What media bias?

From Newsbusters:

Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain granted an interview to Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Holly Bailey, and in the first sign of a long, uphill campaign with the media, McCain was asked how he could defeat such a "hugely gifted politician" in a "brutal year on a clinical level for any Republican to be running." Newsweek’s duo (or most plausibly, Newsweek editor Meacham) lectured McCain not to use a line about change we can’t believe in: "Watching, it struck me that fighting on somebody else's rhetorical field and offering a negative as opposed to a positive is not the most vigorous way forward." When asked about his critiques of the media, McCain buckled under pressure and pledged not to say anything critical about his press coverage.

NEWSWEEK: Sir, Senator Obama is a hugely gifted politician. This is a brutal year on a clinical level for any Republican to be running.

McCain: Um-hmm.

So what's the strategy? How do you overcome those two things?

McCain answered (in part): I'm convinced that, using the kind of communications that won me the nomination of my party against significant odds, I will be able to gain the presidency as well. But I think it's got to do with substance, and it's got to do with a concrete plan of action for the future of the country.

Hugely gifted.  I guess it depends on the meaning of "gifted":

 

Newsweek is struck: 

The other night you were using the trope "That's not change we can believe in." Watching, it struck me that fighting on somebody else's rhetorical field and offering a negative as opposed to a positive is not the most vigorous way forward.

McCain replied: Well, I think it's an important part of this campaign to point out that everybody wants change, but there is a right change and a wrong change...

Newsweek declares McCain is running a negative campaign.  Because he challenged St. Obama's sacred "change" rhetoric. 

About that Senate Intelligence Report:

There was an interesting Senate intelligence committee report this week about the administration allegedly misleading the nation on prewar intelligence. What is your view of the report? Do you think the intelligence was honestly misinterpreted, or do you think the administration was willfully spinning the rest of us back in '02 and '03?             

I have not read the report, and I intend to, and I can make more-informed comments about it then. I do know that every intelligence agency in the world, some of the intelligence agencies not representing nations that are particularly friendly to us, firmly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was developing them.

Maybe the Newsweek "journalists" should take a closer look at those reports:

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word. 

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

What John McCain must overcome is not Obama's giftedness.  It's the absolute, complete and total bias of the mainstream media.