Stories like this, which parrot Barack Obama’s talking points on John McCain’s comments on U.S. troop levels in Iraq, demonstrate the intellectual and professional dishonesty of the mainstream press. The reporter who penned this account of McCain’s “blunder”( was that term ever used when Obama misremembered the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit?) was on same call as I was yesterday. Nevertheless, he failed to describe, or even hint, at the McCain team’s complete responses to this matter: 1) the decision to reduce below surge troop levels has been made and 2) the larger context of this is that Obama was fundamentally wrong in contending the surge would have no impact (ah, that story is undergoing an edit also). One need not agree with the McCain camp on the latter point to at least afford them the courtesy of transcribing its response.

Compare the Post’s telling to this account in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) which recounts both sides’ barbs, the list of recent Obama gaffes, and Obama’s attacks on McCain’s troop level remark. The reporter also presents the McCain view:

Sen. McCain focused on the military success of the surge, saying the decision to increase troop levels shows that he exhibited proper judgment and Sen. Obama, who opposed the surge, did not.

Now that wasn’t so hard. It would seem a basic task of journalism to at least present what both campaigns have to say on a given matter. And in the world of the blogosphere you can always go to alternative outlets to find out who said what to whom.