You remember Adam. Bush called him an asshole and Cheney replied "major League." In today's paper he writes about the pundit's ability to manipulate the attidude of the public towards what they see and hear during the debates Given who hands checks, expecting the MW to be fair to Kerry is like expecting Ken Lay to turn on Bush. Prepare yourself: Bush is a steadfast, American Churchill and Kerry is an elitist, boring, waffler.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/opinion/27clymer_.html-----snip
The immediate judgments of television watchers can be changed by analysts citing a moment as a blunder or an overall presentation as strong or weak, commanding or uninformed, human or condescending. Often that impression has not even been conveyed by a seriously developed journalistic case, but by the trivia of television sound bites or reports in newspapers, like Al Gore's sighs or his flawed recollection of just who accompanied him on a trip to a disaster in Texas. Or when George H.W. Bush glanced at his watch, a movement interpreted to prove that he was uncomfortable debating Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.
---snip
Sometime in the 1980's political coverage began to confuse itself with drama criticism. The word ''performance'' started showing up frequently in debate analyses, and reporters started citing Samuel Beckett in their front-page articles.
By 2000, front-page articles were saying the language that mattered was ''body language,'' and that the candidates offered ''the distilled ether of two very different personalities,'' while reporters' efforts to correct the debaters' claims on tax plans and patients' rights were buried inside the newspaper.
---snip
Indeed after watching the coverage of the Swift Boat story, it is easy to imagine an evenhanded cable exchange revolving around a political ad saying one candidate thought the earth was round. Its sponsor would be challenged on cable by someone who said the earth was flat. In an effort to seem fair to both sides, journalists can forget to be fair to the public.