Brief but factual account of the confrontation between McCain and CNN, following an interview by CNN anchor Campbell Brown with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. Having seen the video of that interview, I can confirm that Campbell Brown's questions were reasonable, and within the scope of her journalistic duties to the public. But at WSJ points out, this may be a calculated attempt by the McCain campaign to better control its message through the GOP Convention speeches.

For a publication that leans heavily republican, the reporting seems to take tart notes of the events in a factual way. The only strange note is at the end when the author seems to give a faint justification for the false petulance against the media, as an effective strategy to control their message. The strategy of intimidating the media and withdrawing access unless they repeat the official lies has been largely effective with the bush/cheney administration and a compliant big corporate media complex. The story of whether that strategy will be allowed to continue is a crucial story for journalism and an informed democracy.

This report was short and sweet - stood solidly on the facts. It was crafted in such a way that you would actually have to see the interview to understand the neutrality of this report, yet the reader leaves this article with a question. Was this just a convenient excuse to move into phase two of a contentious media dialog that has proved not only successful to Republicans in the past - but very effectively - set news organizations back on their heels for nearly eight years? The greatest quote though of the article is from Maria Comella, which in effect revealed that by questioning McCain's decisions or disagreeing with McCain campaign "relentless refusal ... to come to terms with John McCain's selection" would lose you access. ... More »

Good summary of the McCain campaign's attempts to control the media.