Okay, Okay, Okay: The McCain BBQ

Ana - I appreciate that you wrote this post.

But, seriously, Ana, really, come on. If you were instructed to NOT ask questions and if you have nearly five hours of access every day anyway then you have no business being there. And your post makes it clear that no business took place.

I simply do not understand why the press corps thinks that these types of things are appropriate. I honestly think that your time would have been better spent reviewing voting records or following up on any of the leads that flow forth from the better political blogs on a daily basis. It may not be as glamorous as a BBQ dinner in the presence of a dynamic politcal figure but it is much more likely to disclose a truth.

Finally, what does this even mean? "It's not actually "his" house, though of course they own it." Now you are just trying to frustrate me!

Ana, this is embarrassing. I would kill myself or find a new job if I were you, depending on my mood.

How can any of you respect yourselves after this kind of thing?

What do you mean by instructed not to ask questions?

If you have a problem with ANY socializing between politicians (and their staff) and reporters, I understand the argument... and am sympathetic to parts of it. But we'll have to agree to disagree. I think of socializing as part of the larger project: I get to know people and then can then write about them with more depth, and it means that when I do write something critical about them, I take EXTRA care to get it right... I'm willing to lose a friend over something I write but I'd like to know it was worth it.

That other part of reporting, well, it's easier to do if you know that at some point you're also going to get to do something a little more fun.

AND I just meant it's not the house they call home. They sleep and live in a different house than the one we had the BBQ at. It's a big compound.

I would add George Packer's *Assassin's Gate* to your reading list--especially the first 150 pages or so. Packer was something of a liberal hawk during the runup, but does a good job of explaining some of the background of the war's architects, especially intellectual background.

I would be harder on the cast of characters than Packer was. Sometimes you get the sense that he's being too much of an apologist.

Colin Powell's right hand man Lawrence Wilkerson praised Packer's book as doing a good job of explaining the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" that screwed over all the traditional bureaucratic processes so badly.

I think of socializing as part of the larger project: I get to know people and then can then write about them with more depth

If by "more depth" you mean "with more description of their bbq recipes and less of their health care proposals", then I agree.

Come on, Ana -- you know this is a joke. You'd all be happier writing for the Versailles Daily News in the 18th century.

@TomT [ http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/okay_okay_okay_the_mccain_bbq.html#comment-456434 ] : I would ask that you not throw the suggestion that I commit suicide around lightly, please.

Sorry.

But I do wonder how any of you can respect yourselves after something like that. Seriously.

"I get to know people and then can then write about them with more depth, and it means that when I do write something critical about them, I take EXTRA care to get it right..."

We won't be holding our breath on that one when it comes to McCain.

AMC:

I really, really appreciate that you wrote this post. Thanks so much for having enough respect for us to put this up.

That said, I do actually have a post prepared for just this occasion.

This is it.

though I -- we all, I think -- would appreciate if you agitate while also showing some humor and basic manners

Eh, I know you won't like hearing this, but humor and basic manners tends to dilute the very real ire and dislike out there for the MSM's handling of the 08 primaries, blue chipping certain pols, and their behavior in general for the last few decades. Asking people to water that down in my view comes across as demanding self-pacification. The people want to express themselves in their own voice, and it's an angry one. And who's fault is this, really?

I'll give you that personal attacks are uncalled for, and obsessing over this BBQ is pointless in the great grand scheme of things (especially for those that were disappointed you didn't cut McCain's head off and grill it along with the ribs).

This reminds me of the person who runs the Consumer Products Safety Commission who couldn't understand why everybody was upset that she was taking trips paid for by Chinese toymakers.

When they write that book about McCain's relationship w/the press they should call it "Asleep at the Wheel."

Thank you for your post, AMC.

I've explained at length what I assume it is people want to know about the event, and tried to put it in context. But I understand that some will just never accept the proposition that a reporter can socialize with sources and still write pieces that are fair. And I do mean "fair," not "unbiased" -- and if you're following this thread I suspect you have a handle on how media critics differentiate between them. I think no one is unbiased but I try to be as transparent, which I hope helps readers figure out where I'm coming from and how I got to where I am.

You can think I'm cocktail weenie or that I am too favorable on one person or too negative on the other, but I hope that I've given you enough information to judge whether or not I've been fair.

That's how I respect myself.

You do get a lot of unduly personal invective on this site. Some of it is a function of the medium. When people are caught in a traffic jam, they don't have to talk directly to each other, so it's kind of too easy to flip people off, lean on the horn, etc., when they'd never do the same thing in person. Personally, I think the dialog is much better when we all raise the tone of the discussion...

Thanks for the post, Ana.

Thanks for writing this post, Ana.

I personally don't see what legitimate business purpose is served by this event. Not that it's an outrage that palling around ever happens, but this instance, a presidential nominee hosting media at his house, seems a bit over the top. And as you know, people are already sensitive about the press' relationship with McCain, particularly given that the all-lobbyist campaign issue and the snuggling up to Hagee issue seem to have evaporated right quick.

I wonder if media outlets should or do make it a policy to rotate their reporters during a campaign, to avoid excessive chumminess or sniping.

Anyway, thanks for addressing reader concerns.

Me: Like, where you have the author foreshadowing just how big a disaster is on the way and you sort of want to shout, "Don't go up the stairs!" or whatever. Because you know what's coming.
McCain: Yep. [He continues flipping ribs.]

Did he really just admit that going into Iraq was a disaster?

Asking people to water that down in my view comes across as demanding self-pacification. The people want to express themselves in their own voice, and it's an angry one.

Dude, I would never ask that you dilute your view or that you dial down your anger. I refuse to do that myself, so why should you? And, personally, I find anger to be a great source for humor. I wrote a whole blog once upon a time fueled mainly on anger and Diet Coke. What's the old saw? If you're not angry, you're not paying attention?

So, stay angry. And please, don't water down your view. Just... if you don't mind, I'd appreciate it... if commenters didn't make enormous assumptions about my political views/personal views/physical attributes/sexual predilications based on the information in a post.

And, you know, humor does go a long way. It's human nature. Stuart and James (just to pick two) are, I think, as hard on me as anyone else here is but because they tend to do it with a sense of the absurd and because sometimes they post nice, respectful things, I pay more attention to them. (See, admitting bias! Transparent! Also worth nothing that a similar approach works wonders with politicians and other sources...)

"there's a black hawk nest and once he watched a mama hawk teach a baby hawk to fly; he was moved"

That might be the funniest thing I've ever read in this blog.

That said, while I totally understand the conflict-of-interest worries many of us have, do you guys ever listen to yourselves? Because sometimes it comes across sounding like nobody in should EVER have ANY kind of personal relationship with ANYONE with whom they might have ANY kind of business relationship.

I agree that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, but most people find it a lot easier to draw that line for others than for themselves. Just sayin'.

You can think I'm cocktail weenie or that I am too favorable on one person or too negative on the other, but I hope that I've given you enough information to judge whether or not I've been fair.

You have and thank you for that.

I do wonder, though, and isn't aimed at you all, if there are journalists who are in the tank for McCain's straight-talking maverick ways who recall being in the tank for Bush's straight-talking maverick ways in 2000. And remember events like this one with Bush in 2000. And are smart enough to be aware of how that all turned out.

Probably the truth is we're lucky to have you to tell us about events like this.

Ana, thanks for writing this post.

But I have to add my voice to others who don't understand what the purpose of this get together was for, except for McCain to suck up even more to the media.

In my opinion, the MSM "knows" McCain too well, and that's why they cut him so much slack.

You don't have to work hard to find empirical evidence of the preferential treatment Saint McCain receives from the press. Take Swampland as an example. Can anyone think of a negative bit on McCain, other than Joe Klein in the last week or so? There were non-stop attacks on Romney when he was in the race and of course John Edwards didn't get any coverage at all, other than a couple of hit pieces that Joe Klein did on him. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that McCain is treated differently than everyone else.

I personally don't see what legitimate business purpose is served by this event.

This is not a great analogy, but think of this way: If someone was writing a profile of Steve Jobs, and he invited you over for dinner, a smart reporter would jump at the chance to see their subject in a relaxed atmosphere, in an environment completely unlike where he's typically interviewed. He may not say anything newsworthy, or he may bite the head off a live chicken. You can't control that part, but you can be there to see it happen. And you might learn something. I see my coverage of McCain (and the other candidates) as long profile, written in installments.

And I promise you, if McCain had bitten the head off of a live chicken, or done anything else notable or stupid or controversial. I'd report it. EVERYONE WOULD. That's why it's notable that the event was on the record. Other politicians have social events and invite the press, but they're usually expressly off the record (Romney had one at his NH summer home) -- just in case someone DOES say something stupid/controversial. McCain is either disciplined enough or secure enough in his judgment that he held a three hour BBQ for the national press and said absolutely nothing newsworthy.

I wonder if media outlets should or do make it a policy to rotate their reporters during a campaign, to avoid excessive chumminess or sniping.

This actually came up on the way back from the BBQ! And, fwiw, I think that's a great idea. But I don't make those decisions.

Ana-

Thank you for writing this post. I appreciate the transparency you seek.

But, since this was like pulling your teeth out, it seems you do not know the history of your tribe from the last two presidential election cycles. Please inform yourself. Believe it or not, there are some "reporters" who slant their coverage. It must just be a coincidence that the candidates who wine and dine the best and enjoy manly repartee with the media receive the most favorable coverage.

Ana-

Thank you for writing this post. I appreciate the transparency you seek.

But, since this was like pulling your teeth out, it seems you do not know the history of your tribe from the last two presidential election cycles. Please inform yourself. Believe it or not, there are some "reporters" who slant their coverage. It must just be a coincidence that the candidates who wine and dine the best and enjoy manly repartee with the media receive the most favorable coverage.

Here's the type of question Wonkette is afraid to "grill" McCain on:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YRWRzZ_yPnk

Someone already asked McCain about this, but she wasn't a good questioner and the question was weak, leaving out the more damning parts:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg

What's going to happen is that eventually someone who's a better question and who's very familiar with these issues (hey, like me) is going to "grill" McCain on the issues, and he's not going to end up look very good at all.

And, after it gets hundreds of thousands of views and other people come up with their own videos showing them doing the job the MSM won't do, hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people are going to see just how lightweight and corrupt MSM "reporters" are. And, there's nothing the MSM can do about it.

At that point, why would anyone bother coming to a site like this?

Out of curiosity, is there an ethical difference between a candidate holding a BBQ for reporters vs. lobbyists giving gifts (i.e. expensive dinners) to lawmakers? Both instances are, in essence, one person lavishing money on another in order to curry favor and influence, no?

Ana, earlier you mentioned that you try to be "fair" not "unbiased". Yet one of the fundamental concepts behind being a journalist is that you are supposed to be act and report as unbiased as possible (regardless of whether or not you think that one can be completely unbiased). Have you simply settled for trying to be fair?

I guess the issue some of us have is that when McCain was exposed as having done favors for a lobbyist and then caught lying about it and the story gets no traction the fact that you are so chummy with him makes some of us suspicious.
But that's not going to change as long as no sees a problem.
I look forward to the post election journalistic navel gazing and the promises to "do better next time"

Damn hamsters!

ANA - I read all of your stuff on Swampland and like it very much but this one confuses me. If Time is not paying you for the trip to Sedona...then - its a vacation ? Like you want to be there on your own...with McCain? I don't know you at all but from Swampland I would not have thought you, of all people, would be doing this. The whole thing sounds kinda creepy and voyeuristic. Tell me you just stopped in on your way to a music festival in Sedona or your sick Aunt in Tuscon. A sad day for Swampland...say it aint so

Posted by Ana Marie Cox | March 4, 2008 3:57 PM:

I understand that some will just never accept the proposition that a reporter can socialize with sources and still write pieces that are fair.

AMC:
Some?

A lot of high, medium, and low information American news consumers seem to have trouble with that proposition. A vast majority, in fact.

Judy Miller and her editor really did a number on you guys (as did the nice folks involved in the Plame thing, to a far lesser degree).
That's what this is all about, don't you know?

It's very, very difficult to avoid a conclusion that is about as obvious and intuitive as it gets for most people: members of the press who socialize with--join the peer group of--the politicians they cover will necessarily have a more difficult time performing an oversight function on behalf of ordinary Americans not so socially privileged. This is how the elite perspective shared by higher level politicians, Washington political/business operatives and Beltway/Manhattan Media Stars is formed--and how that fundamental disconnect between the perspectives and interests of these parties and those of voters is perpetuated. It wouldn't have been so obvious that this is bad, but those parties all f--ked up, and our country invaded Iraq, where we're stuck now on the verge of a bad recession.

I understand that it's not that different from how it's always been, and that judges and the attorneys that stand before them belong to the same country clubs. Yes, yes, yes. That's a problem, too. It doesn't make Beltway professional incest right for the country.

Anyway, you're great to post this; I hope that you don't take some of the more obvious ranting and piling on to be representative of serious, constructive criticism. Thank you very, very much.

if McCain had bitten the head off of a live chicken, or done anything else notable or stupid or controversial. I'd report it. EVERYONE WOULD.

Are you sure? There was a media black out of his nasty joke about Chelsea Clinton being ugly.

And what about this from Daily Howler?

GIBBS/DICKERSON (12/13/99): And then there are the stories he tells—to which, if there's a pattern, it's to exalt other people and deflate himself. A presidential candidate is not supposed to tell you about the rules he broke or the strippers he dated, or the time he arrived so drunk that fell through the screen door of the young lady he was wooing. The candor tells you more than the content, and reporters sometimes just decide to take McCain off the record because they don't want to see him flame out and burn up a great story.

Have you simply settled for trying to be fair?

Yep. Gave up on unbiased long ago -- about the time I started writing record reviews for my college paper. I've been lucky enough to have carved out a career in what I think most people call "opinion journalism." I respect and admire the people who can to the just-the-facts, traditional reporting and do it well. Ricks is a great example, as is Dan Balz and many of you are clearly fans of our own Karen Tumulty's work in that regard.

But that's not me. I mean, for reals, I worked at Mother Jones, Suck.com and Wonkette -- there's a long public history of me saying really, really biased things. (I frequently told people that I was a "commie pinko symp.") It would be pointless to deny I somehow have mastered hiding or suppressing these views.

Thanks for responding to my post.

Now, I could be reading too much into this, but I think this might be the heart of the difference in outlook. You wrote:

If someone was writing a profile of Steve Jobs, and he invited you over for dinner, a smart reporter would jump at the chance to see their subject in a relaxed atmosphere, in an environment completely unlike where he's typically interviewed. ... And you might learn something. I see my coverage of McCain (and the other candidates) as long profile, written in installments.

I am not alone in my concern that political reporting, particularly on presidential campaigns, has become too much like sports reporting or celebrity reporting. There's too much about personality and too little about policy, record, informedness (not, technically, a word), management ability, staffing, etc.-- all that stuff that's relevant to how a president affects people's lives.

In all likelihood, given that it was a chummy atmosphere and that Sen. McCain was trying to refrain from political talk, the only newsworthy thing that would have happened would have been something that was not relevant to how he would govern as president.

Day to day political reporting in Time just plain should not be like a very good Esquire or New Yorker profile of Steve Jobs.

Thanks for the post, and thanks very much for responding in thread. It's great fun, and it makes this blog unique.

Stuart brings up Judy Miller and I would add that the Scooter Libby trial showed us what chummieness leads to.
Tim Russert treats all communication with the White House as off the record unless they say it's not.
That sure serves some purpose but not the public's.

Dude, I would never ask that you dilute your view or that you dial down your anger.

I like the term "outrage" instead of anger. Anger makes it seem like you're the one with the problem. "You're angry" sounds like it's a quality you have inherently. "Outrage" is something you come to feel because of something. I read *Fiasco* and I feel outraged--healthily so. If Howard Kurtz came along and called me angry, I'd say "no, I'm not angry, at least not inherently." If you learned that Donald Rumsfeld issued life-and-death orders via incomprehensible Powerpoint slides, and you didn't feel outrage, then there's something wrong with you.

Ana,

Let me join those in saying thanks for writing this.

And also let me join those in saying that I have reservations about this event.

Why did McCain have it? Do you think he's a jolly old elf who just can't stand to be away from the reporter's wit and charm? Do you think he really like's saying the same stories to 20 different groups of people while avoiding the questions that are asked of him either directly or covertly?

Or was this a campaign event? And if it was, why spend the time and effort to make it happen?

Because its the carrot. And even if someone like you is self-aware enough to understand the trap and be able to stand up to the temptation to pull punches in return for a) continued access to tasty ribs as opposed to MickyD's while following people around on the campaign trail and b) the ability to become chummier with someone who is now a big story and may just be president some day there are plenty of political reporters who just don't seem that savvy (again, looking in from the outside). And the other big trend that seems to prevail in political reporting is the dreaded CW where even if you stand up to it, you're walking against the wind (much like those damn mimes) when it is easier to go with the flow (mixing metaphors).

What we want to hear is someone as self aware and generous with time to commenters like you say 'hey, I know this is a trap. I know he wants to be chummy with us for good press but we're going to hold his feet to the fire because BY GOD we're not stenographers, we're reporters!'

And then we'd like to actually see that happen in newspapers, in magazines, and on web sites and yes, even on cruddy (wait? can we swear on here?) television news shows that want to present the sizzle and not the meat.

And for the most part, thats not what we're seeing. Some of the stories, and they are legion despite the fact there isn't much story there, read like a McCain press release.

Ana, again, thanks for writing this.

I am skeeved out by the whole syndrome of reporters doing faux get-togethers like this one, but it's a systemic thing, and not one I have any especial desire to rip on Ana for. I do appreciate the transparency, and I am sensible of the distinction between "unbiased" and fair. "unbias" seems an unrealistic absolute, while fair, though subjective, is at least a somewhat achievable guideline.

I guess I have a mental image of hard-bitten ace reporters from some idealized Golden Age of Journalism that would have disdained such a gathering. Again, it's a systemic thing, and not something you can necessarily fault this journalist or that journalist for. But I would certainly say that we, as a society, need fewer BBQs and more hard-bitten ace reporters.

AMC, have you considered that the reason McCain is able to do these events "on-the-record" is simply because he gets the benefit of the doubt on virtually everything that comes out of his mouth? He gives press conferences for 5 hours a day, flip-flops on several issues, lies about his involvement with lobbyists and still gets almost no negative press. Even when he's completely busted (as he was when he lied during his "lobbyist affair" press conference), the punch line is always "McCain really knows better". With any other pol, he'd be called a liar or a hypocrite, but with McCain there nothing more than a gentle finger wag...

I understand why you'd want to be at the BBQ (although I'm a little baffled at being there on your own dime), but I hope you recognize that the goal of these events are to seduce the press into accepting McCain as a human being, which limits the questions they will ask and the articles they will write. And to some of us, it is very clear that this strategy works very well.

Day to day political reporting in Time just plain should not be like a very good Esquire or New Yorker profile of Steve Jobs.

It's frustrating when people in positions of authority say, "well, that's not my job." But, er, the kind of reporting you seem to be describing isn't really my brief here. As I understand it -- and I do have a review coming up so I'll make sure then -- I'm supposed to be writing the more feature-y, bloggy, scene-driven stuff. I happened to get assigned to McCain early on because everyone thought he was going to drop out soon; I think I did an okay job at covering him in a more traditional fashion once it became clear he was staying, but, honestly? (Look at me opening up here!) It wasn't easy. My instincts are for the scene and the meaningful moment... and I'm able to get back to that now that Time has more people covering McCain in the way more like what you'd like.

There's lots of different ways to approach journalism. I've been trying to explain mine; I can't really take responsibility for others' but I do think we all should be held responsible. I hope that makes sense.

Let a thousand flowers bloom!

AMC writes:

This is not a great analogy, but think of this way: If someone was writing a profile of Steve Jobs, and he invited you over for dinner, a smart reporter would jump at the chance to see their subject in a relaxed atmosphere, in an environment completely unlike where he's typically interviewed.
********************

AMC, theoretically, exactly why do you think Steve Jobs would invite someone who was writing a profile of him over for dinner? Do you think he would want the person writing the profile to see the real, relaxed Steve Jobs? Can you, or anyone you brain storm with, think of an alternative explanation for why Steve Jobs would host someone who was writing about him?

"To those of you who are worried that I went to the event on my own dime: Time is not the only place in the world where people can publish stories about McCain, okay? I will recover my expenses."

Should we look for your piece in an upcoming issue of "Fiery Foods & BBQ?"

"To those of you who are worried that I went to the event on my own dime: Time is not the only place in the world where people can publish stories about McCain, okay? I will recover my expenses."

I wouldn't say 'worried' so much as 'bemused' that you would actually pay to chill with McCain. Doesn't exactly steer away from the perception that you're a McCain cheerleader.

" I'm supposed to be writing the more feature-y, bloggy, scene-driven stuff. "

Thanks for that Ana, I think the confusion that you were a reporter has caused a lot of the problems.

Cheerlead to your heart's content.

AMC,

Thanks for all the excellent posts today. I understand your point about knowing the people you're reporting on and see the value in your approach. I also share the fear many of us have about the access journalism post Judy Miller, nonetheless I cannot get exercised about the McCain barbecue. I read Swampland for the sense of immediacy. Speaking of which, It's been a long stretch in between Swampcasts. Whaddup?

Ana

Let me try to explain something.

First, to be completely an a-hole about this, to say something that is entirely obvious, they invite you to these things, spend valuable time that could be spent raising money or making policy because they think it will influence you. It's like lobbyists. They spend the money because they think it buys them influence. They very much like to throw parties and play golf with you in Scotland because it buys them influence.

Same here.

Now just like the people who Abramoff bribed said that the bribes didn't influence them, it is simply not credible that you don't get influenced by this. To take a polar case, sticking the press in a locker room with open urinals was an incredibly influential thing to do as well.

There was no news value in this BBQ. This is especially true given the untrammeled access you say you normally get. This was a chance to have fun. It's disturbingly remniscient of the fun people had on the Bush plane.

And we can see that it works. We get snide stories about Clinton's bagels, and glowing stories about McCain's BBQ.

But now to stop belaboring the obvious, I want to note that this is an event that illustrates our writing about The Village. It is very cool to be invited to Senator John McCain's house. It's very hard to see a Senator in any setting. It's even very hard for a constituent to see a staffer on an issue of constituent interest.

What events like this do is reinforce the bubble, the people who go to the WH correspondents dinner vs those who don't. The people who can call a senate staffer and have it returned, and those who can't. I lost a card of one of Schumer's staffers, and I literally could not find his number. The phone numbers and emails of staff is not available to constituents. If I was an AZ citizen, I could not reach either McCain or his staff, unless it was for a constituent service issue handled by his local office. Like when I wanted some voter reg forms for an event i was doing. I emailed my USRep's local office and they were waiting for me in a couple of hours.

The difference in access, which you see as essential to doing your job (and is not essential to doing your job in an era where conf calls get published on the web), is very troubling. What's more troubling is that you don't see the risks of being co-opted. Or rather, like many people who accept bribes, you do, but believe you can remain if not uninfluenced, "fair."

It's not so. "Fair" in this context becomes making excuses for contradictions and lies on the part of McCain, in this case. What McCain gets out of this is that in pursuit of "fairness" you'll say, what so many "journalists" have said, that the Hagee endorsement doesn't count, because they've had BBQ with John, and they know he doesn't mean it. It means that being in Iraq for 1000 years is just John being roguish. It means that having absolutely no coherent economic policy doesn't matter, because that stuff doesn't matter anyway, and we can trust St John.

At this point, this should be penetrating the groupthink, and it is not. So I would ask you, the next night you are having trouble sleeping because a cat won't get off your face, to consider that these things so many people say may have a basis in reality.

One of things that keeps the Village going is the belief that what these people really want is access like their cool access to Senators' BBQs. I won't deny that this is true of some. But very, very many of us are not seeking that.

You are. You went. And the claim that it improved your understanding of McCain's personality is demonstrably false, given your reporting. I hope you can see that.

If your reluctance to write this sort of thing is that you assume it won't be interesting, AMC, I assure you the opposite is true. It's not really a fair assumption to make that everyone just knows what kinds of relationships reporters have with politicians, and some insight, especially in your prose style, is really worthwhile. Thanks.

My instincts are for the scene and the meaningful moment... and I'm able to get back to that now that Time has more people covering McCain in the way more like what you'd like.

Well, that's fair enough, Ana. As you are keenly aware, many of us come to this blog with a whole series of grievances against The Media. But not everyone who's a part of the media is a deserving recipient of criticism.

Now, that doesn't mean that you are immune from all criticism-- and it doesn't mean that Time's decision to hire a scene-setting reporter in lieu of some 1973-era Woodward type is immune from all criticism-- but it does mean that you are not the go-to person for hard-hitting, dirt-digging, lots-o'-legwork journalism. I don't see that as inherently objectionable.

Hey, you go to press with the reporters you have, not the reporters you wish you had. (Kidding).

Thanks a lot for engaging in this discussion. It is greatly appreciated.

I tried to edit this and wound up deleting it:

"To those of you who are worried that I went to the event on my own dime: Time is not the only place in the world where people can publish stories about McCain, okay? I will recover my expenses."

And I would LOVE to right about McCain for a food magazine, actually... Make a joke if you want, but Wonkette does not live by dry political reporting alone.

And yes, "worried" was overreaching.

I'm now going to retire from this seminar before you bloody my nose any more. Thanks to all of you, however, for putting so much energy into the conversation.

Why were journalists invited to this event?

Because journalists influence voters.

Why did AMC attend this event?

Because it made her feel important.

Why do people consider AMC to be a responsible journalist?

Because she claims to be one.

First I want to thank Ana for engaging us and for being as honest as she has been, not just in this post, but in her comments and her reporting generally.

I don't see any way around concluding that there is a "price" to be paid for access to powerful people, whether it is known and accepted, merely suspected, or simply sublimated unknowingly by the person to whom access is granted. There is a reason why some reporters were invited to a McCain BBQ, and others were not. There may even have been one or two to whom the invitation was extended, but who decided on balance not to attend.

Ana, do you think you paid any price as a journalist for this access? Or was this a win-win in your mind all-around?

Thinking more about this, I think it may be unfair to make the kind of demands that get made here, i.e. that reporters be faceless automatons whose purpose is to interrogate everything politicians say, down to the very bottom.

The problem of course is journalistic conventions pretend that that's exactly the case. It seems to me, then, that we should be less worried about making sure interactions between reporters and politicians obey conventions, but to have conventions that reflect practice.

Since that's never going to happen, I'll settle for a bunch of pieces like this. Heck, let's institute this sort of post as a journalistic sub-genre. That way when people read "objective" reporting, they'll have a better sense of what they're looking at. And it might go a long way to fixing gross inaccuracies that conventions of objectivity produce these days.

I was going to say some things about Ana's trip to Sedona myself, but after reading jayackroyd's critique I don't think I could do any better. He hits the nail on the head about what's troubling about this event, and he did so in a very respectable (maybe even respectful) tone.

The only thing that I think could even slightly be raised as a defense to attending this event is that it was "on the record," unlike the WH correspondent's dinner. But I think it's a distinction without a difference, because, as Ana herself noted, "McCain is either disciplined enough or secure enough in his judgment that he held a three hour BBQ for the national press and said absolutely nothing newsworthy."

Reporters and sources and their relationships will always be a murky area ethics-wise, but I do think this BBQ was a little to cozy for my taste. McCain should not be getting the pass on the Hagee thing he's getting - and one fears this BBQ demonstrates why he is. Even if we're wrong to think that, Ana, why would you even want to have the appearance of impropriety out there?

I'm now going to retire from this seminar before you bloody my nose any more.

I'm late to every party. By the time I got to Sedona, for instance, there were only 60 species of bird left.

"I was going to say some things about Ana's trip to Sedona myself, but after reading jayackroyd's critique I don't think I could do any better. He hits the nail on the head about what's troubling about this event, and he did so in a very respectable (maybe even respectful) tone."

I agree, jayackroyd's post summed it up quite nicely.

Finally, the press can't really be blamed for this smarm-fest. They were just invited. Frankly it says a lot more about McCain than about AMC.

Ana, do you think you paid any price as a journalist for this access? Or was this a win-win in your mind all-around?

I assume you are asking about the price I personally pay.

Of course there's a price. Part of it is that people like the readers here now believe I'm a fool/dishonest/misguided/worse. I actually don't take that lightly.

Another price is that because I like McCain, I have to constantly examine my motives and actions and my writing. And need I ask others to help me with this. And I should be ready to hear unpleasant criticism with an open mind. (I do not do this well.)

The price society pays is more amorphous. Yes, there are journalists who abuse their access. There are those that don't. And thank god for bloggers, who keep all of them on their toes. I don't think we're ever going to successfully ban socializing (I don't think it is like lobbying, btw. Or if it is, I haven't seen as much money change hands.) So we have to consume our media with a critical eye, and hold people accountable when they err. (Though it is possible to err without being thoroughly corrupt, I think. Depends on the situation and history.) Basically we have to be responsible members of a flawed but democratic society where the press operates freely. I think the benefits we get in return make it worthwhile... though every time I see "The Hills," or think about Judy Miller for that matter, I wonder.

I also want to thank Acid J for his compliments and his understanding tone. Your words and the kind words from others (you too, Elvis) make engaging in this Maoist self-criticism (and other-criticism) much more bearable. I am trying to start paying attention to the primaries now tho... So if I stop returning the ball here, please don't hold it against me. For too long.

To those of you who are worried that I went to the event on my own dime: Time is not the only place in the world where people can publish stories about McCain, okay? I will recover my expenses.

Please tell me this means you're writing a book. Seriously. Without fawning, I do want to say that

Derek: Michael Scherer has been pretty hard on McCain.

Re the lobbyist "scandal": The article basically alleged that, after prompted by a lobbyist he was friendly with, he wrote a letter consist with one of his well established positions. Hey, seriously folks, if you think that "YOUR" candidate hasn't done that then you're seriously delusional. The point of the article wasn't that McCain was dirtier than the other candidates -- it was that he claims to be spotless, when in fact there is some grey. What the Times deliberately left out was that he's still much cleaner than anyone else at that level.

Posted by Ana Marie Cox | March 4, 2008 4:29 PM:

Ricks is a great example, as is Dan Balz and many of you are clearly fans of our own Karen Tumulty's work in that regard.

Yes, yes, and hell yes.

It would be pointless to deny I somehow have mastered hiding or suppressing these views.

Hell yes!

I personally don't have a problem with you expressing your views at all. I don't think that most interested people do have an issue with political opinions, as long as it's transparent and acknowledged. The whole "not-taking-a-formal-position" contortion act is ridiculous, as you well know. Don't confuse fact or perception with opinion or ideology when you write, taking time and effort to really make certain that what's "obvious" to you is truly common knowledge in the rest of America, and of course there's no problem with you having as much opinion as you can intelligently dish out.

I think that there's a reasonably accurate idea amongst people who care about politics in this country that there needs to exist a fundamentally adversarial relationship between the press corps and government agencies/political parties, in order for news product to tend towards the truth. The opposite relationship to truth tending to be revealed on behalf of public interest in most people's minds would be exemplified by "Pravda" and its ilk. In your line of work there are choices to be made. Sometimes it's better for the country or for the individuals in certain situations, if the reporter did the decent thing and stopped playing the role of adversary, and the professional choices in those situations should reflect the ability of reporters to step outside of professionalism for its own sake, and to do the right thing in moral (if not professional) terms. Other than those special situations, though, the relationship must not be one of good faith, in which a handshake will suffice for a deal between the parties. It must instead resemble that of attorneys retained for an important business contract, in which every detail of the contract must be scrutinized, with the assumption being that the parties have competing and conflicting interests.

It seems to many of us that the interests of the elite press corps and political establishments have converged, and are now adversarial with respect to our interests. It seems to most Americans (polls linked to above) that reporters and politicians are attorneys for the other side that is figuratively sitting across the contract table from the public--which doesn't enjoy representation in contract negotiations at all. This perception, that the press corps has dropped even the pretense of an adversarial role with respect to the state, and is now actually adversarial with respect to ordinary citizens (to the extent that we're largely treated as carnival marks) is not enhanced by lavish social events such as the ones attended by you and your colleagues.

It's not partisanship on behalf of the Democratic Party or Liberalism that we're missing, although there are those that will abuse you for those partisan reasons regardless, and there are glaring imbalances not addressed by the current regimes. It's partisanship on behalf of us that we find so lacking on the part of the Beltway press corps. Functioning as an advertising tool of campaigns isn't helping. Joining the social peerage of the state isn't helping either, because it reinforces the disconnect between the political and institutional access "haves", and the rest of us, which everyone, even the most low information voter (Bill O'Reilly's "'cause we're looking out for you"), can understand is a formula for a new Versailles.

You pride yourself on being able to wear more than one hat, AMC. That's how you're able to write "fairly", right? So ask yourself this question:

Why should the concerned public trust Ana Marie Cox to act as if she were there in place of us, as our eyes and ears in important places where we currently cannot go?

Bar-b-q's don't matter; trust matters, AMC.

Without fawning, I do want to say that I hope that's the case.

...and, I should say AMC, that you have my profound respect for showing up here, and trying to make yourself clear without a script.

What you just did was very, very important to journalism and the country, in the sense that, yes "Let a thousand flowers bloom!"

You f--king rock, AMC.
Let's see David Brooks or Gail Collins or Maureen Dowd or Halperin or Simon or any one of those people show up here for a f--king minute, and be as gracious and self-deprecatingly humorous and intelligent in defense of their professional conduct as you've been today. You know when Bill Kristol goes on The Daily Show? This is nothing like that kind of obvious cringe-worthy pandering. Thank you again--you're brilliant for doing this. Some of your (ahem) colleagues sorely need lessons in this art from you.

You f--king rock, AMC.
Let's see David Brooks or Gail Collins or Maureen Dowd or Halperin or Simon or any one of those people show up here for a f--king minute, and be as gracious and self-deprecatingly humorous and intelligent in defense of their professional conduct as you've been today.

Amen.

@Peter: Yep. I am.

@Stuart: Why should the concerned public trust Ana Marie Cox to act as if she were there in place of us, as our eyes and ears in important places where we currently cannot go?

This is a really great question. I haven't thought about the issue in these terms before. Off the top of my head: I would ask you to trust me because you have read me in the past and found me to be honest (and mostly fair, I hope). And I think I object to the idea that I "should act as if" I were in the place of the public. I have a responsibility to readers, it's true, but I don't have to, in every situation, act as though I even knew what the "public" wants me to do.

You can trust me to be me, and to be candid about what I do and why. I promise you that. As to whether I represent the public, well... I didn't know that was an elected office. (Poking slight fun.)

I don't understand why you paid for the trip yourself. Isn't it customary for the client to pay the expenses of a person of purchasable virtue who travels a long distance to meet them? Otherwise it's like working for free, which in this case would be pay commensurate to the quality of the worker, but still.

AMC:

Thank you for responding to commentary, it is greatly appreciated.

...and no, I'm not handing the ball back to you.
Go away and have a good dinner or something.

I'm going to order these really, really excellent Japanese mushroom and Soba noodle soups with my bride ("wife" still sounds weird) when I get back to my East Village apartment. Last night we walked around together, and I decided that I should get her a chocolate banana split latte (there's no coffee in it) from Max Brenner's (it's a little too Upper-West-Side-y, but what the hell) to sip while we looked at new restaurants' menus on and off of First Avenue. It was a good thing to do as a (relatively) newly married couple (May, 2006). You should probably do that, too.

Have fun, AMC.

Ana - Thank you, again, for your initial post and for your engagement in the comments. Especially for that.

And thank you for clearing up my little question about vacation home ownership.

I will not belabor the point I was trying to make - it has been addressed well by others and responded to by you in the comments. Suffice it to say, I view Access Journalism to be a serious threat to the oversight duties of the free press - oversight duties that were believed to be so important by the founders that they carved out specific protections for it in the Bill of Rights. I hope that we can maintain a constructive tension with regards to where we draw the line between appropriate background and Judy Miller-style stenography.

Having said that, I completely understand your point about your role here at Swampland. Please trust me that I am saying this without a trace of insult in my voice (keyboard) - but your role is not that of the straight journalist. I think that your role is more like that of a Jon Stewart or a Stephen Colbert; to convey truth through the use of humor and wit. And I think that you have done a fantastic job. The media landscape is much more complex than just newsmakers and straight journalists - it would be foolish for a reader of blogs to think anything else.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation for the introspection that you have shown in the comments tonight. Clearly, I am grateful just to have a pundit respond at all but you have shown that responding can be done well. For that, I promise to redouble my efforts to suppress my thoughts on your sexual predilictions. My extensive...extensive...thoughts...

BTW: you can still probably deduct the expenses of your trip to Sedona on your taxes as non-reimbursed business expenses. I will leave it to the thread to correct me if I am wrong about this. I would just hate for you to have to shell out money for the trip considering all of the grief we've been giving you.

:)

Ana whose decision was it to completely ignore John Edwards? From what I can see there was no one assigned to cover him. It looks like there were two of you assigned to McCain when he was coming in fourth. That is the sort of thing that really annoys many of us. Let's not pretend that McCain does not get favorable treatment. In fact it is the press that keeps joking about how they are his base.

I'm a new commenter, but I would like to add that I very much appreciate AMC's disclosure on this matter. She knew it would subject her to abuse and she did it anyway.

In my mind, the bottom line is that the kind of socialization AMC and the dozens(?) of other reporters got with McCain was solely the result of their press coverage of McCain. This was not an event open to the general public. So what possible purpose could it serve other than, as other commenters suggest, to influence press coverage? And if politicians knew that such events had no ability influence, do you think they would be spending time with reporters?

But AMC's disclosure is a step in the right direction. If reporters disclose that they are invited to these chummy parties, discerning readers can question their coverage. And if discerning readers question or criticize their coverage, reporters might realize that they shouldn't be doing these events to avoid criticism.

So AMC's disclosure and willingness to discuss is a helpful first step. I'm willing to bet that no more than 1 or 2 other journalists that were there will ever disclose their attendance.

As a P.S., I think that the central problem with the Villagers is that they deny the existence of the Village or that they are in it.

Wow, for the first time in a long time, I found the comments section informative, thought-provoking and entertaining(as opposed to..well sometimes? It makes the World of Warcraft forums look positively civil.) Though I must admit a lot of the back and forth with Karen lately has been pretty good too.

I think having a back-and-forth like this, with a respectful tone is something that should happen more often, if at all possible.

I don't have anything to add that hasn't been said before, expect I never expected Ana to be overly serious (and in fact found her humor to be the primary reason to read her. It was that very first debate live-blogging that made me a regular Swampland reader in the first place, even if I don't comment all that often.)

I'm pretty late here, but it occurs to me that you were the only reporter at that event who had good reason for being there, given that you consider yourself a features-y writer rather than a political beat writer.

Too often, our criticisms and your responses make things too personal, when really the more interesting and important discussion is about the media as a whole. It seems like it made sense for you to be there. But the event itself still seems darn bizarre.

And thanks again for the conversation.

"I like McCain."

What is it you like about him? Is it the macho ex-pilot stuff? Is it the marrying shrewdly part? Is it the say and do anything to become President act? Just what makes this simple-minded leftover cold warrior so appealing to AMC?

Why don't you ask McCain how long America should have stayed in Vietnam and how many more Vietnamese we should have killed. I think you already know the answers.

Ana -

Despite my concerns about the BBQ, I don't think by going you crossed the Rubicon from reporter to shill. It's just troubling, and far more troubling are the other reporters who didn't engage in "transparency," but just took the ribs and beer as a little perq for being one of the Boys on the Bus (who are they, by the way? Would you rat them out? Please?). And I find it encouraging that you are engaging in this dialogue and are critically examining your role as a reporter and how your actions reflect on your work. Someone who just wanted to be a well-paid hack wouldn't put up with this crap, let alone take it seriously.

"Someone who just wanted to be a well-paid hack wouldn't put up with this crap, let alone take it seriously."

Wrong. The hubristic Mr. Stengel started up Swampland in the idiotic belief that participation of the blog rabble would enhance Time's corpocratic propaganda mission and create new revenue. Ana was only too happy to humor him to climb a few more rungs up her career ladder.

What Ana and Stengel have "accomplished" is the equivalent of putting Joe Klein and the other Time hacks naked in Macy's window. They have convincingly demonstrated the gross inferiority of what the company bloggers post compared to what the readers write on these threads.

The typical Swampland thread is overwhelmingly critical of the respective Time writer, and the content of the reader posts in consistently superior, in aggregate, to the content of the precipitating post. Thus, Ana has helped Mr. Stengel send Time Magazine soaring into the blogosphere like a cement balloon.

Let me put it simply. I would trust the individual opinion of ANY Swampland visitor poster over that of Joe Klein, and I would trust the aggregate knowledge and judgment of any dozen Swampland visitor posters over KT or any other Time writer. Swampland has demonstrated conclusively that these journalistic emperors have no clothes, and Ana has had the distinction of leading their naked parade.

Ana--

I wanna note two more things.

One of things that happen when you focus on character issues--the kinds of things you learn in social interactions--is that you are reinforcing Republican tactics. Republicans want these races to be about character issues, because their policy positions are generally abhorrent to most Americans. It's essential that those positions stay obscured, and that races be about who you want to have a beer with, and who is fun to be around on the campaign trail.

So when TIME assigns you to do human interest stories on McCain, and you spend the time in social settings, either on the campaign bus or social settings set up expressly to entertain you, TIME is engaging in partisan coverage. This is what the Republicans want the stories to be about. Moreover, because these characters are largely manufactured, they spend an inordinate amount trying to hold their "characters" and disrupt the democratic "characters." Some of this is simply endemic, especially to teevee coverage, because they want their narratives kept very simple.

{insert long screed against MoDo, the Clinton rules and the spate of is Obama a Muslim? questions}

So when you write a story about a McCain BBQ, you are advancing the Republicans' entire story frame.

The second thing is that the strategy involved in these events is not directed merely at you, and the other attendees individually. It's intended to create a McCain team. How can you and your work friends not root for the candidate you've spent so much time with? Again, this is an assignment problem. Reporters should rotate through campaigns to prevent this. (In fact, I think publications should make pooling arrangements. There's not much newsworthy on the campaign trail.)

One thing that democrats don't do well is create teams of reporters on their side. Kennedy did. But by and large it's been a curious phenomenon that the team-think on these campaigns is the team against the candidate.

Any insight into why that is would be appreciated. It can't be because the democrats are always personally unlikeable and the republicans great pals. These are politicians. Part of their profession is being likeable. Of course you like John McCain. That's part of his job.

The third that I wanted to amplify is how much of this seems to be getting access to the world not of politicians so much as rich people. It's interesting that you use Steve Jobs as an example rather than Jeff Sachs. Reporters get access to the world of private jets and other accouterments denied to 99.8 percent of the population, mostly through politicians.

This is a country with a very strong cultural interest in being rich and, more importantly, living rich. I was thinking about Tim Russert and Don Imus during the Macbeth intermission this evening. Don Imus is in the private jet world. Russert is not. But he's close enough that sometimes (I'm remembering one Thanksgiving in particular) Imus picks him up in his (net)jet. One of the things Imus does is provide access to his regular guests to that world.

This is a very, very nice way to fly--and I will never do it. Nobody poking your feet, no lines etc. And the rest of the way these people live is concomitantly very, very nice. Bush lives in this world. McCain is more like Russert, on the periphery.

The only way into this world for the press is through politicians and their friends. It takes a very strong-willed person to not want to have access to that world, when it is on offer.

So nobody is claiming that you are venial or unaware or not trying to be fair. (Though I think there are plenty of people who fit some pairs of those characterizations.) What we are saying is that you are human, and sometimes the best thing to do is avoid an event altogether that is sure to have no news in it. Especially if it sounds like a lot of fun, with plenty of informal access to one of your subjects.

These people are not your friends. You should be very suspicious of people who pretend to be your friends--especially when things you do professionally can benefit them. (Just saw a great South Park episode about a 9 year olds Hooters, called Raisins. The Raisin girl really didn't want to be Butters' friend.)

Now, I know you are well-aware of these issues and feel insulated from them. But I look at the fawning McCain coverage, and have to conclude that it works pretty well on the press as a whole.

Wish I could've gotten to participate more in this thread, but was caught up in the grueling throes of work all day and night. Don't know how some of the posters here manage to stay consistently prolific, Ana at least gets paid for this. ;-)

Anyway, at the very least, good to see you get things off your chest Ana. After all is said and done, if you don't have a problem with being you, then keep being you. Cheesy thing to say, but it's late already. Peace out, dudette.

"So nobody is claiming that you are venial"

Correction, I am claiming that AMC is venial. She is a furiously spinning little career machine, and she intends to make the most of her McCain good buddy status. Her behavior is obviously oriented toward ingratiating herself with Big John, and the pal party "socializing" is no exception. AMC's career is job #1 in the world of AMC. The citizens of the American Republic can stay at the Holiday Inn, while she frolics with the kewl kidz.

Jayackroyd is absolutely on target. AMC has been trapped by the sticky bait of personal access to the GREAT MAN. Her rationalizing about "reporting" on McCain from a different perspective is just bull$hit covering shoddy careerism and celebrity chasing.

Ana, let me provide a little test for you:

Senator McCain is getting pretty old. What if, sometime before November, he exhibits the unmistakable signs of Alzheimer's? Would you or one of your BBQ cohorts report it? Or would you cover it up?

Sorry HH, I realized after I posted that I should have said, "except for HH." I don't actually agree with you though.

smedley, there are multiple reports of McCain looking quite old on the campaign trail. One of the things that irritated me in those pieces was that they portrayed him, self-described, as full of energy. ONe of the purposes of this get-together is to fend off the incipient age issue. Obama looks very vibrant next to McCain. One of the things about the Iraq for 1000 years clip is that McCain looks at least his age, hunched over and walking with an elderly gait.

And now, Ana, one simple test you might consider.

If you're invited to an event offered by someone you're covering that you can't expense attending--that is, something TIME does not consider work--shouldn't the presumption be that you shouldn't attend?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7325753@N08/2312849446/

To jog your memory Ana, here's a group photo from McCain's daughter's blog. The official photographer of the event.

Thanks Ana for responding to mine and many others' comments and questions. This is a remarkable endeavor for a journalist and I echo the "AMENS" you have already received. Bravo.

One other point I wanted to note: Following up on your Steve Jobs analogy, is it not fair to say that John McCain is "performing" as much for journalists that are invited to watch him barbeque, as much as he does when he delivers a speech or goes on The Daily Show?

In that regard, what special insights could be obtained from the BBQ if we assume McCain is on a job interview there the same way he is pretty much every day on the campaign trail?

I have to agree with jackakroyd and others here who criticize you and other reporters getting chummy with McCain, eating and drinking his offerings, and writing puff pieces about him...ensnared by his BBQ sauce and "excellent" ribs!

You obviousely have trouble seeing how doing this compromises your integrity and your ability to judge him and write about him objectively.

The MSM was pounding Obama for days about his connection to the pastor of his chuch's link to Farakam, even though he had rejected Farrakahm's support for his campaign...never mentioning McCain's embrace of the hater Hagee.

I appreciate that you are willing to engage us, but I still don't think you get how attending McCain's BBQ totally compromises you.

the recipe for the grilling rub he used is 1/3 each of salt, pepper, and garlic salt; grill the ribs bone down and baste liberally with lemon juice throughout (he repeated this "secret" recipe to anyone that would listen; I think it's so public by now Al Qaeda is thinking of trying it out.)

Lemon juice? Really?

If you want to have some real ribs, let me know and I'll share the recipe. It'll take longer than the 1.5 hours McCain cooked his (which leads me to believe he cooked them on too high a heat -- it should take around 3 over a fruitwood fed fire).

Sorry ... I've lived in Kansas City too long. (And everyone else pretty much said what I wanted to already).

:-)

Hello, AMC, commenters-

First note:

Since everyone seems to be fascinated by the events at the Sedona BBQ, I should call attention to an impressive link-gathering post on the event from LJ at Race42008.com. I have yet to see any other roundup of varying versions as good as this one - "Grillin' McCain"

http://race42008.com/2008/03/03/grillin-mccain/

Second note:

I think that these personal attacks on AMC are mean-spirited, nasty, and in poor taste. Obviously, I commend AMC for her willingness to battle with these commenters on this thread, but it would be better if such battles weren't necessary...

Oh those mean, nasty hippy AMC commentators...obviously America haters all...and in such "poor taste"...

Our country is going down the drain, Iraq is an immoral and horrifying occupation, and McCain's reign would just be a continuation of the sleazy policies of Bush and....

The commentators here who criticize AMC's chumminess with "Grillin' MCain" are in "poor taste"?

Quit drinkin' the kool-aid ENHQ.comPub!

First, at least AMC has the guts to defend herself. That said she's obviously in the wrong here.

The people covering the campaign are literally going to dinner parties with the candidates. (Or was it merely lunch?) Can there be a more obvious conflict of interest?

The only purpose of the event was for McCain to market himself and attempt to win friends and influence people. And it worked. Cox admits in her comments that she is in the practice of making friends with the people she covers, which makes her more reluctant to write negatively of them.

My question for Cox and others is don't you have any pride? If I'm a serious reporter and a candidate invites me to a purely social event the only purpose of which is to butter me up I'm saying no, and indignantly at that. Show some self-respect and professionalism.

What's pathetic here is how happy it makes people like Cox to be transparently used. People with an ounce of self-respect feel dirty when they are manipulated but the members of our press feel honored to be worthy of the attention. It's telling that when the staff says "no pictures" Cox meekly complies. That's the intrepid spirit we know and love.

Attending staged promotional events gives you valuable insight into the nature of a candidate's character? Remember how Bush was "compassionate" and a "straight-shooter"? When you attend events like these what you see is whatever facade the candidate wants you to see.

That's the whole @#*$ing point.

This is sadly typical of the media, in fact in addressing this at all AMC probably has demonstrated more scruples than most of her peers,