It’s Their Fault

Let’s look at how the Times screws up its portrayal of McCain and Obama every day, in an arena that journalists are supposed to be obsessed with (and that is perhaps more influential than any content): language. It’s the one place where fairness can be judged, and one in which the Times’s susceptibility to talking points and stereotypes is painfully obvious.

Here’s every clause with a candidates name followed by a verb referencing the other candidate (in other words, clauses that give one candidate agency over another), from the first couple pages of most recent articles that mention both McCain and Obama. I skipped an article about Obama’s vacation to be fair to O (he needed it, as you’ll see)–most of the remaining sentences emerged from two articles: one about a McCain attack on Obama, and one about an Obama attack on McCain. Two similar articles, right? Here’s what I found:

McCain [verb] Obama

“McCain Slams Obama”

“McCain opened up a hard-hitting political attack on Senator Barack Obama’s”

“Mr. McCain criticized what he called Mr. Obama’s”

“Mr. McCain raised questions about Mr. Obama’s ability”

“Senator John McCain began a hard-hitting political attack on Senator Barack Obama”

“Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is certain to continue pummeling Mr. Obama”

“Senator John McCain, criticized him”

“Senator John McCain, has seized nearly every opportunity…”

“The McCain campaign criticized Mr. Obama’s record”

Obama [verb] McCain

“Obama Returns Fire on McCain”

“Addressing both his opponent’s charges of weakness and vacillation, and public doubts about his credibility on military matters, Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday told the Veterans of Foreign Wars that he offered not just tough talk but smart answers to national security questions.”

“Mr. Obama struck back with tough language, although his delivery was largely without passion.”

“He paid the obligatory homage to Mr. McCain’s military service and sacrifice as a Vietnam prisoner of war, but then raked him for impugning his motives and patriotism.”

“[Obama] said that he and Mr. McCain were competing”

“Mr. Obama said that he and Mr. McCain had genuine differences”

Notice a trend? For one, McCain gets significantly more (and significantly more pithy) “agency sentences” than Obama. The real story, though, is the verbs themselves. McCain is “slamming,” “hard-hitting,” “pummeling,” and “seizing” while Obama is “saying” and “telling,” and defensively “striking back” and “returning fire.” His attacks are couched in lumpy participial phrases and any lack of passion is pointed out. The Times is clearly much more comfortable giving McCain agency over Obama than giving Obama agency over McCain.

You could counter this by looking into the circumstances of this week, but I doubt that would hold water. I only researched this because I’ve been noticed a trend and wanted to look into it, so I’m inclined to think that this language gap shows a possibly-unconsious narrative that the Times and other MSM outlets can’t shake: McCain is active and tough, and Obama is passive and on his heels. It’s one of those obvious GOP talking point distortions that the MSM should exist to smother. Instead, they unwittingly play right into its hands, communicating it in more subtle and dangerous ways than any more obviously partisan source.

How does this relate to ItsTheirFault? Allow me to mount my soapbox.

It’s because the real problem is that this isn’t a conspiracy. It is simply a case of under-qualified reporters doing a job they are not prepared for–it consists largely of people more vulnerable to hype and talking points than the general public. I don’t care if they are liberal (most still are), they simply don’t have a grasp on how to report fairly, because you succeed in media by being obsessed with, and therefore easily influenced, by “stars” and juicy messages from “on high.” In other words, talking points from larger than life conservatives.

There is a stereotype about mainstream journalists being bad, of course, but I don’t think anybody actively considers just how bad they are, and at what high levels this inexcusable reporting exists. I’ve explained before why industries such as journalism are falling prey to intellectually lazy, and easily-influenced-by-authority trust-fund kids, and now they just might swing yet another election.