Context of McCain strategist’s comments about terrorism completely lost in mainstream media repackaging of news

Mainstream media is obviously having a slow news week, reporting (maybe even contorting) GOP strategist Charlie Black’s remarks about terrorism during a Fortune Magazine interview. Other media outlets like The New York Times repackaged the story presenting the comments in a very different manner than originally presented by Black.  How did they do this?

First let’s look at the original text in The Fortune article:
On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

Black answered the question. He did not volunteer, in a “Guess What!” moment that a terrorist attack would help McCain. If this is such a newsbreaker, why isn’t the actual question posed by the reporter included?

Here’s the lead on the repackaged story featured at the NYT blog:
Expect the Obama campaign to continue hammering Charlie Black, the McCain senior adviser, today for comments he made in a Fortune Magazine article that another terrorist attack would be “a big advantage” for Senator John McCain in the election.

Now a translation of media B.S.: The Fortune reporter RAISES THE ISSUE of another terrorist attack on US soil  [Note to reporter: your original question should have been included because you knew this was volatile]. And Black responds that would be an advantage to McCain. Now I know people at Fortune, CNN and the NYT don’t think like the rest of us, but this one is a no brainer. Double duh! McCain has an advantage over the candidate who wasn’t even around on the federal level on September 11, 2001. Obama was sworn into office January 4, 2005.

In the original text from Fortune, note the phrase ‘after we raise the issue’ is used as a modifier. You do that when you want something to qualify a statement and also you do that when that part of your sentence isn’t as important as the rest. See how mainstream media messes with your head? The reporter asks a question, sets up the sentence to focus on the answer but ding dong! The question is as significant as the answer. But where's the all-important question? How did you, Fortune writer, phrase that question?

There's no good reason for media to unduly fabricate attacks on McCain. Media is in awe of Obama and media will do its best to see to it he becomes your next president. Truth is, Obama doesn’t need this type of subliminal reporting because he’s been on a media honeymoon since he announced his candidacy shortly after taking his first official US government office: junior senator.

__________

I'll be using the thumbs down icon when I encounter media bias and sloppy reporting.