From a reporter's standpoint, shouldn't access and candor be rewarded?

It's an interesting point, but only to a certain degree. It doesn't mean that the fact that he had a discussion on, say, Iraq, with you while throwing back a couple of beers in the back of his bus and you now think he's a great guy ... that the next day there should be a halo over the whole thing, over the story you write. But that's what happens, time and again. And it doesn't have anything to do with people's personal politics. It's the personal feelings, especially in that small circle of D.C. reporters, the personal relationships that trump the substantive policy issues. Which is why he's been given a pass on his campaign lacking in substance. There's no question he's run the least substantive campaign; most people are hard pressed to say what he wants to do.

...so doesn't this emphasis on personality over substance speak to a certain political savvy on McCain's part?

Sure, you could say that all those policy papers don't really matter much. But you could make a case that McCain doesn't seem to have a nuanced grasp of policy, domestic or foreign. And you don't see the same serious investigations about what he wants to do on health care or taxes that you get with other candidates, the kind of coverage that Americans deserve. Instead, with McCain you get the constant regurgitation of the same tropes, that he's a war hero, a maverick.

In your book you compare it to a line in the movie "Singles," when a girl tells a guy, "I think not having an act is your act." Is that McCain's secret?

Totally, and it's something you would think more politicians would have figured out by now. That being on the record all the time and talking about anything might entail some risk, but over time it builds up so much good will that when you do say something embarrassing, it doesn't stick

Paul Waldman is also a senior fellow at Media Matters for America

Media Matters for America

Time's Michael Scherer actually claimed the McCain-Hagee connection has gotten extensive media coverage: "With rare exception, the press errs on the side of making a big deal out of anything that can be considered a 'scandal.' McCain's endorsement by Hagee got lots of negative newspaper, blog and network news coverage."

"Lots" of "network news coverage"? The names "Hagee" and "McCain" have been mentioned in the same news report exactly one time on ABC -- in a comment by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. CBS has covered the matter in two brief reports. NBC has mentioned the endorsement one time, in a report that referred only vaguely to the fact that "some of the televangelist's public remarks have offended Catholics."

"Lots" of "negative newspaper" coverage? The New York Times has mentioned Hagee's endorsement of McCain in two articles. Both times, the Hagee mention was buried at the end of an article about another topic; combined, the two passages totaled only 251 words. Neither made any mention of Hagee's comments about Katrina, or gays, or women. The Washington Post has mentioned Hagee's endorsement of McCain in only two brief blurbs, only one of which noted any controversy surrounding the endorsement -- and, like the Times, that one mentioned only Hagee's comments about Catholics. Post columnist E. J. Dionne did briefly criticize McCain for not distancing himself from Hagee -- but he, too, ignored Hagee's comments about Katrina, gays, and women.

Scherer's claim that "McCain's endorsement by Hagee got lots of negative newspaper, blog and network news coverage" was simply false; the endorsement has been all but ignored by the three networks and the nation's two most important newspapers.

By contrast, a Nexis search for "Obama and Jeremiah Wright" reveals 22 hits ... in The Washington Post alone. And 25 more in The New York Times (22 for "Obama and Jeremiah A. Wright" and three for "Obama and Jeremiah Wright.") And 15 hits in the NBC transcript database -- all since March 14. Fifteen more in the CBS database since March 14. Twenty-two more in the ABC database since March 13. That is "lots of negative coverage." And that is a huge imbalance.

This comes from the publisher

Free Ride: John McCain and the Media

Publisher Comments:
We live in a gotcha media culture that revels in exposing the foibles and hypocrisies of our politicians. But one politician manages to escape this treatment, getting the benefit of the doubt and a positive spin for nearly everything he does: John McCain. Indeed, even during his temporary decline in popularity in 2007, the media continued to support him by lamenting his fate rather than criticizing the flip flops and politicking that undermined his popular image as a maverick.

David Brock and Paul Waldman show how the media has enabled McCain's rise from the Keating Five scandal to the underdog hero of the 2000 primaries to his roller-coaster run for the 2008 nomination. They illuminate how the press falls for McCain's straight talk and how the Arizona senator gets away with inconsistencies and misrepresentations for which the media skewers other politicians. This is a fascinating study of how the media shape the political debate, and an essential book for every political junkie.

Also check out the excellent column by the Seattle PI's Joel Connelly McCain held to different standard by media

Will the news media report on a important book that is so critical of their own bias? We need to raise the profile of this important new book here in the Netroots.

crossposted at D-Kos