCain isn't travelling around Europe right now, there are still daily events to be covered.

    The media does not need to select ONE item to cover for the day.

    It goes both ways.  I agreed with the people who said that the over coverage of Jesse Jackson's "nuts" statement meant that negative comments made by McCain about social security were barely reported.  And, had they been reported it would have damaged McCain.

    Now, which is more important for voters to know about?  Jackson's stupid comment just because it can be sensationalized and turned into yet another discussion of race?  Or McCain's position on social security?

    Parent

    Does John Mccain (none / 0) (#35)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:57:23 PM EST
    know John Mccain's position on Social Security?

    ;)

    Parent

    In all seriousness (none / 0) (#37)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    I think the fact that Mccain is simply giving his stump speeches in various locations right now has a lot to do with it. If Mccain's talking about his economic plan in OH this week and again in VA next week, why cover the same speech twice? Mccain, unfortunately, makes his news when he gives different speeches...

    But again, I bring up the example of Columbia. John Mccain's trip there dominated news coverage that week. Where was the outrage about unfair treatment then? Obama probably got a few mentions, because he was doing the normal campaigning thing, but he didn't complain that the attention was unfair because Mccain's trip was the big news.

    It still sounds like whining to me. Maybe you shouldn't have goaded Obama into going, John?


    Parent

    let's test your theory (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    and see what kind of coverage McCain gets for his economic plan speech in Ohio.  Do you suppose it will get anywhere near the kind of coverage Obama will get even though Obama is on a Senate fact finding trip and NOT holding campaign events?

    Parent
    How many times (none / 0) (#43)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    has Mccain given his speech thus far? He's been giving it for two weeks now! What's to cover? That he's at a steel mill in OH as opposed to a GM plant in MI? I wouldn't expect the media to cover a run-of-the-mill Obama stump speech either, especially if Mccain were doing something major at the same time.

    And what about that S. America trip?

    Parent

    really? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    McCain has been talking about his econimc plans for two weeks now?  I haven't seen any coverage of it on the nightly news at all.  Maybe I just wasn't watching closely enough to see the 15 seconds they might have given it.

    Meanwhile on CNN the other night they had to interrupt a discussion of McCain with the "breaking" news that Obama's plane was about to land in some other country.

    What about S. America?  I don't recall NOT hearing about Obama every day during McCain's trip to S. America. Have any figures been published showing the same kind of HUGE  disparity then favoring McCain that the figures are showing now favoring Obama?

    Parent

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:37:57 PM EST
    you saw the interview with Mccain on CBS? You know, the one where the news organization had to COVER FOR HIM BY EDITING OUT HIS GAFFE? How much more favorable does it get? If anything, I think the media's love affair for Mccain's Maverick Schtick more than balances out the covergae Obama gets where don't have to...um, what's the word... lie.

    Parent
    actually I don't watch CBS. (none / 0) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:52:49 PM EST
    Usually watch ABC.  Used to watch MSNBC every night until tey went totally in the tank.

    But, I don't believe CBS or anyone should be covering for McCain's mistakes or mistakes by Obama.

    I don't want the media do be having a love affair with either candidate.

    I do think there was a whole lot of comaplaining going on a week or so ago by the Obama side that McCain's gaffes weren't getting enough coverage.  But, at the same time I wasn't seeing much coverage of Obama's gaffes when they happened either.  If you didn't pay attention to the net would you have ever known about the Great Lake in Oregon or there being 58 or 60 states in the US from network news?  Would have known that KY doesn't share a border with ILL?


    Parent

    How about (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    ... an honest to gosh analysis of the basis of the plan.  There is more to coverage of a candidate than just CandidateX said blah-blah-blah.  Sounds like you're not old enough to remember.

    Come to think of it, if a stump speech is being repeated over a period of time, it gives ample opportunity for an honest to gosh analysis of the content of that speech.  Instead of some lazy stenography.

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:45:40 PM EST
     McCain is campaigning every day
     

    Debate your McCain spiel all you want but please keep to the facts. McCain doesn't campaign everyday. He has taken 7 of the last 21 days off. If you aren't putting yourself in the public eye the media won't have anything to say. His newsworthy message today was to cancel a press conference.

    McCain is doing his typical 5 day week with 5 controlled townhalls in 5 small towns in 5 states. One in California which makes little sense other than it is on Friday on his way back home for the weekend. In toto that will garner him some fine local coverage.

    Obama by comparison will visit 8 countries this week (7 if you view Ramallah as part of Israel). Which candidate would you expect to get the most coverage?

    Parent

    well fine... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    then I exoect coverage of each of those 5 events.  If he doen't campaign on weekends, then I have no problem with no coverage on those days.  Of course ALL campaigns are campaigning is some way even when the candidate is not having a personal appearance.

    Again, the underlying point is that anything a candidate does to get their message out is by definition "newsworthy" even if it doesn't take place in a new or inventive way or location and with confetti.

    Your argument is the same thing as saying a missing teen-age girl is only newsworthy if she is blond and pretty or somehow associated with a politician.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:43:17 PM EST
    No, a missing girl is newsworthy for local coverage nothwithstanding some Nancy Grace tabloid exploitation. Likewise a townhall meeting with local questioners will usually garner you local coverage which I'm sure McCain is receiving. A press conference for national media with the national media asking questions will get you national coverage.

    The national media isn't going to give daily coverage to inane questions from the handpicked populace of South Portland, Maine and Rochester, New Hampshire regardless of how lovely those two towns might be. To get national media attention from townhalls, someone will have to ask "how do we beat the __" (fill in your offensive word of choice).

    Parent

    so what you are admitting here (none / 0) (#64)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:25:04 PM EST
    with your last sentence is that the national media is more interested in sensationalism than substance.  Because "how do we beat the _ certainly qualifies as an inane question of no interest.

    and, as I recall the missing pretty blond girls tend to receive much national network news coverage in addition to the tabloid coverage.

    Parent

    That the media is more (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    interested in sensationalism that substance, is somehow news to someone here?

    Parent
    not that it is news at all (none / 0) (#70)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    but that it apparently doesn't bother most people who complain about my posts suggesting it should be the other way around.

    Parent
    that's not how it works (none / 0) (#67)
    by coigue on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM EST
    what's newsworthy is what Al-Maliki said, and that Obama is talking with foreign heads-of-state. In fact (ironically) it is newsworthy in good part because McCain says this is what Obama is bad at.

    Meanwhile, McCain is riding golf carts with 41....

    How is that newsworthy in comparison I ask you?

    Parent

    Hope he's ok. n/t (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST


    Hmm, seems vaguely passive aggressive (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST


    Well . . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    if you say so. . .

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM EST


    Parent
    maybe he really is (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    planning to announce the VP this week and try to steal some coverage from the last, and most spectacular leg, of the Obama world tour.

    Novak said he may have been scammed (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    and is gonna be very ticked off (just after he clears up this hit-and-run issue.)  It appears to have been an underhanded ploy to get press attention.

    Parent
    Could someone donate (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    a clue to Sen. McCain and tell him if he wants attention, maybe he should start by not always whining about what the other candidate is doing every second of every day. I swear, I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the guy. What a horrible campaign so far for the GOP.

    Parent
    I think that little (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    hit-and-run issue might be taking him off the radar for a while. It is with the utmost respect that I say, "YAAAYYY!"

    And my condolences to the bike rider who not only got hit, but then also had to deal with Dracula.

    Parent

    Funny. n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:48:26 AM EST


    Speaking of Media Darling Status ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    how's this.

    Wonder if Kryptonite will stop either of them?

    That it took (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by rottenart on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:25:17 PM EST
    me almost two pages of comments on that page to find a Ron Paul supporter is blowing my mind.

    Parent
    I liked this comment: (none / 0) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    Can we dial back the "Batman rules, Spider-Man drools" levels of political discourse, please?

    This gentleman clearly hasn't visited many blogs.

    ;)

    Parent

    Be Careful What You Wish For: McCain Cancels Press Conference | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment