The New York Times grumpily reports that politicians have made a backroom deal with reporters; the politicians will grant interviews as long as they retain veto power over what ultimately gets printed. But buried in that story is the real story: the Obama campaign is vulgar, and the Romney campaign is classy.
Of Obama, the Times writes:
Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.
Of Romney, they write:
The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.
Fair enough. But when one examines the issue a little more closely, it’s apparent that editing Obama and his minions is not quite the same as editing Romney’s campaign. According to the Times, “Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, can be foul-mouthed. But readers would not know it because he deletes the curse words before approving his quotes.”
As for Romney’s team, “Stuart Stevens, the senior Romney strategist, is fond of disparaging political opponents by quoting authors like Walt Whitman …”
Obama people: foul-mouthed. Romney people: literate. Why, the campaign people seem to be a reflection of the best each movement has to offer. The next time a Leftist supporter of Obama curses at you (and it won’t be long) don’t be too taken aback; just suggest that they hire a Times reporter to accompany them to clean up their act.