Ana Marie Cox tells critics to mind their manners

Blogger-turned-TIME-commentator Ana Marie Cox attended that exclusive barbecue for the press at John McCain's vacation home in Sedona, Arizona.

McCain billed the party as a purely social occasion. The event was technically on the record, but campaign staffers discouraged reporters from asking political questions, taking pictures, or even making notes.

Caught eating out of the Senator's hand, Cox got snippy with those who criticized her for getting so close to her subject. She actually told her critics to mind their manners:

I didn't try asking about anything else "serious." Those of you who think the press fell down on the job in not using that time to query him, well... the guy holds about five hours of press conferences a day when he's on the trail. A lot of questions get asked. In fact, at the press conference he held the very next day, he was asked about the Boeing deal, Hagee, and his own "red-phone" moments. (He didn't respond any differently than he has in the past, except on the red-phone q, which -- tooting own horn -- was mine.) Maybe we missed the ones you want asked; in which case you should keep agitating the people who have the access and responsibility to ask questions on behalf of the public (though I -- we all, I think -- would appreciate if you agitate while also showing some humor and basic manners). You might also start a blog and then try to get the campaign to let you on the bus. They've done it before. (Though I'm sure it's harder now than it was last fall.) (Emphasis added) [TIME]

Wow, that didn't take long. Ana Marie "Wonkette" Cox is complaining about uncivil bloggers.

It's not so much that the journalists were McCain's guests, although the optics are terrible, given the widespread public perception that McCain gets a free ride from the media because he's charming to reporters. A certain amount of informal socializing with politicians is acceptable, and possibly even productive for reporters on the campaign trail. I just don't want to read puff pieces about the party.

 

What really bothers me is that news organizations spent thousands of dollars to cover this dog and pony show. Cox disingenuously stressed that she put the trip on her personal credit card, adding that she might still expense or write off some of the costs.

At a time when real reporters and editors are getting laid off in droves, it's disgusting to see media bosses squandering limited resources on free PR for John McCain.

Let McCain pay for his own damned commercials.

[HT: Eric]

Comments

[Paul L.]

At a time when real reporters and editors are getting laid off in droves, it's disgusting to see media bosses squandering limited resources on free PR for John McCain.
Let McCain pay for his own damned commercials.
Yet, your side says nothing about Barack Obama walks out when the press corps starts to ask tough questions.

[etaoing]

Yet, your side says nothing about Barack Obama walks out when the press corps starts to ask tough questions.

maybe he had somewhere he needed to be? it's not like he threw a party for the press, and said "just don't ask any questions."

[cfrost]

Breaking bread or drinking with the subjects a journalist is supposed to be covering in a neutral and dispassionate way may at times be unavoidable, but should be kept to a minimum. I pretty much quit reading George Will the minute I learned that he was having a weekly lunch with Nancy Reagan while she was living at 1600 Penn. Ave.

[Eric Jaffa]

Lindsay Beyerstein -

Could you expand on how you feel about AMC writing that she paid for her hotel room?

[Ana Marie Cox]

I probably shouldn't have used the word "manners." I didn't mean decorum. I just mean refraining from attacks that brought in to question parentage or sexual practice. I should have been more clear. I wish you had pointed this excellent critique in the comments section... I really tried to address the questions a lot of people had. And, sincerely, if you have questions you think are important, send them forward. (Fwiw, I only wrote that post after people demanded it. I don't think that counts as "free PR" but I could be wrong.)

Also, I'm not being sarcastic, is it wrong to ask people to agitate... in a way that encourages dialog and not IP-banning? Be uncivil, use curse words, express outrage, by all means! But I've found it more effective, in my own life, to accompany that anger with an appreciation of the absurdity of the system we're trapped in and to balance the thrust of critique with the parry of humor.

Best of luck to you. It's a great blog.

[Eric Jaffa]

Ana Marie Cox -

I'm still unclear about the payment arrangements.

Is it that "McCain 2008" initially put the Enchantment rooms on a campaign credit card, but the reporters had the option of telling the resort to charge themselves instead?

[The Phantom]

Ana Marie Cox

Thats really you? How about that!

I agree that some kind of civility is needed. Extreme nastiness, or any type of stalking behavior, ruins the soup and drives readers away.

I participate on several Irish political blogs, which have been at times been far nastier than most American political blogs, where the tendency is for most to agree with the blog's general view.

But even in those places, I've seen a gradual evolution to civility in the successful ones. Does not mean that sharp elbows are not thrown, even among general allies, but once the comment or issue passes, then everything's cool. Like rugby on a computer.

[Margalis]

Lindsay you are being far too charitable here.

The people covering the campaign are literally going to dinner parties with the candidates. That they ask questions at other times is an obvious red herring.

The only purpose of the event was for McCain to market himself and attempt to win friends and influence people.

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.

She 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. Which is of the course the point of the BBQ.

She also blathers about needing to write more profiles and about the "character" of candidates. Just like George Bush was compassionate and as straight-shooter. You don't learn about someone's character by going to staged promotional event, all you learn about is the facade they want to project.

[Margalis]

Can I also say it's a little disingenuous to highlight the "absurdity of the system" when a glaring absurdity is the behavior of our moronic press core?

AMC talked a good game about being introspective but,surprisingly enough, her end conclusion is that she did nothing wrong, we should all agree to disagree, and that's just the crazy mixed-up world we live in!

Please.

[Bruce]

The issue is not that Ms. Cox got a nice dinner (if not lodging) on Straight Talk's dime, it's that being a well-placed, well-fed dinner guest of a charming presidential candidate and providing journalistic coverage of that candidate are not the same thing. One may do either, but even theoretically it's barely possible to both in tandem, let alone at the same time.

There is a White House Correspondents' dinner annually. At such an event, the press corps dines with the President. But the President is not picking up the tab, and the journalists are off-the-clock.

[Margalis]

I just wrote a blog post about this. The entire thing is sickening.

http://margalis.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain-bbq-and-our-insipid-press-corps.html

[cfrost]

"Straight Talk's dime"

So far, what I’m reading from the press covering McCain’s campaign has a lot to do with what a swell and personable guy McCain is and very little to do with his actual policy intentions. We got the same gushing drivel from the press when they covered Dubya’s campaign in 2000, and look where it got us. Watch Aaron Lubarsky and Alexandra Pelosi’s “Journeys with George” to get an idea how insidious and corrosive the cozy relationship between the “nice guy” candidate and his willing lap dog press was. (FYI -The movie serves as an effective substitute for ipecac.)

It seems the “straight talk” mostly amounts to “Fetch”, “Heel”, “Roll over”, “Play dead”, “Good boy, here’s your doggie biscuit”.

[Margalis]

I'm going to cover this in part 2 of my blog but the media seems to think that it focuses too much on policy and not enough on the essential character of candidates. I had a guest lecturer, a higher-up at WaPo, ramble on about how the press needed to dig up cute stories from the high school days of candidates to illustrate something about them. That is essentially what Anna Marie Cox wrote as well, that she is doing "profile writing" and that socializing is a good way to judge character.

Of course, the media are total suckers. They go to staged events and think they come away with something other than carefully managed impressions. Then we end up with drivel about how so-and-so is a "straight shooter" and a "guy you'd like to have a beer with" and "compassionate."

No matter how many times they fail they simply don't learn. When they report on the "character" of candidates all they are doing is reporting on surface-level charisma and the skill of handlers to manage a facade. It's like Bush looking into Putin's eyes.

Remember how Mukasey was "fiercely independent"? Yeah...

[mudkitty]

Anna Ass-Fucking Marie Cox?

[B-Money]

I am no fan of the media and have absolutely no clue who the broad is, but what's wrong with getting a trip comped by the job? Shit, I know when I go to my prosecutor seminar this summer, I am expensing every last piece of food and drink I consume, not to mention the flight and hotel. But apparently this is some media thing, and since I am not a member of this club, nor never would want to be, I am sure I am missing the point somehow. Oh well.

Just curious, would their be such a flap here is she had done the same with say Obama or Clinton? I highly doubt it.

[Quaker in a Basement]

The dirty girl of Wonkette now decries the absence of civility?

That petard is yours, missy.

[parse]

B-Money, suppose you were prosecuting some company executive on charges of wire fraud, and he invited you to his home for a barbecue. Would you be surprised if there were suggestions that accepting the invitation might compromise your ability to objectively perform your duties as a prosecutor?

[pbg]

It seems to me that if you're going to do a piece on the central character of a candidate, the last place you should be doing research is with him or her on the campaign trail.

[B-Money]

Parse, clearly you know nothing about prosecutors.

Reporters socialize with the subjects of their reporting often. Attending a social gathering does not seem to be a conflict of interest. It is no where near the conflict you use as an example.

Your example is pure fantasy and would never happen. Prosecutors do not socialize with defendants. If there WERE a prior relationship with a defendant a special prosecutor is brought in, so your scenario would again fail.

Again, I ask, if this had been an Obama or Clinton function, would there be such an uproar?

[The Phantom]

No, then it would be OK! How often are Democrats attacked here?

[parse]

B Money, I'm not attempting to make a one-to-one correspondence in my analogy, and I'm aware that a prosecutor socializing with a defendant would be almost unanimously viewed as improper. As you suggest, social contacts between reporters and their subjects--including politicians--are fairly common, and far less likely to raise similar concerns. But I think there's a problem with that, especially as it relates to political reporting. I think political reporters should have an adversarial relationship with their subjects, and I think the relationship between a prosecutor and a defendant is a good enough place to start as a model. As I understand it, a prosecutor should have no personal animus toward a defendant, but he should be prepared to use all ethical means to uncover the truth about the defendant.

I don't know whether there would be such an uproar it this had been an Obama or Clinton function, but my own opinion of the propriety of the behavior would be the same regardless of the identify of the politician involved.

[Quaker in a Basement]

As you suggest, social contacts between reporters and their subjects--including politicians--are fairly common, and far less likely to raise similar concerns.

That's not what they used to teach in J-school back in the 70s. Times change, I guess.

[The Phantom]

--I think political reporters should have an adversarial relationship with their subjects--

Why?

The reporter should be seeking the truth as he/she sees it and to follow the truth down any path.

But an exclusively "adversarial" approach is very simplistic.

[parse]

Phantom, I think that if political reporters adopt an adversarial approach, they better serve the consumers of their reportage. They have access to politicians that the constituents of public officials rarely enjoy. I think the decision to use that access not merely to report what politicians say, but to challenge them on their assertions yields valuable information that will might not otherwise come to light.

[The Phantom]

Yes, but a pure adversarial --especially a pure nasty adversarial -- approach will ensure that the subject's guard is always up and that access may be denied.

There is the soft approach too, and it can lead to just as much as a Mike Wallace in your fact interrogation.

I negotiate for a living. I have peers that always take the tough guy, adversarial approach with the people we negotiate with. I take a far gentler approach, one, because I like it better, and two, because I think it leads to better results over time.

I think that there is some similarity to negotiation and journalism. There's more than one way to get something.