I had a very interesting tête-à-tête last week that I thought I'd share. As you may have guessed, I'm on the email distro lists for all the major Sunday shows and cable news networks, and I get email notifications for who the scheduled guests will be as well as transcripts, p.r. pieces and the like. Last week, when ABC sent me an email that John McCain was going to be their guest again, I sent back a snarky reply asking if they ever had John Kerry on after he lost the election to George Bush as often as they've had McCain, and why, when there are so many actual issues about which the public needs to be informed, they gave so much air time to GOP obstructionism. Normally, I shoot off those emails just as a private protest, but this time, I got a reply back from the executive producer:

Thanks very much for your email. I’d have to take issue with your suggestion that “so much time is given to GOP obstructionism.” Week to week we maintain a balance between Democratic and Republican guests. It’s not always a perfect balance – airtime often tips toward the party in power because the mission of our program is to ask questions of those who are in decision making and policy making roles. Our guest selection is also determined by the news stories we cover. As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator McCain is clearly the appropriate Republican guest to follow the Secretary of Defense in a discussion of US Afghanistan policy.

Well, if you've ever seen me in the comments, you have to know I'm not going to let a steaming pile of Village B.S. like that go unchallenged:

Thanks for your response.

The notion of a "balance" between Democratic and Republican guests is a false equivalence too often used in lieu of actual journalism. If you put brought on a creationist to discuss the fossil record with Stephen Jay Gould, are you serving your viewership well for balance?

With all due respect to Sen. McCain---and knowing full well how much he cultivates a good relationship with the media (I'm sure Mr. Stephanopoulos enjoyed his weekend in Arizona with the McCains when health care was the prime topic in the country)--his purpose as a follow up to Gates is to simply toe the GOP line of disagreeing reflexively with any agenda the President sets. My site, Crooksandliars.com, has been documenting this for the last five years.

How about instead of reducing every issue to a simplistic binary equation of Republican vs. Democrat, you seek to actually inform your viewership with people who have real background in Afghanistan or could bring a different (and not partisan) perspective? For example, Paul Rieckhoff of IAVA could discuss it from a soldier's POV. As a blogger involved in many journalism listservs, I personally could put you in touch with people far more versed in the history and the actualities in Afghanistan which would provide far more cogent and *informative* information than you will see from the man who tried to tell Americans that Baghdad was as safe as Main Street with his contingent of soldiers and helicopters guarding him.

Further, your insistence that this is the best person to follow up on Gates is disingenuous at best, when looked at the history of who THIS WEEK has booked. I've been a media analyst and political advocate for several years and my memory is not that short. John Kerry was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during Bush's presidency. How often did you ask Sen. Kerry on to discuss foreign policy as a response to Bush? Rarely.

And why is McCain on as *a response*? Why isn't he on first and then give Gates--as the person who can actually make policy, as opposed to the minority party--the opportunity to address the issues afterwards? Because air time tips to the party in power? Last time I checked, Americans have pretty decisively said that they weren't happy with the GOP being the party in power, not that we can tell from your bookings. It's bad enough that you give air time to George Will every week to spread disinformation (and if you'd like, I'm only too happy to provide you with at least 10 examples in the last year of things George Will has been factually wrong about), but to actually tell me that air time tips to the party in power when you have notoriously been favoring Republicans makes me question how forthright you're being about your booking choices. Let's see you book a Democratic blogger even once to "balance" your egregious booking of the completely factually-challenged Michelle Malkin. Or maybe it's just that *informing* your viewership is secondary.

Funnily enough, the producer didn't really have much response to that, simply thanking me for the input. Honestly, I wasn't really happy with the dismissive little pat on the head from the Villager who thought that little blogger me couldn't understand why McCain was a reasonable booking. So I thought I'd give him a suggestion as to real balance:

Here is a segment I would LOVE to see you do with Sen. McCain: why don't you invite my colleague, David Neiwert, author of The Eliminationists, on to discuss how the violent rhetoric that used to be relegated to the fringes of the Republican Party which has been mainstreamed since Obama's election and let Sen McCain respond to that? After all, he is the one who brought Sarah Palin to the national stage (and as I recall, actually said on your program that Palin was his "soul mate" after having only had one phone conversation and a short meeting with her before asking her on the ticket) and there is no other politician who has tapped so proficiently into that zeitgeist. I think it would be beneficial for Americans to hear someone of Sen. McCain's gravitas and stature disavow the kind of violent and racist rhetoric we've all seen. I'm more than happy to provide you with contact information for Mr. Neiwert if you are so inclined.

But if you're not interested in putting Sen. McCain on the spot, perhaps next time you do a show on the problems we're facing in Afghanistan, the "balance" you seek would be better achieved by putting on a politician who favors withdrawal, like Rep. Alan Grayson, instead of two hawks who will both say that the most important thing is "winning" in Afghanistan without actually explaining what "winning" means or how we can achieve it militarily. Where's the balance in that for your viewers?

Are you surprised that he had no response to that? Nah, me neither. I don't know if it impacted him at all, but I'm hoping that from now on he has a small voice inside his head reminding him that some of his viewers actually think critically and realize how badly he's--and all the rest of the bobblehead media--doing his job.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald looks at the sources that our liberal media uses to discuss the issues of the day.

(Huge h/t to Jane Hamsher)

I flip around the cable channels during the day just to get an idea of what the punditocracy considers big news and I caught the tail end of this segment on Fox yesterday morning and could not stop laughing.

The GOP and their propaganda arm, FOX News, are up in arms over the latest Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin that accompanies this scathing article by Jon Meacham. The article, that points to Palin's "commonness" as a problem to her credibility as a candidate, is less of a concern to the GOP than the fact that they did a close up of her face and did not retouch it to hide blemishes and pores. And you may remember, FOX knows about retouching photos for credibility's sake.

Apparently, they're not as afraid of their supporters reading as they are of them looking at pictures and realizing that Palin's skin isn't peaches and cream perfect.

DOWNLOAD (24)

PLAY (48)

Even though polls are showing that the American people find the McCain less and less credible as a candidate as he focuses more and more on smearing Obama and not on what concerns them, that doesn't stop the McCain Media Brigade from trying to spin his desperate and flailing campaign choices.

On last night's Anderson Cooper 360, David Gergen tries to spin that while the NY Times (accusing McCain of race baiting) had some validity, really, McCain isn't that desperate, because he didn't bring up Ayers at the debate:

GERGEN: I think the New York Times has a serious point and should be considered. The good news, Anderson, is that over the past twenty four hours or so, there have been very encouraging signs from John McCain himself. You know he did not bring up Bill Ayers last night. He has put Reverend Wright off limits, for his campaign and after the debate last night, his top aides told Politico that he did not intend to bring up Bill Ayers. He wasn't going to go down that road and he wanted to keep Reverend Wright off the...out of the campaign.

The issue has been what's been going on at Sarah Palin's rallies. That's where the real trouble is because it's...it's the combination of her rhetoric -- which is whipping up these crowds -- and these ugly scenes that have occurred at these rallies. When Obama's name came up, has been used it not only brought these boos but, you know we have reports now of somebody yelling out "terrorist!" about Obama. At another rally, someone yelling out "kill him, kill him". And at another rally the...you have people shouting racial epithets.

COOPER: You can't control though what people say in a crowd, can you, David?

GERGEN: Yes. You can, and it's...Yes. It's up, it's up to the, Sarah Palin, at her rally and for John McCain to tell her if she doesn't start doing this to stop right there and take issue with what's been said and say this has no place in our campaign and we do not condone this and please let's show more respect. I think it's up to her.
[snip]
And again I think we should give credit to John McCain for not going down this road himself last night in the debate and for making it clear he doesn't want to go down the road in the next few days.

Give me a break...McCain is running 100% negative ads. His running mate is going out and purposefully agitating up racial hatred and we're supposed to give McCain credit for not being man enough to say all the smears to Obama's face?

And is it me, or does Gergen advocate another "campaign suspension" stunt?

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t BillW)

Gosh, who needs campaign surrogates when the mainstream media will only too gladly suffice?  Tom Brokaw continues in his role as Republican concern troll by citing an anonymous email from a military man (who is "not crazy" about McCain, natch; that only increases the credibility, right?) objecting to Biden's crack yesterday about seven kitchen tables because, after all, McCain was a POW.  And Chuck Todd agrees, that while Democrats--citing Maureen Dowd, who has never met a Democrat she didn't metaphorically castrate or feminize-- don't like it, it still works with voters.

BROKAW: Chuck Todd, a career military person-who is not crazy about John McCain-immediately emailed me about that crack about seven kitchen tables, saying, "Wait a minute, that's pretty gratuitous. Here's a guy who spent five years in prison, not knowing where his next meal was going to come from."

TODD: It's interesting that..that Democrats are getting a little more upset by that line of defense now. Coming, there's a column this morning by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times sort of laying out this case that you know, is the McCain campaign using the...using that defense too often to pushback everything, but it does work, I think, with voters.

You know, I normally think Todd's fairly astute, but this is just ridiculous.  I'm ready for Brokaw and Todd to appear in a YouTube video complete with smearing mascara, screaming "Leave McCain alone!" The reason that Democrats are getting upset is not that McCain is using it too often, it's that being a POW IS NOT A LINE OF DEFENSE.  Jumpin' Jiminy, these guys are clueless. 

McCain gets pulled over for speeding: "But Officer, I was a POW!" 

McCain misspells 'onomatopoeia' at the National Spelling Bee: "But judge, I was a POW!" 

McCain forgets to pay taxes on one of his multiple homes: "But Mr. IRS Auditor, I was a POW!"

That's how ludicrous McCain's "defense" is, and yet the media sees nothing wrong with it.  In fact, they're shocked by those who point out that being a POW isn't a "get out of gaffe" free card.  It's not working with the voters, you McCain Media types, it's working with you.  You're just not on the ball enough to know you're getting played.

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

Gee, ya think?  The McLaughlin Group panel ponders the deep and abiding love the media has for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, affectionately known to him as "his base". 

True love.  The press has found it.  Smitten by the Republican nominee, John McCain, maverick, here's a sampling of journalists saluting McCain in their own words in recent days:

Kind of like a Martin Luther [Chris Matthews - Hardball]

A man of unshakable character, willing to stand up for his convictions [R.W. Apple, NY Times]

An affable man of zealous, unbending beliefs [Richard Cohen, The Washington Post]

The hero who still does things his own way [Richard Cohen, The Washington Post]

Rises above the pack-eloquent, as only a prisoner of war can be [David Nyhan, The Boston Globe]

The perfect candidate to deal with what challenges we face as a country. [Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC]

Blunt, unyielding, deploying his principles, what he does do is what he's always done, play it as straight as possible.  [Terry Moran, Nightline]

Wordly-wise and witty, determined to follow the facts to the exclusion of ideology. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]

Willing to defy his own party and forge compromise. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]

Pragmatic in the service of the national interest, rises to passion when he believes that America's best values are at stake. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]

The maverick candidate still.  [Terry Moran, Nightline]

It's enough to make you lose your dinner, I tell you.  Michelle Bernard claims that they are just as exultant over Obama, and Pat Buchanan insists the McCain Media love affair is "over. Done. Gone."   I'm not sure I'm buying that just yet...