Story of the Day: Mitchell Calls Obama '90%' Ad 'Remarkably Negative'

The media continues to present this phony moral equivalency: Obama's ads are somehow just as negative as McCain's. On Meet the Press Sunday, Andrea Mitchell exemplified this ludicrous meme, unintentionally entering Onion and Saturday Night Live territory when she called the following "a remarkably negative ad":

Here's the specific context in which Mitchell presented this specious notion:

TOM BROKAW: Can they continue to tag John McCain with George Bush?

MITCHELL: They can, and, in fact, they're doing it with a remarkably negative ad. I mean, we talk a lot about the negativity on the Republican side. But the fact is that Barack Obama has so much more money, and some of these targeted ads, one that they unveiled on Thursday and Friday of this week and it's on national television, has John McCain in his own words saying, in another interview, in another context, "I voted, I supported George Bush 90 percent of the time." So they've got him on videotape. And the fact is, that this ad is running and running and running. ...Yes, the robocalls are reaching hundreds of thousands of people, the negative robotic calls from the Republican side. But these ads are reaching millions and millions of people."

With all due respect to planetary travel, what planet is Mitchell on? This kind of nonsense should be beneath a serious news organization's Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent. It's the kind of comment or, as they call it in the "real parts of America," lie that we'd expect from Fox News wingnuts, their talk radio minions, and desperate McCain Pfotenhauers. As much a lie as calling Obama a "socialist" or saying he "pals around with terrorists." Yet Mitchell states this falsehood as fact and no one on the panel, including host Tom Brokaw, calls her on it.

Even worse is Mitchell's feckless defense of her accusation: McCain's 90% comment was unfairly taken out of context. McCain told Fox News' Neil Cavuto on 5/22/03, "The president and I agree on most issues. There was a recent study that showed that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my even Republican colleagues."

I'd like to hear Mitchell explain what possible additional context would dispel the fact that McCain touted his allegiance to Bush over five years ago and then, as confirmed by Congressional Quarterly, remained steadfast in his avowed allegiance by continuing to vote with Bush 90% of the time over the next five years? I'd like to hear it because no such context exists.

Calling this "a remarkably negative ad" is like calling vanilla a remarkably exotic flavor, McCain a remarkably sunny candidate, Palin a remarkably complex thinker, or, say, Andrea Mitchell a remarkably responsible journalist.

It's the kind of overt stupidity and shameless mendacity that helped drum up support for attacking a country that never attacked us. The kind of sloppy reporting that continues to claim McCain took a noble stand against torture when, in fact, he folded on the torture issue by voting to sanction the "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- including historically known forms of torture such as waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation -- in the Military Commissions Act of 2006; given another chance to right that wrong, he caved once again to the extremists in his party. (Yes, the Obama campaign gives McCain credit on "standing against torture" for whatever political calculation it has made -- throw the war hero a bone? if Obama brought it up it would shed light on his lack of military service? -- but the media has endlessly perpetuated this myth, or lie, to the benefit of McCain and detriment of the American people.) The kind of hack journalism that needs to be corrected not just by media critics and partisans but by every mainstream journalist who hopes to restore a level of professionalism we watched vanish during the Bush years.

Incidentally, McCain has also said, "I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” [NBC, “Meet The Press,” 6/19/05] And: "No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have." [The Mike Gallagher Show, 3/28/08]

Meanwhile, here is just one of the robocalls Mitchell portrays as equivalent to Obama's 90% ad:

"I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee."

That is remarkable.

[Ed. Note: Enjoy this media critique? Subscribe to receive email alerts so you don't miss the next one (or the next media report or satire). Since MBH doesn't post daily, it's not only the best way to keep up but you also won't be deluged by emails. And it's recession-proof (i.e. free). Just drop your email address in the top right-hand column above and look for your auto-confirmation email.]

Comments

[Brad Jacobson]

Mitchell: Obama '90 Percent' Ad 'Remarkably Negative'

[Comatose]

I think part of the problem is the focus on 'negativity,' rather than falsehood. There is nothing wrong with negative ads, as long as the content of them is actually, verifiably true. The problem is not negativity; it's bullshit. And McCain is covered in it.

[Matthew]

I remember watching this and thinking WTF?

McCain did the same thing in the debate, hitting Obama about negative ads, but then listing Obama ads that attack McCain's policy issues.

Wait, policy...that's fair game right? It's the negative personal attacks that make McCain's campaign feel so slimy.

[Plisko]

What we need here is a new word to distinguish between negative ads based on policy and negative ads based on personal attacks.

There was once a time when negative ads were mostly viewed as personal attacks but the new idea of "balance" in the media is to hammer square pegs into round holes and now "negative ad" means any kind of challenge to a rivals record or background.

[ModernMan]

It is a negative ad and it is mean spirited and belittles the intelligence of all of us. Is it as negative as calling Obama a terrorist? Flatly no.

Is it smarmy, smug and off-putting? Yes. I already voted for Obama. It would take a lot more than this negativity to make me change my mind. I live in Ohio and I'm frankly tired of both sides acting childish. What's the solution? I don't know, other than turning off the television. Before we ride off on our high horse, I think it's only fair to say that Obama is putting out negative ads. What choice does he have? I don't know.

[Tom Paine]

But! they (the MSM) have to be balanced, even if the equivalency is false. Not!

[The Heretik]

Nice job. You are linked.

[zak822]

What make the Obama ad negative?

McCain proudly stated what Obama says that he said. He voted with Bush over 90% of the time.

Where's the negativity in showing voters that McCain agrees with the despised Bush?

[Batocchio]

This is typical MSM false equivalency bullshit. They're always gutless about making qualitative judgments, even when the issue is clear. "Negative" doesn't really matter so much; "inaccurate" does. Obama's ad is negative, but accurate, and a fair and important critique of McCain. The same is not true of McCain's ads on Ayers and Obama votes on abortion and education about sexual predators, all of which use highly deceptive smears.

[robert dagg murphy]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be andrea Mitchell.

[Pamela More]

I couldn't agree more. Mitchell drives me crazy. Your example is an excellent one, and her and Gregory's and Matthew's false equivalency of the negative ads is particularly galling in general. On Oct 14, Mitchell said, at 1:31 pm (eastern), of Sarah Palin, "She is the best speaker of the four on either ticket". A direct quote, I wrote it down. THE BEST SPEAKER? Obama had 200,000 in Berlin, 80,000 in Denver, 100,000 in STL (biggest U.S. political event ever), and PALIN is the best speaker? My head was exploding. I have written to NBC regarding the obvious right-wing turn of MSNBC since Russert died. Wasn't a bit surprised when I read (NYT I think?)that Brokaw, who seems to be calling the shots, is a McCain friend and they talk frequently.
(Just found my way here from The Nation, appreciate the thoughtful commentary.)

[Pamela More]

I have a question. Despite extensive searching, I cannot find a single e-mail address to any show at MSNBC now except Rachel Maddow; am I missing something, or, as I suspect, have they designed it deliberately that way? All the content on the pages of the other shows is "push" content, i.e. set up for them to push stuff at us. No feedback mechanism of any kind that I can find. I sent an e-mail to MSNBC in general complaining about this and saying I would no longer watch Gregory because of it (too frustrating not to be able to complain). I of course received no reply. Maddow never says anything lunatic, so aside from driving over there (once so far) with a printed comment (I live fairly close), I don't know of any way to protest the routine inanity. I give CNN a lot of credit, they have an e-mail for every show, at least the major ones. I am watching it more and more.

[bughunter]

Of course, there is an equivalency if you consider the following analogy valid -

Obama ad: McCain ad :: Bill Ayers: George Bush

Perhaps Andrea has a point?

[bughunter]

(whups - got the analogy backward. YKWIM.)

[Lauria]

The lack of facts coming from the MSM where John McCain is concerned should once and for all lay the term "liberal media" to rest. In past elections, negative ads were defined as those which untruthfully smeared a candidate or which intentionally distorted the views of an opponent. It is apparent that the media, in keeping with its long-time, adoring love affair with "straight talking" McCain has redefined "negative" to include any ad which might hurt McCain, no matter how factual the ad might be. Mitchell's attempt to equate the two ads in question is just one example of how the media has worked to plant the suggestion that there is no discernible difference in the integrity of the two campaigns. A media which ignores Keating and Liddy while hammering on Ayers; which questions Obama's moral values while ignoring McCain's adulterous past or Palin's proven abuse of power; which tingles with delight at the prospect of again bringing Reverend Wright into the discussion while ignoring Palin's blessing by a voodoo minister and McCain's total avoidance of any discussion of his faith; which equates lies about Obama with the truth about McCain, has no integrity.

[Pamela]

Exactly,Lauria. Well put.