I had not seen this posted, and it is interesting to say the least. John McCain was in St. Louis Wednesday and I am happy to say not all reporters are enamored with John McCain's press operation.

Now sit down, cause the local St. Louis Fox affiliate posted this video (under the fold) of the awkward, testy exchange between a McCain's senior press aides--Brooke Buchanan, the national press secretary, and Nicolle Wallace, the former White House communications director.

In a nutshell the media outlets were told that McCain could only be shot from the left side, not to show his scare from cancer surgery and there had to be some sort of "patriotic" image in the background. Well, they didn't like being micro managed like this.

"I think there was an attempt by somebody in your staff to take a look at the shot, and I have never, ever had anybody at any organization ..."

"Really? You've never done anything at the White House? I was at the White House for seven years and we looked at every shot," the McCain staffer pushed back. "Not at our shots," while his colleague asked Wallace, "Which White House?" She refused to answer, saying it didn't matter. He replied, "Oh yes it does!"

If you're wondering why the Maliki "correction" issued by CentCom doesn't sound like a "correction" and doesn't specify what needs to be "corrected," you're missing the point.Bush and McCain aren't trying to get Maliki to retract the  his statement in terms of the policy he endorsed, they just want to salvage a meme they have been carefully cultivating since the beginning of the month: namely, that Obama has supported some mythical position called "precipitous withdrawal" and that the reiteration of his old position over the July 4th weekend constituted a "flip-flop." Now, with the insanity surrounding Maliki's statements, we can clearly see that this campaign wasn't just an effort to make Obama look indecisive and inconsistent. The campaign, facilitated by a shamefully compliant media (and even some progressive bloggers), was intended to give McCain cover to steal Obama's policy.

This diary is composed of two sections.  In the first half, I will recap some of what we know about the immense impact of media narratives in Presidential campaigns, and argue that the emergence of the recent "flip-flop" narrative on Obama has done more damage than most people realize, reducing his lead by more than 3 million votes.  In the second section, I will argue that a new narrative is forming right now, based on a fortuitous combination of inexplicable reversals on foreign policy by the Bush administration in the direction of Obama’s long-held policies at the very moment that Obama begins his high-profile trip abroad.  Now is the time for us to do what we can to spread this narrative, and if done correctly, it could potentially leave McCain in a position from which he cannot recover.

Follow me over the fold for the full argument...

I don't like conspiracy theories involving the leaders of our nation, in large part because I don't credit them with the intelligence to devise them or the ability to carry them out.  However, in reading the news over the past few days, I've had opportunity to revise that opinion, at least as it applies to a political conspiracy.

The current administration has never had any problem in developing and executing political action.  And the press has always been ready and waiting to help make it work.

and you all hold this guy up, like he's a messiah?

We've collectively grown used to the idea of a biased media.  Conservatives consistently harp on the idea of a liberal media bias, to the point that it's almost accepted wisdom, while authors such as Glenn Greenwald and Ariana Huffington have exhaustively laid out the case that it is the right that controls the media narrative.

At times, however, it's more interesting to temporarily set aside which way the media is biased, and in stead focus on why the media would have an incentive to be biased.  That is, forget for a moment that the right wing rewards loyal journalists with access and scoops, or that many journalists are part of the wealthy elite that benefits from extreme neoliberal economic principles.  In stead, just think about the media as a business that wants more eyeballs so they can sell advertising at higher rates.  With that in mind, it becomes clear that they need a compelling story to tell.

So, the McCainuses are spending a considerable amount of time complaining about the lack of media coverage of their candidate, and the inequity of coverage between Obama and McCain.  

To which the proper response is, "Poopy Poopy."

More after the jump...

Gallup alluded to the fact that the trip could really move the meter in the polls at it will likely be the first high profile story in July to actually break through the mailaise of the mid summer's back-n-forth.  

Obama will next week begin what is shaping up to be a highly publicized international trip, which could, at least in theory, have the potential to change the structure of the race.

Obama's trip doubtlessly could be the catalyst for the race in '08 breaking wide open.  Bars have been set high as Obama tries to address the one weak spot on his resume, foreign policy credibility, by addressing various world leaders and generally appearing Presidential in a variety of settings.  Yesterday, I broke the story about how McCain publically contradicted the official message of his campaign which was trying to lambaste and freedom fry it's way into framing the upcoming trip... much to no avail as the press is essentially mesmerized by Obama's upcoming tour, with stories about where and what he'll be doing dominating a week of otherwise slow news.

Why are CNN and many other media outlets, choosing VP mates for Barack Obama, interviewing ‘their potential target candidate’ only to find out that that person wasn’t interested, OR WAS,  then proceed to write something strong about what they created, tested and discovered (their little experiment),  then throw that possibility out there to the masses for poll purposes.  Yet all the while making it seem as if these potential candidates they choose are someone Barack Obama would choose.

The media narrative over the past seven years has been one of "divided Democrats" fighting each other while a unified Republican Party consolidates power.  Even the 2006 elections that brought both houses of Congress under Democratic control raised questions about whether progressives and blue dogs could coexist and form a working majority.

The primary season was no different.  As John McCain wrapped up his party's nomination in February, the Democralypse of the Clinton-Obama battle fed the media narrative that the Democratic Party was tearing itself apart.

Yet as I read the morning news, I notice a change.  It may be sutble, but perhaps the narrative is shifting.  More below the fold.

I wasn't going to do another one of these this week, but since there was a bit of fluff happening, I thought it might be fun. Plus, I had some free time to waste.

The standard warning for those of you who've never seen one of these before: If you would like to see some of the latest entertainment news, celebrity gossip and odd crap making the rounds, keep reading. However, if you are easily offended by half-nude men & women or other such things, you might want to stop right now.

You've been warned.

Jake Stump of the Charleston Daily Mail got it wrong about Big Oil's favorite West Virginian, the ineffective Bush Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito in today's paper:

On Wednesday, the Barth campaign attacked Capito for taking contributions from big oil companies like Exxon and Marathon in previous years, though Exxon has not given to her campaign this election cycle.

"These are very powerful and controversial special interest groups that have hiked up our gas prices and exploited working families," said Barth spokesman Mark Ferrell. "This campaign will not take money from big oil."

Oh really?

Exxon Mobil Corp. PAC
5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
Irving, Texas 75039
06/29/2008 1000.00

About to catch a plane for Austin, but:  About ten days ago I wrote about a  freelance war photographer who committed the sin of taking war photographs -- and not hiding the graphic ones --  and then lost  his embed status in Iraq and getting send packing to Baghdad.  Now I've learned that he is back in the U.S.A.  

Zoriah Miller,  32,  the U.S. photog who goes by the name "Zoriah," was kicked out of his embed after he published on his blog a photo of a dead U.S. Marine, among other strong images. The military says this violated embed rules. Miller says he took every step possible to guarantee that the Marine could not be identified in any way, and that left him within the rules.    The photo was placed with others from a suicide bombing that occurred June 26 in the town of Karmah, near Fallujah.

"I just feel this war has become so sanitized that it was important to show," said Zoriah then. (That angle is a big part of my new book.) He posted warnings on his online blog, Zoriah.net, about the graphic content of the photo.

Is he being set up for a big smack down?

Like so many of you, I keep wondering why McCain seems to be getting a free ride from the press.

Patriotism or Idiotism
By David Glenn Cox

"How you, O Athenians, have been affected by my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that they almost made me forget who I was – so persuasively did they speak; and yet they have hardly uttered a word of truth." (Socrates)

For some reason, John McCain and his fans think he's funny? Huh?

Do they really think he's funny, or his fans know that they're supporting a Pre-internet politically incorrect boob, and have no choice but to clumsily support him?

Many Democrats have been calling McLame a goof ball, sexist, not funny, angry, scary, grandpa, etc., for years now. What's this "ol goof's" problem we ask, and "where's the media"on this?

Well today Ben Smith (of Politico) wrote a very revealing(for the press) 2 page article on J. McCain's jokes,titled "McCain's humor often backfires", and how often, many of them aren't funny, insulting and considered sexist(Rape, J.Reno, French Joke, etc.).

I know many liberals, criticize Ben Smith at times. But we should give him kudos on this one. I never expected it. I'm sure he'll receive a lot of push back by the McCain camp. But what took him so long?

Politico(technically)is not the MSM. But let's be honest. Most of the media, gets their stories from a few web sources(like Drudge, Halperin), and Politico, is definitely one of them.

Here's the link & some highlights below:

http://www.politico.com/...

I don't think it is overly sensitive to point out how the NYT continually puts an anti-Obama spin on lead items about Obama.

Consider this: http://www.nytimes.com/...

In Iraq, Affection for Obama ... but His Proposal?
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and RICHARD A. OPPEL JR

There are conflicting emotions about Barack Obama in Iraq, the place outside America with perhaps the most riding on its relationship with him.

The real story in the article is that the Iraqis are worried about Obama's policies and feel more comfortable with McCain's policies.  Yet somehow that gets spun into Iraqi "affection" for Obama... a framing which amounts both to a distortion (indeed a reversal of the main content of the article) and a subtle smear.  

The NYT is reporting that all of the big three news network television anchors are going to leave their studios to follow Obama on his trip overseas.

But when Mr. Obama heads for Iraq and other locations overseas this summer, Mr. Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Mr. Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Mr. Obama on successive nights.