“If the shareholders of the New York Times ever wonder why the paper's ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper's editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate.” -- McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb

The expression “working the refs” refers to basketball coaches badgering referees in the hope of influencing future calls, or politicians complaining about unfair media coverage to win favorable future stories. This explains why John McCain, who has gotten extremely positive news coverage in the New York Times, publicly attacked the paper’s editors last week. McCain’s criticism seeks to keep the paper’s news division working in his favor, “balancing” the Times’ editorial stands. And this strategy appears to be working. While much of the traditional media criticized McCain for lying about Obama’s planned troop visit in Germany, his silly ads comparing the Democrat to Britney and Paris, and his attempt to make the election about race, the Times’ news coverage remained solidly in the Republican’s favor.

Those who have read my prior analyses of the Times’ pro-McCain coverage might be surprised to learn that McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb recently compared the paper’s editors to a blogger, “sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons.” But attacking the Times boosts McCain’s support among the Rush Limbaugh crowd, and also shapes coverage in a newspaper that influences other media.

Times Echoes McCain: It’s All About Race

What was most striking about the Times’ coverage in the past week was how McCain’s claim that Obama was playing the “race card” led the paper to run front-page stories on this issue on August 1, 2 and 3. In other words, a charge that was widely lambasted even among the traditional media was given careful consideration by the Times, which allowed the claim to frame its campaign coverage.

Two of the Times’ stories included contributions by Michael Cooper, author of the troubling July 24 story citing pro-war pundit Michael O’Hanlon as an independent, objective commentator on “the surge.” Both pieces carried out the McCain message while framing the Obama campaign as being on the defensive--no doubt exceeding the Republican’s best case scenario for how the media would handle his injection of race into the campaign.

In the August 2 article, the Times claims that Obama “tripped” when he told an audience that McCain was trying to make people scared of him because “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.” By “tripped” they meant that Obama had, according to McCain and the Times’ own framing, opened the door to accusations that he had “injected” race into the campaign.

But the August 2 article did not note that Obama has included this phrase in his stump speeches for nearly a year. Rather than provide a critical fact that would make McCain’s charge even more suspect, it was omitted from the Times story.

The Times did make this point in paragraph 17 of its August 1 story, but did not repeat it the next day. Nor did the paper cite Obama’s frequent recitation of that and similar phrases to undermine McCain’s basic charge that it was the Democrat who was suddenly injecting race.

Despite rising unemployment, sky-high gas prices, and increasing economic woes, the New York Times front-page stayed with McCain’s focus on race for a third straight day on August 3. The story by Rachel Swarns addressed a different component, namely Obama’s view of affirmative action.

Swarns is an excellent reporter, and the story fairly describes Obama’s view toward racial and class preferences from his days at Occidental College. But the real question is the why the editors ran this particular piece on the front-page at this time.

Consider: right after John McCain’s strategists seek to make the election about race, the New York Times runs three consecutive front-page stories--none of which involve breaking news--on this very topic. This sure looks like a news division so desperate to avoid appearing “pro-Obama” that it is implementing McCain’s political framing.

Bypassing Gatekeepers

Perhaps the most profound point in Markos Moulitsas’ must-read new book (reviewed here) is his discussion of how the Internet has diminished the power of media “gatekeepers.” His point is that national network television news shows and papers like the New York Times no longer “decide what’s news,” or exclusively control the framing of the national political debate.

The impact of this shift can be seen in the current presidential race.

In the pre-Internet era, the Times’ focus on race would have contributed to a media frenzy around the issue. The frenzy would have put Obama on the defensive for perhaps weeks, and created the impression that he was not tough enough to defeat McCain.

Instead, bloggers and online sources have called out McCain for his racial appeals. This has moved some traditional media and even establishment pundits like David Gergen to publicly criticize the Republican’s tactics, and the race issue has not dominated the tenor of the contest.

As Moulitsas describes throughout his book, official media gatekeepers zealously guard their prerogatives because they are so often wrong. And I would be remiss in reviewing the week’s Times coverage if I did not note the lead story in the August 4 Washington Post that further proves this point.

In a story reporting poll results showing Obama leading McCain by a 2-1 margin among low-wage workers, the following appears: “Obama's standing with the white workers runs counter to an impression, dating from the primary season, that he struggles to attract support from that group.”

That’s right. The media gatekeepers created an ongoing story line about Obama’s inability to attract white working class voters, basing this conclusion not on facts but on their “impressions.” And they remain so vested in their feelings that no story lines have emerged about Obama’s success among the working class voters with whom he supposedly had problems.

Gatekeepers also told us that Obama had a problem with women and Latinos, two constituencies he is also easily winning.

As we repeat nearly every week this political season--thank goodness for the Internet.