Romney’s Response to the Embassy Attacks and the Media
I know I am a day or so late on this observation, but it remains on my mind as I keep seeing commentators, and especially friends and friends of friend on Facebook commenting upon it. To wit: the assertion that the media paid too much attention to Romney in the wake of the embassy attacks earlier in the week. The general lament (indeed, the accusation) was that media was making the story about Romney! Indeed, one would think that a meeting was held to use the event as a means of criticizing the GOP candidate (because, dontcha know, the media is out to get Romney).
Here’s the problem with this assessment (and to quite Scott Galupo with a h/t to Sully):
The media focused on Mitt Romney yesterday because Mitt Romney asked them to.
Let’s face facts: Romney jumped on the story, and too quickly because he jumbled the timeline, because he was hoping to generate positive media attention. However, when you go before the cameras in a rush to score point, you sometime screw it up. As such, Romney (and his supporters) has no one to blame but Romney (and whoever advised him on the statement in the first place).
As such, I found the WSJ‘s editorial, Romney Offends the Pundits: Doesn’t he know he’s not supposed to debate foreign policy?, to be especially silly in its stance.
His political faux pas was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.
No, the problem was this:
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
Because, well, that is an erroneous statement, as we all now know. The problem, therefore, was not offending pundits, it was making incorrect statements based on an incomplete and incorrect understanding of what was said, who said it, and when it was said.
Live by the press release, die by the press release.
To restate: don’t blame the media, blame the responsible party, Mitt Romney.
nice try but its you and the MSM that fumbled the timeline …
@JeffC: Explanation and evidence would be helpful.
See Doug Mataconis’ post on the subject:
If this is in error, I would be happy to see a correction.
As you have probably noticed, I am a liberal, and I read the Wall Street Journal almost every day. I read many of their op-ed opinion columnists, however I regularly avoid their daily editorial simply because it is reflexively and excessively partisan when it comes to Obama. The above quote shows just how predictably and effortlessly the WSJ avoided the central issue in order to continue selling Romney to their readership.
Because issuing a press release when you DON’T want the media to pay attention is the smart thing to do.
@john personna: Well, that too.
Alternate hypothesis: Romney and his team knew that their statement was incorrect and was intentionally provocative. The polls are turning against him especially in key states for him, he is not winning the white margin by enough, and this was a hail mary attempt to try to prompt any type of positive response.
If he’s losing OH, PA, VA and FL, he may not have any other option but these hail mary’s.
@al-Ameda: The WSJ used to be a decent news magazine, as long as you ignored the brain-dead editorials and opinion pieces (often contradicted by data in the very same newspaper.) Unfortunately, since Murdoch et al. took over, the WSJ has turned every article in the first section into something partisan and slanted. It’s all one incestuous circle-jerk of rich white wingnuts fluffing the egos of other rich white wingnuts.
It will take time, but sooner or later the business moguls that read the WSJ will discover that the first section is so much fishwrap and doesn’t give them the data they need.
There’s a reason why I read the Financial Times instead.
@JeffC:
I think that’s what you meant to say…
In other words, the problem is Mitt Romney.