WSJ- Does the Media Fear Palin?

[1480]

Interesting op-ed piece I ran across this morning:


Even as the Obama camp ponders how best to handle John McCain’s veep pick of Sarah Palin, the high priests and priestesses of the media have marked her as an apostate. The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac. …


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039719000892745.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks

Quick but interesting read.

[Sea Demon]

Yes. The media and the Democrats both fear Palin. She is in the second spot on the GOP ticket, yet outshines the top of the other ticket, which is Obama. Obama's meager experience as "community activist" is being outdone by a female governor of a state that provides 20% of America's energy and 13 billion in revenues. She's actually had to make tough executive decisions unlike Obama. And she's not afraid to tell it like it is about her opponents. Yes, they're scared of her.

[SUBMAN1]

I love this part!

...We are instructed that Mrs. Palin isn't qualified, because she lacks Washington experience. But until recently that was said to be a virtue in Mr. Obama, who is at the top of his ticket....

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This is also good!

...The irony is that while Senator Obama is running on change, his acceptance speech made explicit that he's promising only more power and money for Washington. Sarah Palin's history of taking on the career politicians of a corrupt Alaskan GOP machine -- her own party -- shows that she's the more authentic change agent....

-S

[joegrundman]

Does the media fear Palin? Apparently the WSJ does not. The WSJ is media, isn't it?

[SUBMAN1]

Does the media fear Palin? Apparently the WSJ does not. The WSJ is media, isn't it?Not what I would call the mainstream media - CNN, NYT, etc. They are a financial peice.

Nice try though.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

More on it:

-S


Palin Draws Cheers, Respect, Fear

Hockey Mom Sarah Palin unquestionably fired up the Republican National Convention last night. As Dan Balz wrote in his analysis of her acceptance speech, the GOP's vice presidential nominee "proved to be an instant jolt of energy for a political party that has been worried and demoralized for much of 2008."

She also fired up our Readers Who Comment -- both for and against. Usually comment strings on political stories wind up largely in the hands of one side or or the other. But those on this article, at the hour of this writing, seem fairly evenly divided between Democratic and Republican sentiments.

The tone of the comments from both sides suggest that this candidate will not be written off as a lightweight, despite her small-town, small-state political resume. You can read respect or fear (you choose) in the remarks from those who appear to be Democrats. Palin clearly came across as a formidable battler who understands and enjoys political combat.

We'll start with AlexZ83, who wrote, "...Judging by the stunned media reports and the low-key comments of the liberal pitbulls tonight, Palin polished up the Democratic Party completely! I'd like to see the "independent" media go after her one more time.... if they dare!"

But davestickler said, "Maybe it's just me, but I felt her speech was boilerplate meanness. I didn't notice a vision for what America should be, nor did I hear anything in her speech that should relieve her of the questions about her lack of policy knowledge..."

debera109 wrote, "Oh man, she is awesome! I cannot wait to see more of her in action. She was inspiring tonight. Finally, finally, I get to vote for a women on a presidential ticket whom I admire immensely!..."

But DianeW18 said, "She's perfect for the Republican party, nasty, mean, divisive, vindictive, full of venom...and delivered with a perky smile. Welcome to your new and improved GOP..we still suck at governing but we can wage war during elections..and usually find a way to win..."

Wordyguy wrote, "...I voted for Hillary here in Wisconsin and sent her what I could afford. Governor Palin has convinced me that it's Ok to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin...and send them what I could afford..."

Cognomen08 said, "I'm kind of glad the Republicans are feeling confident. I don't miss the terror alerts."

jmcauli1 said, "Well, chalk the VP selection up to the Republicants... The Dummercrats had better disarm her quickly... make no mistake, the Republicant ticket is now a dangerous animal."

regleoboy said, "...she is someone who will stand toe-to-toe with [Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph] Biden in a debate. It would be a terrible mistake for Biden to approach this woman from a position of empathy... Palin has officially fired-up the Democratic base and as we thank her, we shall proceed to "squash" her..."

choskasoft, whose computer apparently doesn't have question marks, wrote, "In case anyone was wondering what the opposite of hope is, we learned tonight that it is hate... It's game on for the future and soul of America. Do we want hate. Do we want permanent war. Or do we want to come together to actually make America truly great..."

GeneGuffey said, "I think the Governor Palin speach is going to be well recieved in all the small towns across America as she stated quite openly - I am going to be serving the People of the United States - not the media. A real breath of free air is going to Washington DC in the name of the people."

And mollycoddle1 observed that "The Republican base seems to love her. I don't get it. It looks like they are doing the same thing that they did in 2000 with GWB. They just liked him... McCain picked a showhorse to win the contest. Pure and simple."

LTADM said, "...As someone who volunteers with many community groups, I was insulted with the reference to as if someone who organizes with community groups work is not valued. It was the typical GOP platform, fear and attack... just because one does not agree with the GOP position, does not make one unpatriotic..."

rscott251 wrote, "I just love the posts's deriding her experience, when she has more than Obama. And she is only the VP nominee, not the Presidential nominee. That tells me, Obama supporters are running scared..."

We'll close, not with a comment from a reader but with the last paragraph from Post television critic Tom Shales's review of Palin's speech. He wrote, "She proved herself in the great arena; that's what counts politically. Nobody could watch that speech and still consider her a joke, no matter how flimsy her credentials and qualifications may seem on paper. The joke, it seems, is on those who'd been laughing at her. Last night the laughing ended -- and the cheering began."

All comments on the Balz analysis are here. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2008/09/cheers_fear_for_palin.html

[Sea Demon]

Palin will eat Biden alive during the VP debate.

[SUBMAN1]

Palin will eat Biden alive during the VP debate.That might make it interesting to watch!

[Tchocky]

Does the media fear Palin? Apparently the WSJ does not. The WSJ is media, isn't it?Not what I would call the mainstream media - CNN, NYT, etc. They are a financial peice.

Nice try though.

-S
They sell more papers in the US than anyone except USA Today.

[SUBMAN1]

They sell more papers in the US than anyone except USA Today.Mainstream media to me means "General News". Distribution is not the same. This is a financial paper.

-S

[Tchocky]

It's not specifically a financial paper, though. Certainly in origin, but not in practice.

Simply put, only one other paper reaches more people via print.

[Takeda Shingen]

Does the media fear Palin? Apparently the WSJ does not. The WSJ is media, isn't it?Not what I would call the mainstream media - CNN, NYT, etc. They are a financial peice.

Nice try though.

-S

The Wall Street Journal has roughly twice the daily circulation of The New York Times. Thus, it is a mainstream paper, whether you would call it that or not.

EDIT: It has also been a major political outlet since 2006.

[SUBMAN1]

It's not specifically a financial paper, though. Certainly in origin, but not in practice.

Simply put, only one other paper reaches more people via print.Everything has blogs about other topics. This is one case. The primary focus is not on general news like "Mainstream Media". This is why the guy who wrote this article in the WSJ writes it like the way he did.

Get the picture?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I think we need a definition of Mainstream Media in this thread!!! :D Someone find it.

-S

[Tchocky]

I like it - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html

Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.

Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”

[Frame57]

I was a bit worried over the Palen pick, but I am impressed with what she has done in Alaska thus far and how she presents herself. The biased media is doing what ther always do in smear campains. Nothing really new here, but it is backfiring on them as we speak. I would like tosee the media hold the dems hypocricy to the fire in that Biden and the Clintonians have just 2 months ago clamored that Obama is not qualified to be president, but now in just 2 months time, he is? The hypocrisy of that party never ceases to amaze me.:nope:

[Platapus]

I would like tosee the media hold the dems hypocricy to the fire in that Biden and the Clintonians have just 2 months ago clamored that Obama is not qualified to be president, but now in just 2 months time, he is? The hypocrisy of that party never ceases to amaze me.:nope:


Lemme explain then

During the primaries Clinton and Biden were in COMPETITION with Obama. It was their job to build themselves up and to tear Obama down in order to win that competition.

Now the competition has changed.

The competition has changed to one between Obama and McCain. Now Clinton and Biden are in COOPERATION with Obama. Their job is to build him up and to tear down McCain.

Notice the pattern of building up people on "your side" and tearing down people on "their side". No hypocrisy no conspiracy. It is just how political competitions are run.

If you examine the Republican side you will also find people who were in competition with McCain during the primaries (one competition) and are now cooperating with McCain in the General Election (the other competition)

What is happening is not sinister nor uncommon when you have multi-level competitions. It happens in sports, politics, even busines.

If you are into sports, use All-star games as an analogy. On All-star teams you have players who just recently were in competition with each other, but are now in cooperation with each other.

[Frame57]

Believe me i do get it. Politics as usual. But it would be fun to have them answer this publicly. Then maybe more Americans would see the menagerie that our system has become.

[Sailor Steve]

I would like tosee the media hold the dems hypocricy to the fire in that Biden and the Clintonians have just 2 months ago clamored that Obama is not qualified to be president, but now in just 2 months time, he is? The hypocrisy of that party never ceases to amaze me.:nope:
Then you've conveniently forgotten Reagan/Bush, to start with. The Democrats hold no monopoly on that kind of politicking, and your picking on them alone to hold to that light shows a rather strong partisanship on your own part.

[Von Tonner]

Found this interesting.

The past week provides a useful case study of how the Republicans' assault on the media works.
Last Friday, John McCain announced that he had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The media had a few questions -- basically, who is she, and is she ready to be president? So the McCain campaign threw a tantrum, insisting the media were being unfair. As usual, the complaints were short on details and merit -- but the media still took the complaints seriously, treating them as one of the most important topics of the past few week.
Perhaps the best example of how phony the GOP's complaints were: the McCain campaign's cancellation of an appearance by McCain on Larry King Live because, they said, CNN anchor Campbell Brown had behaved improperly in interviewing campaign spokesperson Tucker Bounds the night before. They didn't really say what Brown had done wrong -- probably because all she had done was ask simple questions that Bounds couldn't answer (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200809030008?show=1&lid=572805&rid=13929533). After Bounds said that as governor of Alaska, Palin leads the state's National Guard, Brown asked him for an example of a decision she had made in that capacity. He didn't answer. So she asked him again. That isn't inappropriate; that's exactly what she should have done -- that's journalism.
And that drove the McCain campaign crazy.
So, did all the complaints work?
Consider this: Wednesday night, Sarah Palin falsely claimed she had told Congress she did not want funding for the "bridge to nowhere." She didn't; that was a lie. Congress had said a year before Palin became governor that Alaska need not spend the federal funds on the bridge. And Palin had initially supported the bridge, not opposed it. And once she became governor, Palin kept the money. Palin's false claims Wednesday night were not new: She had said the same thing in previous campaign appearances since McCain picked her -- and several media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times had debunked the boast. But when Palin told the lie during her convention speech -- after days of McCain complaints that the media had been too hard on Palin -- those newspapers ignored the lie (http://mediamatters.org/items/200809040019?f=h_latest&lid=572806&rid=13929533).
That wasn't the only false claim in Palin's speech that went un-debunked by the media. She falsely attacked (http://mediamatters.org/items/200809040007?f=h_latest&lid=572807&rid=13929533) Barack Obama's legislative record -- and media uncritically quoted the false claims. She lied about Obama's tax plans -- she said he "wants to raise" them, even though John McCain's own economic adviser has admitted that is false -- and, again, the media repeated her claim (http://mediamatters.org/items/200809040012?f=h_latest&lid=572808&rid=13929533) without debunking it.
Instead, much of the media gushed over her speech. If you watched MSNBC yesterday, you would have seen reporter after reporter talk about the McCain complaints that the media were too hard on Palin. And you would have seen reporter after reporter lavish praise on Palin's speech. But you wouldn't have seen them say much about the actual content of Palin's speech -- certainly not about whether she told the truth in it. At one point, Andrea Mitchell declared (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200809040013?show=1&lid=572809&rid=13929533) that "what came through" in Palin's address was "the authenticity."
Nonsense. "Authenticity" doesn't consist of doing a good job of delivering a speech -- not if the speech is riddled with falsehoods. But most of the media didn't tell you about the falsehoods, they just fell all over themselves praising the speech -- even praising the "authenticity" of someone who stood before the nation and repeated lies she had already been caught telling.
So, did the McCain attacks on the media work? They certainly didn't hurt.


And colleague Joe Klein -- who has, in the past, been awfully kind to McCain -- urged fellow reporters (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.time-blog.com%252Fswampland%252F2008%252F09%252Fangry_a mateurs.html&lid=572815&rid=13929533) not to back down in the face of the barrage of criticism from the right:
There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.
The next two months will constitute a test for reporters: If they fall for the idea that they're treating unfairly a candidate who has long referred to them as his "base," what won't they fall for? If they won't stand up to these attacks, what will they stand up to?

[mookiemookie]

I thought this summed it up well:

So the reason many of us are saying that Sarah Palin is unqualified is not sexism or anti-middle class bias or sucking up to the Washington power structure or whatever stupid ass excuse the right desperately is clinging to in order to calm that gut churn they're feeling. No, the reason we think Sarah Palin is unqualified is because she's unqualified.

[Frame57]

I would like tosee the media hold the dems hypocricy to the fire in that Biden and the Clintonians have just 2 months ago clamored that Obama is not qualified to be president, but now in just 2 months time, he is? The hypocrisy of that party never ceases to amaze me.:nope:
Then you've conveniently forgotten Reagan/Bush, to start with. The Democrats hold no monopoly on that kind of politicking, and your picking on them alone to hold to that light shows a rather strong partisanship on your own part.Not sure what you are referencing with Regan/Bush??? Enlighten me Steven:D

[Kapt Z]

Believe me i do get it. Politics as usual. But it would be fun to have them answer this publicly. Then maybe more Americans would see the menagerie that our system has become.

Was it Churchill who said, "Democracy is worst form of gov't in the world, except for all the others." ??

[SUBMAN1]

I thought this summed it up well:

So the reason many of us are saying that Sarah Palin is unqualified is not sexism or anti-middle class bias or sucking up to the Washington power structure or whatever stupid ass excuse the right desperately is clinging to in order to calm that gut churn they're feeling. No, the reason we think Sarah Palin is unqualified is because she's unqualified.
This is exactly the same case with Obama. He has never even introduced a bill. Not to the Senate, nor even the Illinois Senate for that matter! Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than he is! She has actually held of Govenors position that required her to be involved in politics! Obama hasn't! Obama has not even been in government with his record let alone hold the top spot!

-S

[Tchocky]

This is exactly the same case with Obama. He has never even introduced a bill. Not to the Senate, nor even the Illinois Senate for that matter!
http://www.statesurge.com/members/923-barack-obama-federal

Go nuts.

and again - http://mediamatters.org/items/200612200003

Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than he is! She has actually held of Govenors position that required her to be involved in politics! Obama hasn't! Obama has not even been in government with his record let alone hold the top spot!
Whuh? Isn't the legislative branch part of the government?

[Von Tonner]

I thought this summed it up well:

So the reason many of us are saying that Sarah Palin is unqualified is not sexism or anti-middle class bias or sucking up to the Washington power structure or whatever stupid ass excuse the right desperately is clinging to in order to calm that gut churn they're feeling. No, the reason we think Sarah Palin is unqualified is because she's unqualified.
This is exactly the same case with Obama. He has never even introduced a bill. Not to the Senate, nor even the Illinois Senate for that matter! Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than he is! She has actually held of Govenors position that required her to be involved in politics! Obama hasn't! Obama has not even been in government with his record let alone hold the top spot!

-S
Subman, you are a hoot, really:) Shortly after taking office as governor in 2006, Sarah Palin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/sarah_palin/index.html?inline=nyt-per) sent an e-mail message to Paul E. Riley, her former pastor in the Assembly of God Church, which her family began attending when she was a youth. She needed spiritual advice in how to do her new job, said Mr. Riley, who is 78 and retired from the church.

Take a deep breath and spell "fundamentalism" - then look it up in the dictionary, next to Palism.

[Digital_Trucker]

There's a huge difference between sponsoring a bill and introducing one. I've had a difficult time trying to find some definitive numbers on bills that Obama has actually written.

[Tchocky]

Introducing 05/06 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Obama++Barack))+0 1763))

Of course, the actual writing of bills is done by legislative drafters. Ever tried reading any of them? Nevermind, semantics :P I know what you meant.

[Digital_Trucker]

Introducing 05/06 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Obama++Barack))+0 1763) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD%28FLD003+@4%28%28@1%28Sen+Obama++Ba rack%29%29+01763%29))

Of course, the actual writing of bills is done by legislative drafters. Ever tried reading any of them? Nevermind, semantics :P I know what you meant.
:rotfl:Semantics will kill us all:88) I've tried to read several of them and I find that I need a PHD in law in order to determine who should interpret them for me:D I don't however have too much trouble looking at voting records. Fortunately there are only three choices, Yay, Nay and WTF? I wasn't there that day. Way too much of the last on both sides of the fence.

[Platapus]

This is exactly the same case with Obama. He has never even introduced a bill. Not to the Senate, nor even the Illinois Senate for that matter!

Subman, at the risk of repeating what is already known: you are wrong...again.

A few seconds doing some research would show that Senator Obama has introduced, sponsored, cosponsored, and gotten passed legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?q=obama&submit1=Go&site=leg95

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama

It appears that you are not even trying to research the issues before posting your biased statements these days.

[Frame57]

I thought this summed it up well:

So the reason many of us are saying that Sarah Palin is unqualified is not sexism or anti-middle class bias or sucking up to the Washington power structure or whatever stupid ass excuse the right desperately is clinging to in order to calm that gut churn they're feeling. No, the reason we think Sarah Palin is unqualified is because she's unqualified.
This is exactly the same case with Obama. He has never even introduced a bill. Not to the Senate, nor even the Illinois Senate for that matter! Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than he is! She has actually held of Govenors position that required her to be involved in politics! Obama hasn't! Obama has not even been in government with his record let alone hold the top spot!

-SThis is why the dems attacked early on because the Reps have a vice president candidate that is more qualified than their presidential candidate. I eagerly await the debates on this one.

[Tchocky]

Yay, Nay and WTF? I wasn't there that day. Way too much of the last on both sides of the fence.
A little chance to post one of my favourite facts :p

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/939359.aspx

But McCain has topped both candidates, missing a staggering 58 percent of his votes during the 110th Congress, according to the Washington Post’s congressional votes database.

[Frame57]

Believe me i do get it. Politics as usual. But it would be fun to have them answer this publicly. Then maybe more Americans would see the menagerie that our system has become.

Was it Churchill who said, "Democracy is worst form of gov't in the world, except for all the others." ??You know, I believe you are correct. Great cigars he got too. I wish that ban of Cubans would get lifted already.:D