Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The reviews are still rolling out on Senator John McCain’s address to the RNC accepting the nomination of his party for President of the United States. An AP report provides a title that does not do its content justice. Rather than suggest that McCain’s speech did not compare to others this week it should have expressed the better than expected reaction from the usual suspects in the MSM.

One CNN quote describes the speech as a ‘tribute to tenacity.’ George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said, ‘yet the speech had many stark, simple and eloquent lines.’ Another CNN comment suggested McCain won’t win on oratory and Karl Rove rated it ‘workmanlike’ and ‘not that great’. To which this blog replies everyone is aware of the distinction drawn that Obama is comfortable with canned speeches and McCain with townhall type situations. Obama’s weakness in debate and McCain’s strength there may reveal why there has been little head to head between the two.

Charles Krauthammer on Fox called the whole process strange and ‘yet I think it was effective.’ For all the calls for substance and acknowledgment that much of campaigns are unrevealing presentations marketing candidates, it is surprising how many choose to ignore McCain’s discomfort with speeches and his understanding that he has to do it and still try to cut through the theatre of politics to communicate his intentions.

Chris Matthews sees it as ‘a winner’ which should cause conservatives to pause. The remainder of the piece’s quotes are of limited significance. The point is the AP report may be indicative of the larger audience reaction to McCain, partisan voters not included. That of course limits voter segment to independents and undecided for which both parties need to be attractive.

McCain can’t match week’s best speeches

By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) After back-to-back convention weeks with some soaring oratory and flawless television productions, John McCain’s crowning night had neither.

His acceptance speech Thursday was marred by some demonstrations, a technical glitch and a plodding delivery. McCain seemed overshadowed by the woman he picked to be his vice president, Sarah Palin, who earned rave reviews and drew an astonishing 40 million viewers to her debut on the national stage the night before.

As long as this is about the media coverage of McCain’s RNC address it might as well continue on the media reaction to criticism directed at them. For some in the MSM as well as the public to focus on Sarah Palin’s family as fair game the LA Times report below offers a mixed reaction to the charge of media bias or ‘piling on’ when it comes to the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. But the commentary by Roger Simon from Politico seems to miss the point even if done deliberately.

Simon casts the criticism as unfair by concluding Palin only wants the media to report the good stuff and ignore any bad. He chooses to ignore the likely insincere directive of Barack Obama to ‘leave family out of it’ or the precedent set by the media accepting the Clinton directive to not cover children of politicians. The further point to be reasserted in criticism of MSM coverage of candidates is that when you report allegations failing to present them with enough valid evidence to support the claim is nothing more than tabloid tactics or Hollywood style gossip. That sort of reporting leads to misinformation, misrepresentation as well as leading the public to believe there is something wrong when there in fact may not be. That is a disservice to the public and unnecessarily damaging action for the subject as well as neglecting journalistic obligations.

So yes, Mr Simon, your arrogant disregard for media criticism does not serve the public interest. You should certainly be intelligent enough to understand what items are off limits in covering politics even if you have no conscience to use as a guide.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Media on the defensive over Sarah Palin coverage

After the GOP attacks the media over stories about the vice presidential nominee’s family, TV networks and newspapers deny bias and say Republicans opened the door to coverage.

By Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 5, 2008

NEW YORK — News executives Thursday tried to shake off the excoriations of the media emanating from the Republican National Convention, defending their coverage of GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin as responsible and evenhanded.

While top television network officials and newspaper editors largely dismissed the critiques as partisan rhetoric, some fretted that charges of media bias had reached a new and disturbing level.

Why the media should apologize

By ROGER SIMON
9/4/08 12:15 AM EST

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

The official theme of the convention’s third day was prosperity, but the unofficial theme was “the media are really, really awful.

Trackposted to Pet’s Garden Blog, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Dollar Traveler, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, NN&V, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 6th, 2008 at 11:55 am and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, Biden, McCain, News Media, Clinton, disclosure, ethics, obama, Opinion, Gov Sarah Palin. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.