Anti-Obama Coverage Puts Reporters on Defensive

by Randy Shaw, 2008-07-29

While nearly all of the national and international media trumpeted Barack Obama’s recent trip to Europe and the Middle East, the New York Times refused to join the crowd. On the day after Obama’s acclaimed speech in Berlin, the Times front-page story observed that the candidate was “pleasing crowds without the specifics,” and was “vague on crucial issues of trade, defense and foreign policy.” Nor was the Times impressed by Obama’s Mideast tour, which it labeled “Change Mideast Does Not Believe In.” Meanwhile, Times reporter Adam Nagourney lashed out at the Obama campaign for its criticism of the paper’s coverage after previously acknowledging that its point by point rebuttal to his July story was justified. Here’s our roundup of the Times’ news coverage of the presidential race over the past week, and it is not a pretty story.

Obama’s European Adventure

By all possible measures--- rising poll numbers, triumphant coverage in the international press, strong statements of support from key foreign leaders, and the Iraqi government’s announced support of a troop withdrawal timetable---last week was a great one for Barack Obama. This does not even count the multiple major errors John McCain made during the same period, undermining his own claim to be a foreign policy expert.

But, according to the New York Times, the perception that Obama hit a grand slam last week are all wrong. The paper stated on July 25 that his Berlin speech “lacked specifics,” and on July 27 observed that by appearing presidential, he may have come across as “too presumptuous.”

That’s right. In Jeff Zeleny’s bizarre July 27 analysis of Obama’s trip abroad, the candidate running for president was accused of looking too much like a president. That opens some great territory for Stephen Colbert or John Stewart, but does not speak to what is expected of the New York Times.

Zeleny’s Sunday article even argued that Obama’s trip created an “opportunity” for Republicans,” since performing impressively in front of a crowd of hundreds of thousands means that Obama could be seen as “arrogant” and “taking his election for granted.”

Zeleny would never describe Obama as “uppity,” but advancing the idea that a presidential candidate is arrogant for giving a speech abroad raises questions. And while Zeleny claims that the “adoring” comments from foreign leaders include both “positives and negatives,” when Ronald Reagan received plaudits abroad, the Times and other media raved about him.

On July 22, the Times news coverage of the presidential race included nearly two full pages with the following headlines: “McCain, at Bush Home, Faults Obama on War Plan,” “McCain Links Obama and High Gas Prices,” “Conservative Group Takes on Obama in Ad and Film,” “Change Mideast Does Not Believe In,” and my favorite, which appeared on the front page: “For Obama, a First Step is Not a Misstep in Iraq.”

To be fair to Mr. Zeleny, a co-author of the last piece, it is the editor who chooses the title. And the story points out in its first paragraph that the Iraqi government has given a “potentially powerful political boost” to Obama by backing his troop withdrawal strategy.

But why would any editor describe a major advance for Obama as “Not a Misstep”? Why use double negatives instead of simply saying, “For Obama, A Positive First Step”?

Citing O’Hanlon on The Surge

Also troubling about the Times coverage was its July 24 reliance on the discredited Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution to “umpire” the dispute between Obama and McCain over the increase in troop levels in 2007 known as “the Surge.” According to O’Hanlon, “McCain is three-quarters right” on the battle over the impact of troop escalations in Iraq.

Nowhere does Times reporter Michael Cooper mention that O’Hanlon is hardly an impartial arbiter when it comes to Iraq. But as Glenn Greenwald pointed out one year ago, O’Hanlon backed the Iraq War and ever since has insisted that conditions are improving in Iraq.

As Greenwald noted in response to O’Hanlon and a colleague’s July 30, 2007 Times editorial on Iraq:

They identify themselves at the beginning "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well. They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster.

Although O’Hanlon is a strong pro-war advocate whose rosy assessments have consistently proved wrong, the Times is relying on him to show that McCain is more correct than Obama when it comes to Iraq. In light of the controversy that Greenwald and others launched over O’Hanlon’s duplicity a year ago, the Times’ reliance on his assessment to criticize Obama is inexcusable.

Nagourney Responds

On July 24, 2008, The New Republic published an article in which Times reporter Adam Nagourney expressed anger at the criticism he was getting from the Obama campaign. I wrote last week that the Obama campaign had identified several problems with Nagourney’s story on a recent poll, and had issued a point by point rebuttal.

Nagourney told the magazine, “I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others. I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I'm a political opponent."

Since Obama’s camp could not have read the story until it was printed, not sure what a phone call to the reporter would have accomplished. And to my knowledge, none of the points raised by Obama’s campaign about the story’s misleading analysis of poll numbers have appeared in the Times.


On the Other Hand…

While the Times news department continues its anti-Obama bias, Sunday columnist Frank Rich continues to offer the most perceptive analysis of the race to be found anywhere. And on June 28, the Times ran a great front-page story by Mike McIntyre on John McCain’s reliance on lobbyists.