As one would expect, corporate media reacted to the developments in Libya by turning to one of their favorite sources: Republican Sen. John McCain. He was on CNN this morning (and last night as well), and odds are that he'll be on a  Sunday show.

McCain's line on Libya is that the White House should have waged a more aggressive war.  If any of these outlets wanted to challenge him on his record on Libya, all they would need to do is talk about this ancient newspaper article from August 2009:

Or perhaps this item from Politico, from way back in August of this year:

Of the 24 members of Congress who have appeared three or more times in 2011 on any of the five Sunday morning shows (i.e., CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox or CNN), according to Roll Call's ongoing tally, 16, or two-thirds, have been Republicans. Just seven, or 29 percent, have been Democrats. (The other one was Sen. Joe Lieberman.)

We've looked at the right-wing slant on Sunday morning before (Extra!, 9-10/01,  12/10), but this more-than-2-to-1 bias is extreme. For the record, Democrats control one of the two houses of Congress.

You can probably guess who the Sunday shows' favorite congressional guest is.

The New York Times has a piece today (3/7/11) about the debate over U.S. military intervention in Libya. The paper reports that

there are persistent voices--in Congress and even inside the administration--arguing that Mr. Obama is moving too slowly.

Reporters David Sanger and Thom Shanker contend that there is too much concern about perceptions, and that the White House is too squeamish because of Iraq. And who are those persistent voices?

The most vocal camp, led by senators John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, and Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent and another hawk on Libyan intervention, say the central justification for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya is that the rebel leaders themselves are seeking military assistance to end decades of dictatorship.

As always, when it comes to calling for military force, John McCain is front and center in the  TV news debate, since he is apparently an "expert."

But the Times notes that there are others calling for a more aggressive response--including Sen. John Kerry. And that's a problem for the White House:

For the administration, Mr. Kerry's view is more troublesome, given that he is a normally a strong ally on foreign policy issues. He was a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, but he sees Libya as a different matter.

John Kerry was such a fierce critic of the Iraq War that he voted for it.

A few laughs on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday (1/23/11):

BOB SCHIEFFER: And we begin this morning welcoming back to Face the Nation for the first time in exactly one year Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the person who, by the way, has been on this broadcast more than any other politician now in office.

Well, senator, you haven't been here in a year. What were you doing? Were you busy back in Arizona or what?

JOHN MCCAIN: Busy and thanks for having me back on. And it's probably the longest absence in all these years too. So I'm glad to be back.

McCain is still trailing former Sen. Bob Dole as the most frequent guest on NBC's Meet the Press. He'll pass him soon enough.

The apparent inability to have a Sunday show that doesn't feature frequent McCain appearances was best illustrated last year, when the July 4 broadcast of ABC's This Week touted an "exclusive" with the Arizona senator--who had appeared on NBC's Meet the Press exactly one week earlier.

Or this P.U.-litzer from 1999:

* PLAY-IT-AGAIN SPIN AWARD: National TV News

On April 5, network TV convened panels of experts to discuss the war on Yugoslavia. Viewers could see hawkish Sen. John McCain at 9 p.m. on CNN's Larry King Live, at 10 p.m. on Fox News Channel, at 11 p.m. on PBS's Charlie Rose show and at 11:30 p.m. on ABC's Nightline With Ted Koppel. The senator's whereabouts between 10:30 and 11 p.m. could not be determined.

Meet the Press announced that its show this Sunday will feature two conservative Republican guests, Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.). Well, that's only natural, because the GOP did so well on Tuesday, winning back the House.... Right?

Oh wait.... Here's Meet the Press's then-host Tim Russert on November 12, 2006:

Our issues this Sunday: The voters send a loud and clear message to the White House, and give the Democrats control of the House and the Senate for the first time in 12 years. What now for the Republicans? We'll ask a man who is positioned to seek the GOP nomination for president in 2008: Sen. John McCain of Arizona. What now for the Democrats? We'll ask a man who lost a Democratic primary, but was just re-elected as an independent: Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Some in the media just can't let go of John McCain. David Broder's column today is really headlined, "John McCain, Your Country Is Calling."

He explains that he wasn't "bothered by the doctrinal compromises the senator made to convince Arizona voters that he was, in fact, a conservative. McCain has always been a realist, doing what was necessary to survive a North Vietnamese prison camp or a tough political trap."

So a senator willing to do whatever it takes to get elected is apparently a badly needed voice of conscience in Washington. OK.

McCain's role, according to Broder, should be something like this:

One obvious area where he will be needed is his favorite field, national security. Iraq, where he was prescient and persistent, still poses challenges, and Afghanistan, where Obama badly needs a Republican partner, is likely to be in crisis before it can be called a success. Behind them looms Iran, which could be this nation's next big test.

Wait--John McCain opposed the Iraq War? No, he supported every effort to escalate the war. Apparently that counts as being "prescient."

Obama "badly needs a Republican partner" on Afghanistan? Last time I checked, there weren't many Republicans opposing his policies; in fact, many have argued that Obama needs to drop any mention of a withdrawal timeline (which is McCain's view). So presumably what Obama--and, also, the country--needs is another voice calling for a longer war.

As for Iran, I'm not sure what McCain's expertise is supposed to be. That "Bomb Iran" song from the 2008 campaign?

Matthew Yglesias (8/3/10) has a good takedown of  senators John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Tom Coburn's (R.-Ok.) list of supposedly wasteful stimulus projects that generated an "exclusive" on ABC's Good Morning America (8/3/10):

Jon Chait observes that McCain and Coburn also seem to have decided that anything relating to animals is necessarily waste. Hence a small grant to fund research on cocaine addiction and relapse is turned into "Monkeys Getting High for Science." Hardy-har-har. There's a case to be made that the government has no role to play in funding scientific research, but it's a mighty bad case. If you think the government should fund research in the health and medical fields, then of course you're going to be funding some experiments that involve monkeys. Even though monkeys are funny.

This animals-are-funny principle was followed by ABC's Jonathan Karl, who cited "among the highlights" of the McCain/Coburn press release not only the monkey study but also "nearly $1 million for the California Academy of Sciences to study exotic ants." That's doubly funny because they're bugs and they're "exotic." But the reason you would want to study exotic insects (meaning non-native) is that they're a threat to agriculture, either current or potential. Agriculture is a $36 billion-a-year industry in California--but this crucial context was ignored by ABC.

But including the context is dangerous, because it has the potential to reveal that what you're reporting is completely pointless. Karl led off his report with this example:

KARL: The Forest Service is spending more than $500,000 to replace the windows at this Mount St. Helens visitors center. It could sure use a facelift, but--

ANSWERING MACHINE: Coal Water Ridge Visitor Center is now closed.

KARL: The visitors center is closed and there's no plans to reopen it.

What an outrageous waste of taxpayer money! But then Karl follows up with this crucial bit of information: "The Forest Service told us, they are fixing it up to sell it." If that had been mentioned in the first place--"The Forest Service is spending half a million dollars to fix up a shuttered visitors center in order to sell it"--that wouldn't have sounded crazy at all; lots of homeowners make similar decisions about their property every day. But if it didn't sound crazy, it wouldn't have been a catchy way to lead off the report.

Of course, the real point of the list is not the individual items, but the general point that the whole stimulus program was a waste of money that failed to boost employment. On this economic question, ABC cites exactly one expert: John McCain, who declares of the projects he listed, "I think none of them really have any meaningful impact on creating jobs." This is the politician who declared during the 2008 campaign (Think Progress, 1/18/08), "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should."

The Congressional Budget Office (5/25/10), whose understanding of economics is somewhat more advanced, estimated that in the first quarter of this year, the stimulus bill created the equivalent of 1.8 million to 4.1 million full-time jobs. This is context that ABC could have included in its story, but chose not to--perhaps because it would have revealed that the story had no real point.

Today's Los Angeles Times (6/16/10) has this headline:

Debate Grows Over Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan

The lead:

Recent setbacks in Afghanistan have intensified debate over the wisdom of the Obama administration's plan to begin withdrawing U.S. military forces next summer and highlighted reservations among military commanders over a rigid timeline.

Debating the war-- let's have at it. On one side are U.S. military officials, who are portrayed as having "reservations" about a withdrawal timeline. On the other side: Sen. John McCain, who... well, has serious reservations about withdrawal timelines.

Not part of this debate: the 53 percent of the U.S. public (ABC/Washington Post, 6/3-6/10) who say the Afghan War wasn't worth fighting.

"It is difficult to overstate President Obama's unpopularity in most of Louisiana," writes Campbell Robertson in a front-page New York Times article  (9/11/09). Yet Robertson managed to pull it off.

Robertson continues: "He lost handily to Senator John McCain here, picking up only 14 percent of the white vote. (The state is roughly two-thirds white.)" Fourteen percent? Wow, that is unpopular! But given that black and other non-white people have been able to vote in Louisiana for several decades now, wouldn't it make sense to give the actual share of the vote Obama received? That would be 40 percent, which is a pretty disappointing electoral result, but Obama did worse in six other states--and McCain did as bad or worse in 12 states. Yet it would be pretty easy, I would think, to overstate McCain's unpopularity in, say, Maine.

The problem here is treating white opinion as representative of the opinions of the public at large. ("In Louisiana, Tainted Senator Rides Anti-Obama Sentiment" is the print headline.) It's a subtler form of the crude analysis Chris Matthews used to do when Obama was running for the Democratic nomination: "How's he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community?"

The Times piece is mainly about the re-election prospects of Sen. David Vitter, but it takes time out for a look back at a recent special election race for a Louisiana State Senate seat. The lone Republican in the three-way race bashed his opponents with a flier--which accompanies the story as a graphic--featuring a smiling hippie and the text, "You might be a liberal if you...voted for Barack Obama." But the punchline of the story is that one of the Democrats beat the Republican in the runoff election, 54 percent to 46 percent, which would seem to undercut the story's contention that Obama is to Louisiana voters as garlic is to vampires. But the next line in Robertson's story is, "So given Louisiana's increasingly reddish hue, the prevailing political wisdom is that a real threat to Mr. Vitter would come from his right." Illustrating the old journalism adage: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Foreign Policy In Focus analyst Conn Hallinan (8/6/09) has yet another debunking of "the story most U.S. readers are getting about the coup" in Honduras, being "that Zelaya--an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez--was deposed because he tried to change the constitution to keep himself in power."

Calling this dominant media narrative "a massive distortion of the facts," Hallinan patiently explains that "all Zelaya was trying to do is to put a non-binding referendum on the ballot calling for a constitutional convention"--which, Hallinan notes, was "a move that trade unions, indigenous groups and social activist organizations had long been lobbying for," since the country's current "one-term limit allows the brass-hats to dominate the politics of the country."

But things get really interesting when Hallinan spots a "U.S. Connection"--via one of our largest media conglomerates:

While Zelaya is indeed friendly with Chávez, he is at best a liberal reformer whose major accomplishment was raising the minimum wage....

One of those "little reforms" was aimed at ensuring public control of the Honduran telecommunications industry, which may well have been the trip-wire that triggered the coup....

One of the charges that [right wing Latin America operative Otto] Reich levels at Zelaya is that the Honduran president is supposedly involved with bribes paid out by the state-run telecommunications company Hondutel. Zelaya is threatening to file a defamation suit over the accusation.

Reich's charges against Hondutel are hardly happenstance, as he is a former AT&T lobbyist and served as Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) Latin American advisor during the senator's 2008 presidential campaign.

Writing that "AT&T, McCain's second largest donor, also generously funds the International Republican Institute, which has warred with Latin American regimes that have resisted telecommunications privatization," Hallinan perceives the seeds of Zelaya's fate in the fact that he "was known to be a fierce critic of telecommunications privatization."

Brad Jacobson is resurrecting the "NYT Front|Back" feature of his Media Bloodhound blog (7/10/09)--spotlighting the New York Times' "penchant for placing a supremely unnewsworthy story on its cover while burying a vital one in its back pages"--only for "the most egregious and absurd examples."

The current example being their July 7 front-page headliner, "In Sex Film Industry, Some Long for a Real Plot":

No, this isn't satire. It's a cover story on our nation's paper of record.... The article opens:

The actress known as Savanna Samson once relished preparing for a role. "I couldn’t wait to get my next script," she said.

There's no reason to look at them anymore, she said, because her movies now call almost exclusively for action. Specifically, sex.

Jacobson commiserates with the Times editors' concerns: "Two wars. Jobless rate at nearly 10 percent. Healthcare in crisis. And if that weren't enough to bear, now there are dwindling plot lines in our pornography!"

Meanwhile, the same day's placement of an "In Senate, Debate on Detainee Legal Rights" piece way back on page A18 has Jacobson convinced that "apparently the Times thinks Americans are, as the kids say, so over the issue of detainee rights that the dearth of pornography plots trumped this story by 18 pages":

Intro:

Obama administration lawyers said Tuesday at a Senate hearing that detainees prosecuted by military commissions should have some of the same constitutional rights as American citizens tried in civilian criminal courts....

"So you are saying that these people who are in Guantánamo, who were part of 9/11 or committed acts of war against the United States are entitled to constitutional rights of the Constitution of the United States?" Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the panel, asked administration officials at one point.

Looking past "this article's banishment to the back pages," Jacobson notes how "the story fails to include a substantive factual rejoinder to Senator McCain's misleading statement"--the facts being that "scores of detainees have already been released by the U.S.," but only "after being held for years with no charge and incurring what the Times calls 'brutal' interrogation techniques but the rest of the world calls 'torture.'"

Salon's Glenn Greenwald has an explanation (3/23/09, ad-viewing required) for why he thinks that Howard Kurtz's belief that the image of corporate reporters as "just a bunch of cozy Washington insiders" is not "that big a deal"--because "there's such a built-in adversarial relationship between the press and the pols"--constitutes "an extremely funny joke today, showing why he is the 'media critic' for both the Washington Post and CNN":

That is some very penetrating media criticism there. The media and political leaders are at each other's throats so viciously, they have such sharply conflicting interests, that it's a wonder they can even be in the same room together without physical confrontation. For instance, it was the same Howie Kurtz who, in 2004, wrote this about what happened at his own newspaper:

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

Kurtz's own paper also reported Tim Russert's policy of refusing to report anything said by government officials unless explicitly authorized by them to do so.

Buttressing his condemnation with many more examples of such "adversarial" reportage, Greenwald also updates his post with grim video footage of "the ugly weekend riot that nearly erupted as a result of the intractable media/politician animosity" on display at presidential candidate John McCain's barbecue for his "base."

Read the recent FAIR Media Advisory: "The Short, Happy Iraq War of Howard Kurtz" (3/20/09).

Steve Benen of Political Animal points out a couple of strange questions posed by corporate journalists--one to each of last year's major presidential candidates. In this post, Benen quotes an unnamed New York Times reporter (apparently either Sheryl Gay Stolberg or Steven Lee Meyers) basically red-baiting Barack Obama: "The first six weeks have given people a glimpse of your spending priorities. Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?" The same reporter, or maybe a different one--I guess they were speaking ex cathedra--later pressed Obama: "If you're not a socialist, are you a liberal?"

In a later post, Benen ponders Fox News' Chris Wallace asking John McCain, "You ever feel like saying 'I told you so'?" (McCain declined to do so, though he said, "I'm sure that would be a pleasant feeling.") As Benen notes, it's not clear what McCain told us, or what in the first six weeks of the Obama administration would cause us to reevaluate it. But as he says, the implication is clear: "Looking back at the presidential campaign, McCain was right about...something."

Fox sometimes points to Wallace to show that they're not out of the mainstream of corporate media.  The scary thing is that they might have a point.

Sometimes you don't need to read more than a headline. Take today's Washington Post:

Senate Gets Reacquainted With McCain the Maverick

OK, let's read just a bit:

Two and a half months removed from his defeat in the race for the presidency, colleagues say, McCain bears more resemblance to the unpredictable and frequently bipartisan lawmaker they have served with for decades than the man who ran an often scathing campaign against Barack Obama.

The "unpredictable and frequently bipartisan" John McCain doesn't really exist--McCain has for some time boasted a reliably conservative Senate voting record. (His "maverick" years of 2001 and 2002 were an exception to the rule.) It's good to know that this media-manufactured myth is back--before we had time to miss it.

In a column in the Baltimore Sun, journalism professor John F. Kirch does a quick tally of coverage of third-party presidential candidates in 2008:

According to a basic Lexis/Nexis database search of election coverage from August 5 to November 5, the Washington Post and the New York Times published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds, photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin.

Why is this a problem? Kirch argues:

The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the two-party system. This means that the major parties control which issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.

For more, see FAIR's "More Than a Two-Person Race," 10/21/08