Today is Primary Day in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont. And what I’ve noticed lately is that the media has become a third party to the campaigning. I don’t mean in the regular sense that reporters have been sharing information through various news channels about what is going on.

I mean that the media have been the subject of various talking heads’ tirades about candidate exposure. This morning, for instance, conservative Laura Ingraham commented that the media had given Barack Obama a free pass. She said that he had not been suitably vetted, so that the public could determine his true qualifications.

I’ve also heard criticism of the media’s handling of Hillary Clinton, but truthfully I’ve not heard comment about the media’s handling of John McCain. Why is this?

I have a sneaky feeling that the conservative wing of the Republican Party is setting up the media as a fall guy in case McCain loses the November election. The scenario in my head runs like this: The media favors liberals. The Democratic nominee is a liberal; therefore, logic suggests the media favors whoever is the Democratic candidate. This means the Republican candidate won’t get the press he is entitled to. So if he loses, it will be the media’s fault.

It’s clever, and — if we lived in a totalitarian society — it could be true. But, since we live in America, what could also be true, regardless of November’s winner, is that the public actually voted for or against a candidate regardless of media exposure.

I watched last night’s debate between Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and then I watched the analysis that followed.

I did like that the debate didn’t really take any truly nasty turns. Real debate is based on the participants having studied their own positions and presenting them in the most convincing manner, the better to inform the audience. It’s not tirades and jabs, criticisms and caustic comments.

The after-show summed much of what I thought, although I felt the commentators made too much of Hillary Clinton’s final remarks and whether they were valedictory in nature. What I liked most, however, was an opportunity to change an opinion I’ve held for a long time about Anderson Cooper, the moderator of the analysis.

When Hurricane Katrina decimated much of New Orleans, he was on the scene. I saw him interview a young woman who had lost almost everything and was obviously distraught. Cooper seemed unaware of her state and continued to position her for the best camera angle while asking inane questions, such as “How are you feeling right now?”

Had I been that woman, Mr. Cooper might have had two black eyes. No, had I been that woman I wouldn’t have agreed to be interviewed. But this doesn’t absolve the interviewer from being insensitive.

I vowed I would never watch Anderson Cooper again . . . and I haven’t. Until last night. Granted the context was different, but I thought he conducted himself courteously, asked relevant questions, and didn’t interrupt the respondent. Maybe he’s better in a studio than on the street. Or maybe he’s learned better interviewing techniques. Either way, he got a second change to make a first impression with me.

I’m a writer. So it’s only logical that I support the notion that words count, that they mean something. And when political candidates make statements about staying in Iraq for one hundred years or withdrawing troops in sixty days or feeling proud for the first time as an adult, I think these words should be challenged.

However, I suspect the people who made these remarks were speaking more for effect than for accuracy. The same goes for the candidate who said, “Words are cheap.”

Words don’t exist in a vacuum; as a rule, they are spoken in some sort of context.
These statements are all part of the campaign rhetoric that is the currency used to buy votes during the various state primaries and caucuses. In a way, they’re akin to the language salespeople frequently use when they’re trying to make a deal. You probably wouldn’t buy a pricey car without doing some homework in spite of the salesperson’s comments. And it’s probably a good idea to research the background of political statements as well. Or at least, be skeptical of them.

That’s not to say political candidates or talk show hosts (Think Don Imus here) should get away with insult. It does mean, however, we should consider the context behind a statement and evaluate its worth from that point of view.