To the skeptical observer, an amusing aspect of the 2008 presidential contest is watching both candidates maneuver to place themselves above criticism, as willing media acolytes invent helpful storylines. At every opportunity, Barack Obama's campaign hints that any/all criticism of the Democratic candidate is by definition racist.
John McCain emphasizes his manly refusal to trade on his Vietnam War heroism. No braggart soldier he, the straight-talking maverick reminds us daily. Far be it from him to mention his five years in a POW camp, McCain boasts modestly. Meanwhile, his campaign staff portrays every disagreement about foreign policy as mocking the candidate's valiant sacrifice.
What's less entertaining is the complicity of the Washington media establishment in creating and sustaining these fictions for self-aggrandizing purposes of its own. All that hoo-hah from journalists about their relentless search for the truth? Maybe in Des Moines or Spokane. But among Washington courtier/pundits, most high-profile political coverage consists of make-believe narratives concocted to sway voters emotionally. In consequence, much of the electorate's flying blind, a dangerous way for a democracy to operate.
One ludicrous recent example was an outburst of pretended outrage by the McCain campaign over some relatively innocuous remarks by Gen. Wesley Clark on CBS's "Face the Nation." Regarding McCain's captivity and torture in North Vietnam, Clark began by saying this: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me, and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war."
A hero to millions. Got that? Clark added that McCain lacked the kind of command experience arguably useful to a president - unlike the general himself, a highly decorated (and gravely wounded) Vietnam combat veteran and former NATO Supreme Commander.
Host Bob Schieffer pushed the point: "I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down ..."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down," Clark responded, "is a qualification to be president."
As part of his self-deprecating flyboy persona, McCain himself often jokes about how little skill it takes to intercept a heat-seeking missile. If Clark can be faulted, it's for maybe polishing his own brass when he was supposed to be touting Obama, and for adopting Schieffer's language, easily taken out of context by the art of malicious paraphrase.
Which is exactly what McCain's campaign did next, issuing out a press release whining that Clark had "attacked John McCain's military service record." That's plainly absurd. "Clark had done nothing of the kind," wrote Zachary Roth in the Columbia Journalism Review. "He had questioned the relevance of McCain's combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you'd expect any reasonably intelligent 9-year old to be able to grasp."
Ah, but that would leave out Washington's high-dollar press corps. Reports in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, on CNN and MSNBC claimed, as the Los Angeles Times phrased it, that Clark "didn't pay proper homage to McCain's greatest sacrifice." Which, of course, he certainly had.
The Politico claimed that the retired general had "invoked McCain's military service against him." An editor for The New Republic opined that it'd be naive not to recognize Clark's comments as part of a covert scheme by Obama not only to belittle McCain's Vietnam exploits but to suggest that they "rendered him psychologically unfit for presidential office." Sheerest fiction.
Taking matters further, MSNBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell described a TV ad criticizing McCain's stance on Iraq as part of "an organized campaign against John McCain's military service." Would it shock you to learn that the ad mentions McCain's service not at all? As Jamison Foser writes at mediamatters.com, Mitchell "may as well have said a giant purple unicorn had called McCain a traitor, for all the truth there was to her statement."
Ah, but Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan in civilian life) is a bona fide Washington media celebrity, a courtier/pundit of high social standing. As such, it's crucial to understand, she can appear on national television and say virtually anything she pleases about any politician, especially any Democrat - even something so patently false and irresponsible it'd get her disciplined or fired from most provincial newspapers like the one you're reading.
So-called "mainstream" Washington journalism, see, isn't a profession as most educated Americans understand the term. It's more like a social clique or a fraternal order. Driven by ambition and status anxiety, members and aspirants alike adopt group narratives for many reasons - to secure invitations to the right dinner parties, rub elbows with the great, appear on TV chat shows, earn higher lecture fees, win book contracts, etc.
Mere accuracy, alas, gets lost in the shuffle.
Gene Lyons can be reached at genelyons@sbcglobal.net.
