On Sunday’s Reliable Sources, CNN host Howard Kurtz seemed to question whether the media are unfairly hyping inflammatory words from audience members at John McCain rallies that are of the kind one would expect to sometimes see at political rallies to make them fit into the narrative of the McCain campaign fueling anger at Barack Obama. Kurtz: "I've gone to a lot of rallies where a lot of crazy things have been said. Why are the media this week pumping up this story about McCain’s and Palin's crowds as if it is their fault if there's a bit of ugliness that breaks out?" Speaking to Politico.com’s Roger Simon, he later added: "It seems that the press has kind of adopted this theme that McCain and Palin are stoking the anger."
Simon responded with his view that McCain was indeed "stoking the anger." Simon: "Well, it may be that McCain and Palin are stoking the anger. It seems to me that John McCain is riding a tiger, and he's trying not to fall off that tiger and get eaten by it. When your vice presidential running mate goes around the country saying Barack Obama is ‘palling around with terrorists,’ and when you run ads that say, you know, he's a liar, he's not telling the truth about this unrepentant terrorist, and then you wonder why people in the crowd shout out ‘terrorist’ when you mention the name Barack Obama. This anger is coming from somewhere. It is being ginned up by a campaign, and it is logical, I think, to assume that these people are only responding to what they have heard from the candidate's mouth. And it's fair game, and it's, in fact, responsible for us to report how the crowds are reacting."
On the same day’s Late Edition, CNN's Wolf Blitzer pointed out that "ugly things" have also been said about McCain and Sarah Palin at Obama rallies. Blitzer: "But you've been at a lot of these Obama rallies. There have been some pretty ugly things said at these rallies by outspoken, you know, people out there about John McCain and Sarah Palin, too." Candy Crowley responded:"Yeah. And, you know, from the podium, I mean, there are lots of things that go on at rallies, and there's booing and there's, you know, all that, because the whole point of a rally is to rally."
Below is are partial transcripts of the relevant discussions from CNN’s Reliable Sources and Late Edition from Sunday, October 12:
#From Reliable Sources:
HOWARD KURTZ: I've gone to plenty of political rallies over the years, and there's usually a few yahoos or hecklers shouting things out or making a bit of trouble. Most of the time you don't hear about them, you don't read about them, unless the candidate is forced to respond. But this week, as John McCain and Sarah Palin campaigned around the country, the crowds became the story. Some ugly things were said and yelled, and the media, in their wisdom, began questioning whether the Republican ticket mates were to blame. By week's end, that had become the dominant storyline.
And we were going to show that to you, but we're having some technical difficulties. So joining us now to talk about the coverage of the campaign, in New York, Lynn Sherr, former correspondent for ABC's "20/20" and author of the book "Outside the Box," a memoir, which is just out in paperback. Here in Washington, Candy Crowley, CNN senior political correspondent. And Roger Simon, chief political columnist for Politico.com.
Lynn Sherr, as I said, I've gone to a lot of rallies where a lot of crazy things have been said. Why are the media this week pumping up this story about McCain’s and Palin's crowds as if it is their fault if there's a bit of ugliness that breaks out?
[LYNN SHERR]
KURTZ: Roger Simon, I'm certainly not saying that what people say at these rallies, particularly if it's ugly stuff, shouldn't be covered. It's part of the story. But it seems that the press has kind of adopted this theme that McCain and Palin are stoking the anger.
ROGER SIMON, POLITICO.COM: Well, it may be that McCain and Palin are stoking the anger. It seems to me that John McCain is riding a tiger, and he's trying not to fall off that tiger and get eaten by it. When your vice presidential running mate goes around the country saying Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists," and when you run ads that say, you know, he's a liar, he's not telling the truth about this unrepentant terrorist, and then you wonder why people in the crowd shout out "terrorist" when you mention the name Barack Obama. This anger is coming from somewhere. It is being ginned up by a campaign, and it is logical, I think, to assume that these people are only responding to what they have heard from the candidate's mouth. And it's fair game, and it's, in fact, responsible for us to report how the crowds are reacting.
KURTZ: For example, Candy Crowley, I was in Indiana with Obama this week. And there was some nut job in the crowd who started screaming about Obama was going to bring about the new world order, and he was ejected from the scene and people booed. Hardly anybody reported that because, who cared? But it seems to me that in the case of McCain and Palin, we have decided that they are somehow responsible for this. And I just question whether that's fair.
CANDY CROWLEY: I think it needs some context. I think, first of all, we need to know that all throughout this campaign, from the primaries on, there were lies and smears about Barack Obama on the Internet. There were people out there saying things about Barack Obama in Hillary Clinton's crowds. So, you know, it has been there all along. It's not something that just came up with John McCain. Second of all, I think it behooves us to remember that it helps the Obama campaign to have these stories out there because it shows, you know, by osmosis McCain is intolerant. Is McCain, you know, over the top here? This has nothing to do with, because I agree here that there is some culpability, but it was also unclear to me because I don't cover McCain, because all I saw was the one report at the beginning about somebody in the crowd yelling "terrorist," and the author said it was unclear whether he was talking bout Ayers or Obama.
Now, we saw the questions at McCain's town hall meetings, but he answered those in the way that Lynn was talking about. So I'm unclear how big this is.
KURTZ: All right. Let me, does this ever happen to you, where the crowd turns on you?
SIMON: Oh, sure. Covering George Wallace. I was at a rally in 1976. This was after Wallace had already been shot. And Wallace would put the press in the front rows and he would point to the press and say, "These are the enemies, these are the people." And we went up to him afterwards because we were afraid to go outside and we said, "Why are you instigating?" And he said, "I don't instigate, I just lay down the hay where the goats can get it." And that was George Wallace.
KURTZ: All right.
SIMON: And it was only Mary McGrory who saved us afterwards from the crowd because she engaged the crowd in calm conversation.
KURTZ: Let me take you back to Tuesday now. I was in the spin room, or spin tent, as you might call it, after this week's presidential debate in Nashville. And most of the reporters didn't want to talk to campaign aides about the financial crisis or John McCain's new $300 billion mortgage bailout plan. They wanted to know whether McCain had been belittling Barack Obama and why he hadn't brought up William Ayers. The candidates talked substance, and the pundits pounced on just two words.
BARACK OBAMA: We're not going to solve Social Security and Medicare unless we understand the rest of our tax policies. And, you know, Senator McCain, I think, you know, the Straight Talk Express lost a wheel on that one.
JOHN MCCAIN: There was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies. And it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one.
BRIT HUME, FROM FNC’S SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME: Well, imagine, "That one." That got a lot of attention as the moment of the night.
HOWARD FINEMAN, ON MSNBC: And I think most of the people here in the room and out in the country thought that was a weird moment.
JEFF GREENFIELD, ON CBS: I think that those two words are going to be what the water cooler conversation is tomorrow. Was it demeaning? Was it an insult?
KURTZ: The post-game chatter also seemed to recycle one rather well-worn sports term.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were no game-changers tonight.
FRED BARNES FROM FNC: This wasn't one that was a game-changer at all.
KEITH OLBERMANN, FROM MSNBC: No game-changer, not really for Obama, and certainly not for McCain.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, FROM MSNBC: It was not a game-changer, David.
ED HENRY FROM CNN: He needed some sort of a game-changer last night. Did not get it.
KURTZ: All right. Who should I start with? That one, Lynn Sherr in New York. So the economy is falling apart, the Dow is down 18 percent just this week, the credit markets are frozen, and it seems like TV is still into "That one" and game-changers, or lack of game-changers. What do you make of that?
#From Late Edition:
WOLF BLITZER: But you've been at a lot of these Obama rallies. There have been some pretty ugly things said at these rallies by outspoken, you know, people out there about John McCain and Sarah Palin, too.
CANDY CROWLEY: Yeah. And, you know, from the podium, I mean, there are lots of things that go on at rallies, and there's booing and there's, you know, all that, because the whole point of a rally is to rally.
GLORIA BORGER: Right.
CROWLEY: And so, you know, you are going to have 98 percent of your crowd is booing at the right time, there's the fashion play, it's a little kabuki, and then you're going to have, you know, a half a percent or something in there saying something pretty horrible. So, it just needs a little perspective on both sides, I think.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Reason and Emotion
October 14, 2008 - 04:31 ET by garyganuUnfortunately the media thinks that "all is fair in love, war and politics". For some reason, they are hell-bent on helping to get Obama elected. Anything that they do toward that end is noble in their minds, even when it its unethical, dishonest and dangerous to our democracy.
Another thing that I have been noticing lately is the "public service announcements" on AM radio. It seems to me that "the Ad Council" is working in concert with the democratic party. I am constantly hearing ads for liberal government giveaway programs, such as food stamps and WIC. Why is our government advertising "giveaway" social programs at a time when we are running a 2 trillion dollar deficit (including the bailout). Don't they think that hungry people in the US can find a source of food for themselves and their family without advertising giveaway programs. Don't they realize that two of the strongest instincts that God gave us (arguably stronger than sex) are to seek food when hungry, and for women to care for and protect their children.
Do we really need radio advertising to help us find a source of food in the most prosperous time and place in the history of earth?
Do we need the media telling us that it is racist, hateful and "dishonest" to point out that Obama has always surrounded himself with liberal radicals bordering on Marxism?
Unfortunately, liberals rely mostly on emotion, not reason, as a means of persuasion. In today's feminised society, where feminine qualities are placed above masculine one's, often emotion trumps reason. This is why liberals are winning the hearts of many Americans.
Watch this world war II vintage short film called "Reason and Emotion" to see how the Nazi's did the same thing to achieve power in the 30's and 40's.
Hello Gary
October 14, 2008 - 05:02 ET by cocodrieYour answer is in your post. We joke down here about having the best politicians money can buy. The democrats have the best electorate and news media money can buy.
I am angry.
October 14, 2008 - 05:53 ET by JWFBut it is the kind of stay at home and yell at the TV angry because like most conseravtives and/or Republicans, I have a job and a life and Sen. McCain wrote us in Illinois off and is not holding any campaign stops here.
My anger is not at the Obama campaign, although he is a socialist, he is just another get along/go along politician in the democrat machine. No, I am scared that he will become President and will institute some insane policies with the Pelosie-Reid tagteam that will take us decades to recover from ala Jimmy Carter.
No, my anger is at the MSM running interference for Obama and the democrats at large. I posit again that NB and other watch sites are outmoded. There is no longer a bias, it is outright war.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Duh!
October 14, 2008 - 06:30 ET by Joe C.Why are the media this week pumping up this story about McCain’s and Palin's crowds as if it is their fault if there's a bit of ugliness that breaks out?"
Hmmmm.........gosh..........I wonder.
Unbelievable... I mean Kurtz.
October 14, 2008 - 07:24 ET by Indiana JoeThe fact that Kurtz even mentions this obvious "shepherding of the discussion" is commendable. It's too bad he didn't make the logical leap to introducing the topic of the media becoming advocates instead of witnesses.
Because, when you come right down to it, that's what a truly "free press" is supposed to be; a witness to history. That's their "right," and it's also their responsibility. And what they write and disseminate is their testimony of history.
I think that in the future, when the history of this period in America is studied by scholars, the blatant and intentional bias of the press will be the main thing noted about this election. It will recall "yellow journalism" of the past, where it was expected that individual press outlets would take sides in the political process.
But this era will suffer by that comparison, because there is no "balance" on the issues. The MSM, as we call it, is firmly entrenched on one side of the debate, with virtually nothing on the other side for "balance." A full-blown return to "yellow journalism" and individual press organs honestly declaring and supporting their stances on the issues would be preferable to this so-called "objectivity," where the advocacy and agenda-promotion is (barely) hidden, all to preserve the illusion of "fairness."
Nothing is new about the press taking sides in politics. News-spreading publications were founded on the basis of promoting political views, going back to the Revolution and creations such as "Common Sense," and "The Federalist." We'd be better served under that scenario, where different outlets promoted different points of view, openly and unapologetically. Then, people could decide which views agreed with their own, and act accordingly.
This "fairness" phantom only serves to hide the bias, and fool the people. And that's directly counter to why "freedom of the press" was enshrined in our Constitution. It is diametrically opposed to the point of the First Amendment, a violation of the "spirit" of the law.
Let each newspaper, TV network, website, etc post a "Declaration of Principles," ala Charles Kane, and openly advocate their stances. The only problem with doing that now is it would unmask the MSM's blatant tilt toward the left, something they'd rather die than admit. But it may encourage the founding of a "counter-media," to serve the market on the right, that's so severely under-represented today.
And maybe it would eventually lead to true "balance."
Jesus Christ was crucified by "community organizers."
The Discussion
October 14, 2008 - 10:24 ET by KC MulvilleGood post, IJ.
I agree that there is little objectivity in media coverage. But when the topic comes up among the media, it's interesting how they conduct the argument. They frame the argument as a question about whether anyone can report objectively. Then they throw out the obviously slanted examples of media bias, and they focus on cases where some reporters have offered non-liberal reports. "See!" they argue, "reporting against your ideology is possible." Using that as their rhetorical trump card, they play it and get up from the table.
The media plays a version of the "absolute" game. When confronted with the argument that they're biased, they re-cast the accusation into a charge that they're always biased. And then, all they have to show is a single example to defeat the idea that it's always true.
The real argument, however, is that the media are often biased - documented with volumes of example, like this website. They won't argue that, because they'll lose that one.
Thanks, KC.
October 14, 2008 - 12:50 ET by Indiana JoeYou make a good point about the "absolute" argument. And it's a tactic we've seen here from our resident bridge-dwellers. One example of a point not being "always" true is considered a rebuttal to it ever being true. I think of people who advance that argument as focusing on trees instead of the forest.
That's why I'd rather they just came out and announced their position. This "unbiased" crap is just camoflage. If you really believe something, come out and say it.
I think it's time to give up on the media ever being "impartial." Let the partiality show, put it up front on both sides, and let the market (people) decide. That's why people used to be so devoted to one newspaper in multi-paper towns. But nowadays, any two-paper towns left usually just have two versions of the same bias.
Jesus Christ was crucified by "community organizers."
Kingmakers
October 14, 2008 - 07:38 ET by kilrodThe msm views themselves as kingmakers, they love and relish the role, and the power, they have as kingmakers. Ever since the msm took down Nixon and helped force our defeat in the Viet Nam War, the power to make are break a president and influence national policy has went to their heads, they are addicted to power. The reason they hate Bush so much is he beat them, they did'nt get to make their man king. They hate Mc/Palin even worse because they are scared they will not get to make obama king and thus have the power to make this country a happy little workers utopia where moral values don't matter = No God, No Christ, no shame are moral condemnation for any immoral perverted lifestyle they choose to pursue. That is one of the first things a communist/marxist/socialist state does, is to remove God and moral athority from the law. Boy are tthey gonna be surprised when the state they helped empower also removes their "freedom" of the press and begins to institute islamic law, Aint gonna be fun "My Friends".
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Traitor
October 14, 2008 - 08:54 ET by allanfI think the McCain camp errs in not using the word "traitor". I've never heard of a reformed traitor. There may be a reformed terrorist out there.
If you listen carefully without spin
October 14, 2008 - 09:10 ET by c5thenWhat you hear is people who are angry that these relationships are not being investigated by the media. It's really the media bias that the people are angry at. They are pissed that an association with an unrepentant domestic terrorist is not investigated my the media, but instead they simply repeat the campaign talkiing points.