"The Flimflam Strategy"
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, October 7, 2008; A21
Let's see: The financial system is still in grave peril, despite
Congress's approval of an unprecedented $700 billion bailout.
Unemployment is rising, the economy is slowing, and the question isn't
whether we're in for a recession but how long and how deep the
recession will be. Meanwhile, U.S. troops are still fighting in two
places -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- where, as a rule, foreign
occupations end badly. The terrorists who struck us on Sept. 11, 2001,
have been allowed to regroup within the borders of nuclear-armed
Pakistan and are busy plotting new attacks. Rarely have there been
bigger or more urgent issues to talk about in a presidential campaign.
But John McCain wants us to talk about Barack Obama's acquaintances.
He and Sarah Palin are going to try their best to make us talk about
anything but the big issues facing our country, because most Americans
think Obama's solutions are better than McCain's.
Knowing that, are we in the media going to aid and abet the McCain
campaign's obvious ploy?
We journalists like to think we're too smart to be used by one side or
the other in a political campaign. In a sense, we're followers of Adam
Smith: We believe in an omniscient free marketplace of news in which
myriad individual decisions by reporters, editors, photographers,
columnists, commentators and media barons -- decisions about what to
cover and how to cover it -- somehow miraculously end up maximizing
the truth. We claim not to be ideological, but this is our ideology.
At the same time, though, we think of ourselves as working in the
public interest. We repeatedly remind everyone that our right to do
our jobs however we see fit is enshrined in the First Amendment. We
love to quote Thomas Jefferson about how he would rather have
newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers.
Rarely do we grapple seriously with the way our Adam Smith tendencies
and our Thomas Jefferson tendencies sometimes work at cross-purposes.
This campaign is one of those times. We all understand that the
strategy of the McCain campaign is one of distraction -- his campaign
aides have acknowledged that they want to shift the focus from the
economy to character, which means personal attacks against Obama.
Lacking any fresh mud to sling, the McCain people are trying to exhume
guilt-by-association charges that were exhaustively examined months
ago during the primaries. Vowing not to be Swift-boated, the Obama
campaign is firing back in kind.
Our Adam Smith instinct is to cover what the candidates say. But in
the Jeffersonian sense, we know that it's not in the public interest
to spend the rest of the campaign talking about fringe characters who
once crossed paths with Obama, McCain, Palin or Joe Biden instead of
debating the economy, the war on terror, health care or any of the
other big issues that will define the next presidency.
We also know that no matter how skeptical we are when we write about
bogus allegations, writing about them at all gives them wider
circulation. So when Palin questions Obama's love of country because
Obama knows somebody who did something unpatriotic when Obama was 8,
our free-market ethos makes us rush to cover her every ridiculous
word. We also find ways to convey that this is pure mudslinging and
nothing but a cynical campaign tactic, but that doesn't matter to the
McCain campaign. What matters is that we're writing and talking about
this extraneous stuff -- and not about the issues that polls say
voters really care about.
If we in the media really believe what we say about serving the public
interest, we have a duty to avoid being turned into instruments of
mass distraction. Of course we should cover what the candidates say,
putting their words in context and pointing out when the candidates
are exaggerating or lying. But we should also think hard about how
much prominence we give to smears and counter-smears.
And we should be relentless in demanding that the candidates talk
about the economy and the wars and America's place in the world. If
they won't sit down to be interviewed, we can shout our questions at
them. If they filibuster, we can cut them off. If they give evasive
answers, we can ask follow-up questions until we run out of breath.
The McCain campaign has made clear that it wants to change the
subject. We can, and should, change it back.
The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. today at www.washingtonpost.com.
His e-mail address iseugenerobin...@washpost.com.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR200...
