I just saw this article on the New York Times online and was drawn in by the teaser:
Senator John McCain pledged to move the nation beyond “partisan rancor” after a convention filled with blistering attacks on his opponent.
I had to check again to make sure I hadn't misread it. Was the media actually going to point out the inherent hypocrisy of the GOP convention? So I clicked through, and was amazed at what I saw.
More quotes and some thoughts below the fold
They called out his phony claim to be somehow an agent of change, pointing out that he had been in Washington for decades
They pointed out how he is virtually indistinguishable from Bush on the issues (and then pushed the point home later in the article):
Mr. McCain defined bipartisanship as not only working with the opposite party but being prepared to work against his own party, even though he is aligned with Mr. Bush on two of the biggest issues facing the country: the Iraq war and the economy. That pledge of political independence and bipartisanship could prove especially valuable at a time when Republican party is so unpopular.
They called out the transparently ridiculous attempt to pass out "Peace" signs at the Republican conventions when McCain was a constant cheerleader for the war in Iraq and Obama opposed it.
They brought up Maliki's and even Bush's embrace of a timetable (Obama's timetable), showing just how extreme McCain's position is:
Mr. McCain made his opposition to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq central to his campaign, only too see the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration move closer to Mr. Obama’s proposal for a phased withdrawal over 16 months. Mr. McCain, by contrast, argues that staying in Iraq longer will ensure a more lasting future peace.
And they even brought out his statement that he has "sometimes placed party allegiance above obligations to my constituents and country" from his memoir to help expose the hypocrisy of his "Country First" slogan.
In short, it was amazing. It was actual journalism, not just stenography. Rather than just mindlessly regurgitating talking points, they sought to put McCain's statements in context. And put in context, it's clear what a horrible choice for president he would be. His hypocrisy and extremism were laid bare. It wandered off a little into stenography at the end, but it was still an excellent article.
So what does this mean for the state of the race. Are we going to be continuing to see actual journalism as we head into the home stretch, or is this just a one-time jackpot? Or is this just the New York Times, which is generally better than most?
Well, the Boston Globe seems to be getting in on the act, even pointing out the blatantly cynical use of 9/11 footage. And we've seen CBS call the Republicans out for using stock footage of soldiers rather than real soldiers in one of their videos. It seems that maybe the media has had enough. Let the vetting begin...