G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
The media misses Mitt Romney's YouTube moment
By Eric Boehlert
Created Aug 14 2007 - 9:27am
If Mitt Romney manages to capture the Republican Party's presidential
nomination next year, he and his staffers might just look back to the second
week in August as the crucial turning point in the campaign.
And no, I'm not referring to his manufactured [1] victory in the Iowa straw
poll in Ames. I'm talking about the colossal campaign blunder Romney
uncorked on the stump just days before the poll, and how, thanks to a lapdog
press corps, the candidate was able to dodge what could have been a painful,
self-inflicted wound.
The episode highlights the clear double standard political pundits and
reporters use when judging Democratic and Republican presidential candidates
by their embarrassing, unscripted moments out on the stump. For Democrats,
foul-ups are often portrayed as revealing moments of character. Yet when a
Republican candidate like Romney lets loose with what even one conservative
blogger called "the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate," the
press turns away.
Romney's gaffe occurred on August 8, while at an "Ask Mitt Anything" Town
Hall meeting in Bettendorf, Iowa. That's where Rachel Griffiths got up and
asked Romney if any of his five sons were serving in the military, and if
not, how did they plan to support the war against terrorism? "The good news
is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it,"
Romney told the crowd, adding, "[O]ne of the ways my sons are showing
support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I'd
be a great president."
You don't have to be a paid political observer to instantly recognize that
Romney really stepped in it by equating his sons volunteering to help get
their millionaire dad elected president with other people's sons
volunteering to serve in Iraq. I mean, does elitism on the campaign trail
come any more unvarnished than that?
The remark, posted [2] on YouTube, was especially offensive considering
Romney campaigns as a gung-ho supporter of the Iraq war and has been urging
support for President Bush's war policy. The "good news," according to
Romney, was that his kids don't have to fight if they don't want to.
And remember, this occurred during the dog days of summer when campaign
reporters are usually desperate for fresh news material. But not desperate
enough, apparently, to simply report the fact that when asked about making
sacrifices to fight the war against terrorism and volunteering to serve in
Iraq, one high-profile GOP hopeful announced that his Army-age sons were
showing their patriotism by trying to get their dad elected president.
Rachel Griffiths, who asked Romney the question, quickly posted [3] her
account at Daily Kos, one of the most widely read political websites in the
world. The influential liberal site Eschaton immediately crowned [4] Romney
its "Wanker of the Day." Over at The Huffington Post, the widely read
progressive news and opinion hub, the AP's article on Romney and his sons
was highlighted as the top story all day long. And Jon Stewart's The Daily
Show mocked Romney, as did NBC's Jay Leno.
What's even more telling is that as word of Romney's gaffe ricocheted around
the web, even conservative bloggers agreed the candidate's answer was just
plain dumb, creating rare bipartisan ridicule:
a.. Allahpundit [5]: "Oof. Either this came out wrong or he was caught
surprisingly flat-footed by the question; as stated, it sounds awful."
b.. Outside the Beltway [6]'s James Joyner: "Mitt Romney has given what
may be the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate. ... Now, I fully
agree with Romney that we have an all-volunteer force and that his sons have
every right to decide Army life isn't for them. But, sheesh, let's not
pretend campaigning for dad's political ambitions is somehow equivalent to
going to war."
c.. NRO [7]'s Jim Geraghty: "While participating in our democratic
elections process by volunteering for a campaign is often a good thing, I
don't think it ought to be compared to military service... Seems like
comparing apples and oranges, to me."
The Romney story garnered lots of online buzz, which meant every journalist
covering the campaign knew about Romney's clumsy/offensive comments. The
mainstream press, however, remained completely uninterested.
In the 24 hours following his miscue, I found, using TVEyes.com, 71 mentions
of Romney on network and cable television, as well as National Public Radio.
Of those 71 mentions, less than six dealt with his comment about his kids
helping to get him elected. In fact, three days after it occurred, I still
could not find any proof in CNN's transcripts that the news outlet ever
reported Romney's outrageous comment. I repeat: CNN never reported the
story.
The morning after Romney's blunder, The Boston Globe, Newsday, the Chicago
Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel ran brief, 100-200-word items about it.
USA Today included just a couple of sentences about the gaffe at the bottom
of a longer Romney campaign report [8].
Incredibly, those were the only major American newspapers in the country to
touch on the story in real time. I have a hard time imagining the same
deafening silence would have met Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) or John
Edwards if they had made such dismissive and condescending remarks as
suggesting their children served their country not by serving in the
military, but by working the rope line on their parents' campaigns.
Keep in mind that Romney was crisscrossing Iowa for the entire week, which
meant reporters had opportunities to ask the candidate follow-up questions
about his controversial remarks prior to the Iowa straw poll. From what I
can determine, no journalist did that for days.
The issue, though, clearly struck a nerve with voters who, three times in
three days, pressed Romney about his sons not serving in the military.
Still, journalists descending into Iowa last week by the plane-load to cover
the straw vote couldn't have cared less.
And it wasn't just the Old Media's print and broadcast outlets that passed
on the Romney story. The swarm of online websites affiliated with, or backed
by, traditional media companies also ignored the Iowa whopper; sites that
are dedicated to vacuuming up every conceivable campaign development.
Yet in the very specific time frame of the 24 hours following Romney's
comments about his sons, most of those sites were mum about the gaffe.
During that 24-hour window, MSNBC's First Read posted [9] more than one
dozen campaign news updates. None of them concerned the Romney slip-up.
(First Read thought the utterly irrelevant [10] online video debut of the
Romney Girls clip was newsworthy, yet Romney comparing his sons' volunteer
campaign service with serving in Iraq was not.)
On Aug. 9, ABC's First Look, the early morning precursor to its daily tip
sheet The Note, linked to 35 must-read articles for campaign junkies that
day. None of them were about the Romney story. Hours later, when The Note
was posted, it reported that the Romney campaign had succeeded "in
(partially) redirecting the storyline away from his thud of a joke equating
military service with his sons' decision to campaign for him." [Emphasis
added.]
A joke? Again, here's a clip [11] of Romney's answer. I'm hard-pressed to
label it "a joke." But by characterizing the statement as such, The Note
certainly helped soften the blow for the Romney camp.
Meanwhile, Washingtonpost.com's The Fix [12] posted five items in the 24
hours following Romney's comments -- none were about the candidate's
misstep. Also, Washingtonpost.com's The Trail [13], dubbed the "daily dairy
of campaign 2008," posted 15 updates during that time frame: Zero dealt with
Romney's comments.
Also, CBSNews.com's Pure Horserace made no mention of the Romney
controversy.
Time magazine's political blog, Swampland [14], never referred to Romney's
misstep.
Newsweek.com posted nothing about Romney's misstep.
The Washington Times' Stephen Dinan, who blogs [15] exclusively about the
Republican candidates, failed to report the Romney blunder.
RealClearPolitics.com posted [16] 10 entries, including 41 links, about
every key development of the campaign. There was no mention of Romney's
slip-up, though.
Mike Allen's daily nuts-and-bolts campaign round-up, Politico Playbook,
neglected, on Aug. 9, to mention [17] Romney's gaffe.
Allen's Politico colleague, blogger Jonathan Martin got it right, though,
posting [18] almost immediately on August 8 that for Romney to draw a
comparison between Iraq and Iowa was politically "dangerous." Martin
wondered "[w]hether the comments have political legs" and suggested that
would be determined by whether or not Romney's Republican rivals decide to
make his blunder an issue, especially McCain, whose sons are currently
serving in the military.
Two points there: When 'news [19]' broke about John Edwards' expensive
haircuts, journalists did not wait for Edwards' political rivals to elevate
the issue; they did that on their own. And they had to because none of
Edwards' Democratic opponents has ever suggested his haircuts were
important. Journalists loved the haircut angle because they claimed it
revealed a hidden truth about the candidate, so they wrote about it
incessantly [19]. The same journalists could have made the same
determination about the Romney story. (i.e. another pro-war Republican with
no military connection or tradition.) Instead, they came to the opposite
conclusion and determined the story was meaningless. They chose to ignore
it.
Second, as for McCain's response to the Romney quote, NBC's Matt Lauer had a
chance the following morning on the Today show to raise the issue with
McCain. And he did. But Lauer completely soft-pedaled the story by asking
McCain it if was "fair criticism of Romney that none of his sons serves in
the military."
D'oh! Romney's comments weren't newsworthy because his sons don't serve in
the military. They were newsworthy because Romney compared their volunteer
duty driving a Winnebago around Iowa with serving in a war in Iraq. Lauer
didn't just bury the lede, he buried the entire story.
I must say, MSNBC television producers seemed to be alone in having their
news antenna up and working on the Romney story. Live with Dan Abrams
quickly tagged Romney as one of the day's Losers, in its Winners and Losers
segment, for "pronouncing his sons were supporting the nation by pounding
the pavement to help him get elected."
The following day MSNBC interviewed Rachel Griffiths on the air and asked
her about her question to Romney and the candidate's odd response.
And even though it took him almost 36 hours, Chris Matthews, Hardball's
host, finally addressed the Romney issue on August 9, saying he was
"astounded" by Romney's answer to the question about his sons and the
military. Also appearing on the program was Salon.com editor Joan Walsh, who
agreed Romney's response was "terrible." She spelled out the possible
implications:
WALSH: Romney has this problem of looking like an entitled country club
white guy, who just strolled off the golf course. And then to say that his
ask [20] Romney about his odd response to the question about his sons not
serving in Iraq. That came on Fox News Sunday, where the candidate promptly
apologized ("I misspoke"), stressing that he should not have compared
working on a campaign with serving in the military.
How convenient for Romney that journalists allowed him to avoid the topic
until after the Iowa straw poll votes had been tallied.
_______
About author A senior fellow at Media Matters for America, and a former
senior writer for Salon, Boehlert's first book, "Lapdogs: How The Press
Rolled Over for Bush," was published in May. He can be reached at
eboehlert@aol.com [21]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Eric Boehlert
Created Aug 14 2007 - 9:27am
If Mitt Romney manages to capture the Republican Party's presidential
nomination next year, he and his staffers might just look back to the second
week in August as the crucial turning point in the campaign.
And no, I'm not referring to his manufactured [1] victory in the Iowa straw
poll in Ames. I'm talking about the colossal campaign blunder Romney
uncorked on the stump just days before the poll, and how, thanks to a lapdog
press corps, the candidate was able to dodge what could have been a painful,
self-inflicted wound.
The episode highlights the clear double standard political pundits and
reporters use when judging Democratic and Republican presidential candidates
by their embarrassing, unscripted moments out on the stump. For Democrats,
foul-ups are often portrayed as revealing moments of character. Yet when a
Republican candidate like Romney lets loose with what even one conservative
blogger called "the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate," the
press turns away.
Romney's gaffe occurred on August 8, while at an "Ask Mitt Anything" Town
Hall meeting in Bettendorf, Iowa. That's where Rachel Griffiths got up and
asked Romney if any of his five sons were serving in the military, and if
not, how did they plan to support the war against terrorism? "The good news
is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it,"
Romney told the crowd, adding, "[O]ne of the ways my sons are showing
support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I'd
be a great president."
You don't have to be a paid political observer to instantly recognize that
Romney really stepped in it by equating his sons volunteering to help get
their millionaire dad elected president with other people's sons
volunteering to serve in Iraq. I mean, does elitism on the campaign trail
come any more unvarnished than that?
The remark, posted [2] on YouTube, was especially offensive considering
Romney campaigns as a gung-ho supporter of the Iraq war and has been urging
support for President Bush's war policy. The "good news," according to
Romney, was that his kids don't have to fight if they don't want to.
And remember, this occurred during the dog days of summer when campaign
reporters are usually desperate for fresh news material. But not desperate
enough, apparently, to simply report the fact that when asked about making
sacrifices to fight the war against terrorism and volunteering to serve in
Iraq, one high-profile GOP hopeful announced that his Army-age sons were
showing their patriotism by trying to get their dad elected president.
Rachel Griffiths, who asked Romney the question, quickly posted [3] her
account at Daily Kos, one of the most widely read political websites in the
world. The influential liberal site Eschaton immediately crowned [4] Romney
its "Wanker of the Day." Over at The Huffington Post, the widely read
progressive news and opinion hub, the AP's article on Romney and his sons
was highlighted as the top story all day long. And Jon Stewart's The Daily
Show mocked Romney, as did NBC's Jay Leno.
What's even more telling is that as word of Romney's gaffe ricocheted around
the web, even conservative bloggers agreed the candidate's answer was just
plain dumb, creating rare bipartisan ridicule:
a.. Allahpundit [5]: "Oof. Either this came out wrong or he was caught
surprisingly flat-footed by the question; as stated, it sounds awful."
b.. Outside the Beltway [6]'s James Joyner: "Mitt Romney has given what
may be the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate. ... Now, I fully
agree with Romney that we have an all-volunteer force and that his sons have
every right to decide Army life isn't for them. But, sheesh, let's not
pretend campaigning for dad's political ambitions is somehow equivalent to
going to war."
c.. NRO [7]'s Jim Geraghty: "While participating in our democratic
elections process by volunteering for a campaign is often a good thing, I
don't think it ought to be compared to military service... Seems like
comparing apples and oranges, to me."
The Romney story garnered lots of online buzz, which meant every journalist
covering the campaign knew about Romney's clumsy/offensive comments. The
mainstream press, however, remained completely uninterested.
In the 24 hours following his miscue, I found, using TVEyes.com, 71 mentions
of Romney on network and cable television, as well as National Public Radio.
Of those 71 mentions, less than six dealt with his comment about his kids
helping to get him elected. In fact, three days after it occurred, I still
could not find any proof in CNN's transcripts that the news outlet ever
reported Romney's outrageous comment. I repeat: CNN never reported the
story.
The morning after Romney's blunder, The Boston Globe, Newsday, the Chicago
Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel ran brief, 100-200-word items about it.
USA Today included just a couple of sentences about the gaffe at the bottom
of a longer Romney campaign report [8].
Incredibly, those were the only major American newspapers in the country to
touch on the story in real time. I have a hard time imagining the same
deafening silence would have met Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) or John
Edwards if they had made such dismissive and condescending remarks as
suggesting their children served their country not by serving in the
military, but by working the rope line on their parents' campaigns.
Keep in mind that Romney was crisscrossing Iowa for the entire week, which
meant reporters had opportunities to ask the candidate follow-up questions
about his controversial remarks prior to the Iowa straw poll. From what I
can determine, no journalist did that for days.
The issue, though, clearly struck a nerve with voters who, three times in
three days, pressed Romney about his sons not serving in the military.
Still, journalists descending into Iowa last week by the plane-load to cover
the straw vote couldn't have cared less.
And it wasn't just the Old Media's print and broadcast outlets that passed
on the Romney story. The swarm of online websites affiliated with, or backed
by, traditional media companies also ignored the Iowa whopper; sites that
are dedicated to vacuuming up every conceivable campaign development.
Yet in the very specific time frame of the 24 hours following Romney's
comments about his sons, most of those sites were mum about the gaffe.
During that 24-hour window, MSNBC's First Read posted [9] more than one
dozen campaign news updates. None of them concerned the Romney slip-up.
(First Read thought the utterly irrelevant [10] online video debut of the
Romney Girls clip was newsworthy, yet Romney comparing his sons' volunteer
campaign service with serving in Iraq was not.)
On Aug. 9, ABC's First Look, the early morning precursor to its daily tip
sheet The Note, linked to 35 must-read articles for campaign junkies that
day. None of them were about the Romney story. Hours later, when The Note
was posted, it reported that the Romney campaign had succeeded "in
(partially) redirecting the storyline away from his thud of a joke equating
military service with his sons' decision to campaign for him." [Emphasis
added.]
A joke? Again, here's a clip [11] of Romney's answer. I'm hard-pressed to
label it "a joke." But by characterizing the statement as such, The Note
certainly helped soften the blow for the Romney camp.
Meanwhile, Washingtonpost.com's The Fix [12] posted five items in the 24
hours following Romney's comments -- none were about the candidate's
misstep. Also, Washingtonpost.com's The Trail [13], dubbed the "daily dairy
of campaign 2008," posted 15 updates during that time frame: Zero dealt with
Romney's comments.
Also, CBSNews.com's Pure Horserace made no mention of the Romney
controversy.
Time magazine's political blog, Swampland [14], never referred to Romney's
misstep.
Newsweek.com posted nothing about Romney's misstep.
The Washington Times' Stephen Dinan, who blogs [15] exclusively about the
Republican candidates, failed to report the Romney blunder.
RealClearPolitics.com posted [16] 10 entries, including 41 links, about
every key development of the campaign. There was no mention of Romney's
slip-up, though.
Mike Allen's daily nuts-and-bolts campaign round-up, Politico Playbook,
neglected, on Aug. 9, to mention [17] Romney's gaffe.
Allen's Politico colleague, blogger Jonathan Martin got it right, though,
posting [18] almost immediately on August 8 that for Romney to draw a
comparison between Iraq and Iowa was politically "dangerous." Martin
wondered "[w]hether the comments have political legs" and suggested that
would be determined by whether or not Romney's Republican rivals decide to
make his blunder an issue, especially McCain, whose sons are currently
serving in the military.
Two points there: When 'news [19]' broke about John Edwards' expensive
haircuts, journalists did not wait for Edwards' political rivals to elevate
the issue; they did that on their own. And they had to because none of
Edwards' Democratic opponents has ever suggested his haircuts were
important. Journalists loved the haircut angle because they claimed it
revealed a hidden truth about the candidate, so they wrote about it
incessantly [19]. The same journalists could have made the same
determination about the Romney story. (i.e. another pro-war Republican with
no military connection or tradition.) Instead, they came to the opposite
conclusion and determined the story was meaningless. They chose to ignore
it.
Second, as for McCain's response to the Romney quote, NBC's Matt Lauer had a
chance the following morning on the Today show to raise the issue with
McCain. And he did. But Lauer completely soft-pedaled the story by asking
McCain it if was "fair criticism of Romney that none of his sons serves in
the military."
D'oh! Romney's comments weren't newsworthy because his sons don't serve in
the military. They were newsworthy because Romney compared their volunteer
duty driving a Winnebago around Iowa with serving in a war in Iraq. Lauer
didn't just bury the lede, he buried the entire story.
I must say, MSNBC television producers seemed to be alone in having their
news antenna up and working on the Romney story. Live with Dan Abrams
quickly tagged Romney as one of the day's Losers, in its Winners and Losers
segment, for "pronouncing his sons were supporting the nation by pounding
the pavement to help him get elected."
The following day MSNBC interviewed Rachel Griffiths on the air and asked
her about her question to Romney and the candidate's odd response.
And even though it took him almost 36 hours, Chris Matthews, Hardball's
host, finally addressed the Romney issue on August 9, saying he was
"astounded" by Romney's answer to the question about his sons and the
military. Also appearing on the program was Salon.com editor Joan Walsh, who
agreed Romney's response was "terrible." She spelled out the possible
implications:
WALSH: Romney has this problem of looking like an entitled country club
white guy, who just strolled off the golf course. And then to say that his
ask [20] Romney about his odd response to the question about his sons not
serving in Iraq. That came on Fox News Sunday, where the candidate promptly
apologized ("I misspoke"), stressing that he should not have compared
working on a campaign with serving in the military.
How convenient for Romney that journalists allowed him to avoid the topic
until after the Iowa straw poll votes had been tallied.
_______
About author A senior fellow at Media Matters for America, and a former
senior writer for Salon, Boehlert's first book, "Lapdogs: How The Press
Rolled Over for Bush," was published in May. He can be reached at
eboehlert@aol.com [21]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson