HOW WOULD YOU HAVE HANDLED IT?
September 5th, 2008, 4:18 pm · 2 Comments · posted by Dan Lehr
Forgive the defensive crouch, but as a bona fide member of the media [who, admittedly, never uses a long "I" when I say the words 'Iraq,' or 'Iran'], I’m a bit perplexed at the vitriol I’ve felt from the GOP over the coverage of the Sarah Palin story.
I’d like to ask you, the person who’s reading this webpage at this very moment: If you were a member of the media, how would you have handled the situation?
As far as I can tell, most members of the ‘mainstream media’ were trying to satisfy the public’s insatiable appetite to find information about her.
That is what I have done my entire adult career, & shouldn’t be taken as a slight.
It’s an acknowledgement of current conditions.
Millions of people are typing “Sarah Palin” into the Google search bar to see what they can find out about her.
A decent percentage of them will reach conclusions that are the virtual opposite of yours.
But that’s okay - ”E Pluribus Unum,” right?
The questions, in my view perfectly legitimate, included:
Who is Sarah Palin?
What is her record as a public servant?
What are her stances on the issues?
What choices did she make as a public servant that voters would be interested in knowing?
Which parts of her biography make her particularly prepared or unprepared to be vice president or President of the United States?
I could go on. But somehow these questions have morphed into “vicious attacks.” As far as I’m concerned, the only thing the media is after is the truth.
Here at the NewsChannel, one of the biggest deciders on doing a story (any stry) is whether the story is generating what’s known as “water cooler conversations.” My ears always perk up when I hear someone (usually out of the newsroom) talk about a national story. It tells me that there is interest.
That is the case for any reputable media outlet.
If you, the person reading this webpage right now, are not discussing it with anyone you interact with in person, chances are far lower that the story will get done.
The Sarah Palin story was one of the biggest “water cooler” stories to come down the pike this year. In fact, I had more response & comments on Sarah Palin this week, both on this blog & in person than I’ve had for any other week during the campaign.
So help me out here, folks. Satisfy my curiosity. What specific examples of “vicious media attacks” are you talking about? Tell me how you would handle the news (released by the McCain campaign) that Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant. Should we have ignored that, given the fact that it was the hot topic of conversation among you, the voter/viewer, for a nearly 48 hour period?
p.s. Please don’t give me the excuse that it was the “left wing blog” rumors that played out all through last weekend. I don’t pay attention to rumors & wouldn’t report them without any basis in fact. & the vast, vast majority of the American public who’s paying attention to this election don’t follow left (or, for that matter, right) wing blogs on a regular basis. This uproar over supposed “media attacks” didn’t start until after the pregnancy announcement.
p.p.s. Please also note that any information about the boy who is the father of Bristol Palin’s baby, such as his picture, his name, or quotes from his MySpace page, are completely absent from this blog. I just don’t care. If you care, you can find that somewhere else.
FURTHER READING: Why the Media Should Apologize, by the Politico’s Roger Simon. This piece pretty much sums up my view on the matter.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
We have become people who only want to hear what we like to hear. We have so many different ways to find things out. But what is true and what is just part of true. We all need to listen and read in many different ways.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:20 am
EXCELLENT link there Dan. I cannot think of any instance where the media went too far here. A family values candidate has to know her daughter will be looked at. Especially when you as governor have promoted an abstinence only agenda in the schools, which has not, (obviously) and will not ever work.
We deserve to know of investigations, we want to hear BOTH sides of it, not just what the RNC tells us about it. We need to know she WAS for the “bridge to nowhere” despite what they tell us. We need to know she was (is?) a secessionist, and an attempted banner of books.
And despite you not thinking the father is a story, just try to have kept him secret. Then see how many serious journalists as well as crazy bloggers dug into that cover up. You know by now that if you try to keep something secret or cover something up, it will come out and be worse when it does. That’s why the baby thing got so big to begin with. It wasn’t in her bio, it was reluctantly released a day or two after the VP announcement. They couldn’t have hoped to keep it quiet though, so that’s a bit confusing. I think they knew the “liberal” media would report it and then they could point at them and say “they crossed a line, this is personal, see how they treat us?” and scored sympathy points at the expense of the mean ol’ media. Which they have!
And one more thing for no one in particular. Bristol did not chose to keep her baby. There has to be a choice, to choose from.