INTER-OFFICE DISCONNECT.

INTER-OFFICE DISCONNECT. Today the New York Times editorial page tut-tuts the media's coverage of the recent quarterly presidential candidate fundraising filings.

This year, the political industry is spinning the money before it is spent, ordaining mega-fund-raising as the sine qua non of a credible candidacy. Dispatches heralded �the winners of the first presidential fund-raising race,� pronouncing one big $20 million raiser (Mitt Romney) as instantly �formidable� and a �rising force� in the campaign, while discounting a more familiar aspirant (Senator John McCain) as �lackluster� and �anemic� for showing a mere $12.5 million.

And where might the Times editorial board have gotten the idea that McCain's numbers are being dissed as "anemic"? From reading their own paper perhaps. The news analysis story on page A1 featured a chart with a caption next to McCain's photograph that read, "His showing was so anemic that it prompted an overhaul of his campaign finance staff and unusual public recrimination among his aides."

This reminds me of a complaint I heard from a friend who worked on a closely fought congressional campaign in '06. He said that the local papers would cover negativity and scandal on the front page, but bury policy pronouncements. Meanwhile, the editorial pages of the very same papers would decry the negativity of the campaign and plea for a high-minded substantive approach from the candidates. I realize there is an iron wall between news and editorial at most papers, and that is a good thing, but at least in so far as it pertains to media criticism, it would be good to see them practice what they preach.

--Ben Adler