They can't help it

Democratic political strategist Mark Penn pointed out in a recent CBS interview that the media's targeting of Sarah Palin is hurting the media more than it's hurting Palin:

CBSNews.com: Your former colleague Howard Wolfson argued that you all unintentionally paved the way for Palin by exposing some of the unfair media coverage that Hillary Clinton received. And, therefore, a lot of the media may now be treating Sarah Palin with kid gloves. Do you agree with that?

Mark Penn: Well, no, I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what "Saturday Night Live" crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.

I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that's a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media -- not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan -- but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.

Two points stand out here.

One is that regardless of what anyone thinks of Mark Penn, for prominent Democrats to be blaming each other for having "paved the way for Palin" reveals genuine desperation.

Two is that the media feeding frenzy results from the fact that they find Palin irresistible for a variety of reasons. She's new, she's a woman (which in their twisted way of thinking makes her a traitor), she didn't go to Harvard (or Princeton, like Charlie Gibson), and she belongs to the wrong church. As Andrew Sullivan says, the mere fact that she belongs to the Assembly of God justifies the use of the Dowdification method of quotation falsification:

She is a long-time member of the Assemblies Of God. That's all you need to know.
Imagine the reaction if someone said that about membership in the Catholic Church.

So, they just cannot help themselves. That libertarians like David Harsanyi, Vin Suprynowicz, and Radley Balko (link via Glenn Reynolds) have praised her only makes them angrier. I suspect that the media intuitively fear the alliance I discussed earlier:

I have long believed that what "they" most fear is an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives. I'm not saying this will necessarily happen, but if it ever did, the fallout would be very bad.

Why, such a thing might even jeopardize the very future of socialism!

And of course, the more reasonable Palin sounds, the more they hate her, and the more they accuse her of "dishonesty."

In a way, the latter accusation makes sense. Because if you set someone up to be a fulminating, right wing "Christianist" maniac, any reasonable utterance out of that person cannot be considered reassuring, but instead becomes an outrageous lie. (I can't blame them, because after all, they are only interested in winning, and such closed systems are completely self-insulating against all arguments.)

The nice thing about the feeding frenzy is that it has produced a backlash.

I know I complain, but the altruist in me hopes they keep it up.

posted by Eric on 09.13.08 at 12:29 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7252






Comments

I just stumbled onto this blog, and have to say that I felt immediately at home, and am enjoying every entry.
But I got a bonus of absolute JOY when I came upon your entry from December 2007 re: the horse drawn carriages in NYC.
I have been a driver and/or owner for 27 years, and I would like to say THANK YOU, on behalf of everyone in the business, for that great gust of fresh air.
The entry was the very soul of reason, and a perspective that we just do not get to see too often.
Thank you, thank you!
You are welcome to visit my blog, and I invite any comments you may have!

michaleen   ·  September 13, 2008 01:28 PM
michaleen   ·  September 13, 2008 01:31 PM
dr kill   ·  September 13, 2008 01:44 PM

totally OT Eric, but in regards to your post about the horrible way people stood around and watched a guy get beat with a hammer and not do anything I wanted to point out to you what's been going on with the tragic train crash in Chatsworth, CA (I grew up right around the corner in Granada Hills and went to the Stony Point park many times). Many of the neighbors in the homes nearby immediately rushed to the scene and started helping victims ... helping them out, getting them to lie down, staunching blood, etc as they awaited rescue squads. One woman interviewed last night was barely holding back tears as she talked of how she grabbed every towel she could carry in her house and rushed to the scene..and then held a man in her arms and watched him die.

Human beings are basically amoral. Goodness has to be taught. Much thanks to the parents of the people who rushed to help last night.

Darleen   ·  September 13, 2008 03:09 PM

Palin is not entirely what her image suggests, both from the left and the right. She is, however, likely to come closer to the anti-corruption, pragmatic image than anyone else we've got out there at the moment, and thus inspires me.

David Axelrod of the Obama campaign has admitted that they didn't see Palin coming - she wasn't on any of their lists. Why the hell not? She has been mentioned on popular, available, conservative sites for half a year. Are these people so blinkered that they cannot even bear to read another POV? Not one of them?

Neoneocon has an excellent article today about how conservatives can understand liberals, but the reverse is not true.

Assistant Village Idiot   ·  September 13, 2008 07:12 PM

NeoNeoCon - Understanding Liberals.

BTW AVI one good reason for that is that many conservatives were once liberals. The reverse is not as likely.

M. Simon   ·  September 13, 2008 08:19 PM

Notice we are told that it is a problem if the media is seen as biased.

But Mark has no concern if the media really is biased. That possibility never occurs to him or to those in the media. It could not be.

Yes, people in the media think deeply about how the public regards them. Then they conclude, once again, the public is wrong to think the media is not perfect.

K   ·  September 14, 2008 09:24 AM

The media's inability to stop to save themselves reminds me of this scene from the British comedy, Coupling

Watch from 9:00 to 9:20 the youtube clip below.

Oliver is out of control harassing his former girlfriend, she tells him she just wanted him to make a prat of himself. When it is suggested he might want to stop, he responds "Sorry, can't stop, I'm on a roll"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmmXr-S0WAo

JKB   ·  September 14, 2008 01:25 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



September 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits