My suspicion that a rumor out there about Sarah Palin not being able to tell if Africa was a country or continent has proved correct.

Click here to read a story about how the man above helped pull a fast one over much of the mainstream media & the blogosphere.

In this job, you always need to be on your guard. & while the whole ‘Africa’ thing certainly played into Palin’s stereotype, the fact that we didn’t have a real live face making these charges didn’t pass the ’smell test’ with me.

Even though a person can write anything they want about anyone on the internet, it is beneficial for anyone to fall on the side of truth - which is essentially what I’ve been trying to tell you for 9 months now.

UPDATE: While I promise to call out any charge that proves to be untrue against her in the future, now that the “Sarah Palin Media” website has linked this story, I want to make sure you’re clear where I stand on the Palin pick.

Kevin Drum:

“Despite all the grief she’s gotten, I continue to think that the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate represents the breaking of a consensual cultural barrier far more fundamental than most people realize. It’s not just that she was inexperienced (Spiro Agnew and John Edwards weren’t much more experienced than Palin when they ran for VP) but that she was — obviously, transparently, completely — uninterested in and uninformed about national policy at nearly every level. We’ve simply never seen someone so completely unmoored from the normal requirements of national office before. She was chosen purely at the level of celebrity, and an awful lot of people seemed to be just fine with that.”

Andrew Sullivan:

“Let’s be real in a way the national media seems incapable of: this person should never have been placed on a national ticket in a mature democracy. She was incapable of running a town in Alaska competently. The impulsive, unvetted selection of a total unknown, with no knowledge of or interest in the wider world, as a replacement president remains one of the most disturbing events in modern American history. That the press felt required to maintain a facade of normalcy for two months - and not to declare the whole thing a farce from start to finish - is a sign of their total loss of nerve. That the Palin absurdity should follow the two-term presidency of another individual utterly out of his depth in national government is particularly troubling. 46 percent of Americans voted for the possibility of this blank slate as president because she somehow echoed their own sense of religious or cultural “identity”. Until we figure out how this happened, we will not be able to prevent it from happening again.”

It’s entirely forgivable for a politician to be elected to office without much experience (see Jackson, Andrew).

It’s completely unforgivable for a candidate to tout that inexperience or lack of curiosity about the world as a virtue.

I will never defend Palin or what she represents until this changes. & I don’t expect it to. She was an abject embarassment to the Republican Party, who only would have succeeded this year by eschewing the approach & style of governing used by its standard bearer, George W. Bush, for 8 years, & who embraced someone who in reality -fatally- encapsulated that failed model.

The quicker the GOP figures this out, the better.

The Fox News anchor tells it like it is.

& he says what I would tell anyone ready to blame “the media” for ensuring an Obama victory.

You folks who think so give the media far too much power - especially in the age of the internet. Not to mention you give average voters far too little credit.

Look at these numbers!

Pew found two weeks ago that while TV & newspaper use for campaign news among voters was flat this year compared to 2004, the numbers for internet usage TRIPLED from 10% to 33% in the past four years.

A revolution is underway, & if you’re quick to say “it’s all the media’s fault” you’re not only not paying attention to what’s really happening, you’re also not taking advantage of what’s available to you to become your OWN media.

By the way, this is also the reason why any calls for a return to the Fairness Doctrine is a completely moot point. If you hear anyone bring up either side of the debate (Mark Levin can’t seem to stop talking about it), turn the channel & find a better use of your time.

So to sum up,

1. Media=not to blame/credit for the election’s outcome

2. YAY Internet!

Great advice from George Packer:

“The problem with strategic communications is that the White House that lives by it slowly becomes incapable of dealing with reality. When bad news comes, the impulse is to deny it, and that impulse turns into a mental habit. Eventually, those in power are the last to figure out the truth (in this sense, Katrina was a direct result of the kind of mentality that had already led to disaster in Iraq). The Administration can’t answer the arguments of its critics because it has long since stopped listening to them. It finds itself increasingly isolated, not just from potential supporters, but from the truth.

While researching my piece on the new liberalism in next week’s issue, I read H. W. Brands’s new biography of Roosevelt, “Traitor to His Class.” There’s a section that describes F.D.R.’s press conferences: twice weekly, beginning in the first week of his Presidency, with dozens of reporters crowded into the Oval Office and ground rules that allowed for a surprising degree of candor (though Roosevelt was a masterful manipulator of the press, in part because they were grateful for the access).

President Obama won’t go that far—no modern President would. But I hope he’ll live up to his Election Night promise to listen especially well to his critics, including in the press. He should make himself and his aides more, not less, available to reporters than they’ve been. Not just because I belong to that particular interest group and it would be the democratic thing to do. It’s because I want him to succeed.”

I had wondered if this blog’s traffic would taper off after Election Day.

Boy, was I wrong.

Our webmaster checked the post-election day traffic, & found this site had almost 1600 page views!

Thank you so much for your interest!

That means we’ll -for the time being- keep this up & running, at least through Inauguration Day, 77 days from now.

PROGRAMMING NOTE:

I’ll be appearing on “Tennessee Insider” tonight, which airs on WTCI TV-45, the local PBS station (Channel 5 for those of you on Comcast in Hamilton County) at 8:30 (sorry Mom & Dad - I don’t think they post their shows online).

I go in for the taping at 2pm, & between now & then, if you have any thoughts about this historic week, I’d love to hear them!

[above: Cabbage Patch Candidate Joe Biden. No, I don't think it looks like him either.]

Click here to view the embedded video.

Above: in New Port Richey, Florida, yesterday.

More Local TV Appearances

On Monday Biden spoke with a local news anchor in Kentucky (watch it here), who asks him about what he plans to do with his Senate seat if elected, & comments on a poll revealing a good chunk of folks in the Bluegrass state still (falsely) believe Barack Obama is a muslim.

Speaking of local TV interviews, Barbara West, the WFTV anchor in Florida whose now famous interview of Joe Biden has been seen by just about everyone on the planet, interviewed John McCain yesterday. Click here to watch, & then come back & tell me what you thought of how she handled McCain vs. Biden. Also, click here to join the discussion on whether or not she was biased.

Biden was in North Carolina yesterday, courting the youth vote. He was in Greensboro & Greenville - again, like we said with Palin, probably the closest any candidate will come to our area.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Above: in Tacoma, Washington.

Today’s episode: Much more on that Florida TV anchor’s “hard-hitting” interview that left the candidate flustered.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Plenty more criticism (for both Biden & the anchor) of the now-infamous WFTV interview.

Read more here, here, here, here, & here. (which links are which? sorry - you’ll have to click on them all to find out. Remember, one of this blog’s missions is to get you to expand your media diet).

This certainly has become an “bias is in the eye of the beholder” moment.

Those on the right would like to paint this as Biden’s “Katie Couric” moment. My opinion: I don’t think so. It’s not like she ’stumped’ him.

The interviewer’s critics say she’s just “regurgitating Fox News talking points.” That could be correct - but she certainly has a 1st Amendment right to ask whatever she wants.

Would an interview go this way with any candidate on any side with an anchor or reporter here at NewsChannel 9? I won’t presume to speak for any of them. Like all of you, they each have their own views on politics, but all of them (admirably, I think) take great pains to be fair to all of our viewers. This business, if nothing else, teaches you to recognize & respect the diversity of opinions & outlooks out there. I will say I do know NewsChannel9’s anchors & reporters well enough to say each of them would be “tough but fair.”

To do otherwise (essentially shutting oneself off from a huge chunk of your desired audience) is nothing but self-defeating.

So is the woman above ‘tough?’ Yes.

But is she being ‘fair?’ Not to at least half her audience.

What do you think?

UPDATE: It’s been revealed that the anchor’s husband is a media consultant from the GOP. That, in my opinion, makes this far more distasteful.

UPDATE #2: I’ve asked my colleagues for comment on this story.

Melydia Clewell, our assignment editor, says:

“I do believe our staff does a great job trying to remain objective, fair and balanced. That said, reporters have actually asked to be un-assigned stories related to GOP/Dem candidates because they don’t believe they can keep their personal viewpoint from affecting the outcome of their reporting. At least they are aware of their biases, but I do hate that we have some folks who admittedly can not escape a partisan mindset.”

Tom Henderson, NewsChannel 9’s News Director (& my boss) says:

“NewsChannel 9’s journalists and manager-journalists rely on the Society of
Professional Journalists code of ethics for guidance in matters like this.
Here are a few of the directives the SPJ code gives to reporters:

— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others

— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity
or damage credibility.

— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist
their pressure to influence news coverage.

Ultimately it is up to viewers and website users to judge the credibility
of reporters and the newsrooms in which they work. NewsChannel 9 welcomes
scrutiny of our practices and methods. We are not perfect, but we do
strive to stay within the bounds of the SPJ code while going the exra mile
so that consumers of our news are more informed and better prepared.

You can read the entire code here: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Tom Henderson
News Director
WTVC and newschannel9.com”

John Creel, WTVC Operations Engineer, says:

Because of her husbands job I’m less enthusiastic/impressed/ect. about her Q&A.
She could have been spouting off RNC talking points she didn’t develop on her own.
The questions however are still valid.  Someone should be asking those questions!

Fairness is like the feet of a drunk man, taking a field sobriety test, it varies
with the opinions of those percieving it.  It’s no longer the standard fromwhich we measure abnormalities or deviations.
ee cummings wrote a poem that applies.

“We sit around a ring and suppose

The secret sits in the middle and knows.”

Opinions have always surrounded the truth by hiding somewhere in the middle.

Indeed, John.

What do you think?

]]> http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/27/joe-biden-8-days-out/5656/feed/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/26/joe-biden-9-days-out/5572/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/26/joe-biden-9-days-out/5572/#comments Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:00:27 +0000 Dan Lehr http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/?p=5572

(above: Biden on the bus in Johannesburg, 1976)

Above: in Suffolk, Virginia on Saturday.

More flak from the controversial local TV interview you can see here. The anchor responds to the criticism.

[this post originally appeared on July 25th]

I’ve found what I think is a great example of what the last Vote08 post talks about.

& it has to do with one of my favorite subjects - food.
1 . Read this article from John Schwenkler of the Boston Globe (unfortunately) titled "Eat Republican: How an organic movement born in Berkeley exemplifies conservative values."

2. That article (perhaps it was the title?) raised the ire of one P.J. Glasnick of Newsbusters, who writes a response piece called "Gastronomic Baloney ."

Trouble is, while what’s called for is a dissenting view taking the podium with intellectual points made with respect, check out Glasnick’s tone: it’s the equivalent of throwing rotten fruit from the cheap seats.

3. Read John Schwenkler’s response on his personal blog , which really pins him to the mat in the rhetorical department.

I’ve seen a lot of this type of reaction from the right wing media before; the extent of their rebuttal is to begin with screaming "liberal, liberal, liberal" without going a step further (as, say, a George Will or William F. Buckley would) to point out exactly why the argument has no merit. This is a shame, as gives off the impression that the proponents of conservatism lack the ability to discourse intellectually, when in fact that’s not the case.

The impression I get from a lot of conservative outlets is that the starting point is that all liberals or liberal ideas are inherently flawed, & therefore whatever you hear come out of their mouths must certainly be wrong. [ Of course, many liberals are guilty of the same blanket-generalization of their conservative counterparts.]

There is no such thing as a flawed idea; what becomes flawed is how that idea is put into practice.

I think it’d be far more effective to initially show a person with whom you disagree which points you both can agree with, & build from there. "Look, I know we both want to keep our country safe," "we all want gas prices to come down," "we can agree that the health care system in this country needs some work," etc.

That’s not so hard, is it?

What do you think?

TODAY’S EPISODE: Campaigning in Colorado…why Biden’s ‘the forgotten candidate’

Above: at the University of Colorado-Greeley yesterday. (I enjoy doing these “from the crowd” clips to give you a better sense of what it’s like to be there)

The “Forgotten Candidate”

From the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza:

“…unsurprisingly, Palin has dominated the coverage. The press section of Biden’s campaign plane is dominated by young television reporters who don’t get much attention from their producers in New York and Washington. One evening when I was there, several correspondents played Guitar Hero while a crew from the television show “Extra” threw darts at a magnetic board.

On some days, only a single print reporter is covering Biden, and weekly studies of the news by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism note that Biden was the subject of between two and six per cent of all stories each week in September. (Palin was the focus of between fifteen and sixty per cent of a week’s worth of news in that same period.) Pew has noted that Biden is “the virtually forgotten candidate,” someone who “has consistently been an afterthought in the coverage.””

Rethinking the Media’s Role

“…no matter how skeptical we are when we write about bogus allegations, writing about them at all gives them wider circulation. So when Palin questions Obama’s love of country because Obama knows somebody who did something unpatriotic when Obama was 8, our free-market ethos makes us rush to cover her every ridiculous word. We also find ways to convey that this is pure mudslinging and nothing but a cynical campaign tactic, but that doesn’t matter to the McCain campaign. What matters is that we’re writing and talking about this extraneous stuff — and not about the issues that polls say voters really care about.” - Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post

“In effect, columnists, bloggers, talk-show hosts and digital lamplighters have adopted the ethic of the political consultant: what works, works. It did not matter what Palin said. It only mattered how she said it — all those doggones, references to her working-class status (net worth in excess of $2 million), promiscuous use of the word “maverick,” repeated mentions of “greed and corruption on Wall Street” (Who? Be specific. Give examples. Didn’t anyone here go to school?) and, of course, that manic good cheer. Palin knows that the standard is not right or wrong, truth or lie, but the graph that ran under both debaters on CNN, measuring approval, disapproval or, maybe, the blood sugar levels of certain people in their focus group. Things have changed. Might used to make right. Now a wink does.” - Richard Cohen of the Washington Post

“Constantly under the watchful eyes of security, the media wasn’t permitted to wander around inside Coachman Park to talk to Sarah Palin supporters. When reporters tried to leave the designated press area and head toward the bleachers where the crowd was seated, an escort would dart out of nowhere and confront him or her and say, “Can I help you?” and turn the person around. When one reporter asked an escort, who would not give her name, why the press wasn’t allowed to mingle, she said that in the past, negative things had been written. The campaign wanted to avoid that possibility Monday.” - the St. Petersburg Times

Most Over the Top Palin Reviewer

That award goes to the National Review’s Rich Lowry, whose viewpoint - up until I read this one - I happened to take seriously:

“A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It’s one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O’Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.”

Someone get that man a cold shower.

Here’s a summary of all the ‘winks’ we saw in the debate Thursday night:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Simply put:

No.

& I’m speaking as a person who has faithfully watched her weekly wrapup of political news on PBS, “Washington Week in Review,” for the past several years.

Conservatives are targeting a book Ifill plans to publish on election day, which is called “The Breakthrough: Politics & Race in the Age of Obama.”

Many critics, I suspect, think the title alone is da(rn)ing enough.

But - again, as someone who’s been an Ifill fan for years - I have to tell you that if there’s anything she’s most passionate about, it’s the political process in general.

“Washington Week in Review” has always been a great behind-the-scenes account of the week’s developments, & it has far more to do with what forces are at work & why than it has “who won” or “this guy’s better.” I suspect that anyone criticizing her hasn’t taken the time to actually check out Ifill’s television career.

Gwen Ifill is no Sean Hannity.

& Gwen Ifill is also no Keith Olbermann.

The latest wire copy on this story reveals that the man at the top of the GOP ticket has no concerns:

GWEN IFILL: CONSERVATIVES QUESTION IMPARTIALITY FOR DEBATE
NEW YORK (AP) - Gwen Ifill says anyone who thinks she might be biased in some way toward Barack Obama’s campaign should watch tonight’s vice presidential debate and see whether she is doing a balanced job. The PBS journalist will moderate tonight’s debate between Democrat Joe Biden (BY’-dehn) and Republican Sarah Palin tonight in St. Louis. Some conservative bloggers have been complaining that she may not be fair to the GOP because she’s writing a book that contains material on Barack Obama. Ifill says she hasn’t even written her chapter on Obama for the book, which isn’t due out until well after the election. Ifill says has a long track record in journalism and that should speak for itself. In an interview with Fox News, John McCain didn’t seem worried about any bias. He said Ifill is “a highly respected professional” who “will do a completely objective job” moderating the debate.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Like many controversies of this sort, we can glean far more about the accuser than the accused.

To wit:

1. Conservatives are nervous about Palin’s upcoming performance. But if you believe she’s the right candidate for the job & can hold her own, you should not be afraid that she’ll wilt at the first sight of a tough question.

2. Conservatives are trying to keep Ifill from being tough. See point #1.

3. The plans for this book have been out for weeks, so it’s suspect that this all-of-a-sudden is an issue 48 hours before the debate.

4. This has been denied by many conservative commentators, & I’ll take them at their word, but it’s undeniable that Ifill’s race is a subtext of this whole controversy. “Why, she’s black - why wouldn’t she vote for Obama?” This is similar to those who would never vote for a black person being able to conveniently cover up their prejudice by asserting (falsely) that Obama is a muslim. As far as I can see, the topic of her yet-to-be-released book seems to be more of a recognition of how far politics & race have come since the Civil Rights era. Why is it wrong to write a book about that?

5. I watched PBS exclusively during the conventions. Ifill was all over the place, & was equally fair, gracious & probing of people from both sides of the aisle. The woman is a fair journalist, & I stake my 15-year reputation as a NewsChannel9 producer on it.

6. Don’t think for a second that Ifill thinks she’d be able to get away with demonstrating any biases she has going into this debate. It’ll probably garner more viewers than the 1st presidential debate did. & average viewers can sniff out bias a mile away - take it from me.

Once again, to Palin supporters: have confidence that your candidate will be able to handle Ifill’s questions, regardless of what you think her biases might be.

& I confess I have to agree with Marc Ambinder, who writes:

Come one, come all, as the media chases this story down the rabbit hole.

It’s a little bit depressing. And predictable.

Smearing a journalist for the sake of smearing a journalist. Guilt-by-racial association.

Gwen Ifill seems to be writing a legit book… its title reflects an undeniable truth: Obama heralds — and represents — the new black political power structure.

Covering this as a “Republicans worry that” versus “media defends” story isn’t intellectually honest. Republicans aren’t actually worrying. They’re pretending to worry in order to divert attention from the content of tomorrow night’s debate.

The proper response of Ifill’s friends should be eye-rolling, not defensive-crouching, as the latter just feeds the conflict even more.

And it’s kind of insulting to Gov. Palin… as if she’s going to crumple in the face of a moderator who might not be sympathetic. I’ve been watching previous debates. Palin can handle a tough moderator.

Democrats can be guilty of this sort of thing too — in a way, the Ifill-mania is just a more egregious version of working the refs, but Republicans have patented this art.”

What do you think?

(hat tip to Indexed for the image)

Howard, a commenter to this post about McCain’s announcement he’s suspending his campaign says (my emphasis added):

“COUNTRY ABOVE POLITICS !!!
Both candidates are U.S. Senators.This financial crisis will be decided in the U.S. SENATE. Currently, the brilliant plan is that after this 7 hundred billion dollar bail out … Pelosi and Reed will be in charge of picking who will be in charge of ongoing oversight for continued spending. God help us! This is another example of how Senator John McCain puts country first. All Obama cares about is winning the election at any cost. Obama neglected his duties as U.S. Senator before running for President, and especially after he began running for President. This ‘bail out - quick fix” will negatively affect Americans for decades. Many of the bloggers who are criticizing McCain for this decision wouldn’t recognize responsibility, or integrity if it bit them on the [synonym for donkey]. Keep America strong and safe … Elect McCain/Palin in November.”

Well, I’m certainly not going to respond to the attack on my responsibility & integrity.

But I do want to illuminate some facts on exactly who it is that “neglected his duties as U.S. Senator before running for President, and especially after he began running for President”

This chart, taken from this [non-partisan] Congressional watchdog site, shows the Senate voting record of John McCain since 1993. As you can see, the number of “missed votes” spikes in 2000 (when he was running for his 1st presidential bid) & literally goes “off the chart” for this current year.

In fact, the last time John McCain voted on a bill in the Senate this year was all the way back on April 8th.

Also in fact, John McCain holds the current record for missed votes in this current Congress.

Click here for a comprehensive list of all the issues that the Senate voted on since that time.

Those issues include

A “GI Bill” for the 21st century that would ensure veterans returning home from keeping us safe around the world would get a college education & expand their health benefits.

He was absent in voting on this summer’s bill that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems, which counters his claims that he favors an “all of the above”-style energy plan.

This is just for the year 2008, too. I could go on citing examples of missed votes in past years.

Now, the purpose of this post is not to get Barack Obama off the hook.

Next to McCain & South Dakota’s Tim Johnson - who’s been recovering from a brain hemmorhage - Obama is the 3rd most absent member of the Senate.

But it’s the approach of the argument made by Howard above that give me the desire to point out that facts are stubborn things. & at the risk of sounding presumptious, Howard makes several points that to me say that he is - metaphorically speaking - sticking to a diet of Big Macs every day.

What do I mean by that? I mean that it sounds like Howard is keeping his media diet for the 2008 election restricted to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Sean Hannity, etc., where the viewpoint above - despite its inaccuracies - is repeated ad infinitum.

This year, we all owe it to our country to expand your media diet. Read more on that here, in this prior Vote08 post.

Howard, there’s a wonderful world of facts to be found out there on the internet & the airwaves.

I hope in the future you make sure that the facts back up your claims.

& for the rest of Vote08 viewers, you can depend on me to follow my own advice.

Because for me, it’s a matter of integrity & responsibility.

Sarah Palin is not a show pony.

From the New York Times:

Palin and Karzai Bond Over Children | 1 p.m. When Gov. Sarah Palin sat down with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Tuesday afternoon, the polite preliminaries to their conversation centered around children, as Mr. Karzai spoke of the birth of his first child last year.

Meeting Uribe | 2:20 p.m.: The next stop on Governor Palin’s whirlwind diplomatic tour was a meeting with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia.

Talking Georgia With Kissinger | 4 p.m. Gov. Sarah Palin wrapped her first day of motorcade diplomacy with a 90-minute meeting with Henry Kissinger, where they spoke about Georgia.

That was in front of the camera.

Things got a lot more contentious with Palin’s handlers & the media behind the camera, though:

(from ABC:)

McCain-Palin Camp Tried to Block Media Access to Palin in NY

ABC News’ Kate Snow reports: The McCain campaign tried to limit access to
Republican vice president Sarah Palin today as she met with world leaders
in New York.

For a time this morning, the McCain-Palin campaign was refusing to allow
any editorial presence — no reporters or producers — to go with a network
pool camera to take pictures of Palin meeting with Afghan Pres Hamid
Karzai, Colombian Pres Alvaro Uribe and former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger.

The McCain campaign eventually relented after the television networks
threatened to ban and not use any footage of Palin meeting with leaders.

The networks had arranged for a “pool” camera- one camera to cover the
first few seconds of the meetings, whose video would be pooled or shared
with all networks.

Such arrangements are standard when dealing with intimate high-level
meetings between leaders and candidates.

But typically, along with cameras, there is an editorial presence– at
least one print reporter, one television reporter, and one radio reporter
is standard.

However today the McCain campaign told media covering Palin’s trip to New
York that they would allow only one editorial person inside.

Then the campaign scaled back further, saying it will only allow a camera
and no editorial presence.

The networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox fiercely objected to
the McCain campaign’s apparent effort to try to shield Palin from
questions. Networks voted today to not use any video coming out of Palin’s
meeting as a protest.

See those networks listed in that last paragraph? Please don’t try to tell me this is the ‘evil’ liberal media.

There are plenty of self-described “conservatives” (not to mention Palin fans) in the NewsChannel 9 newsroom who have been down this road before on a local level & take my word for it - we all think it just plain stinks. Everyone bristles at this kind of treatment, because we view our jobs as “helping viewers become more aware, more prepared & better informed” (the NewsChannel9 brand promise).

CNN’s Campbell Brown really nailed the issue in a commentary yesterday:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Sarah Palin is not a show pony.

& you either have enough confidence in her to hold her own when taking questions from the media (EVERY member of the media) - or she shouldn’t be the one to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

You can’t have it both ways.

Here’s hoping this sexist sequestration ends soon.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Watch above & let me know what you think.

By the way, Sean Hannity is a not a journalist.

Did you not know that?

He’s a conservative commentator.

He said as much last year after defending his appearance at a fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani.

Palin’s next interview is with “journalist” Katie Couric.

Saw this Doonesbury development coming from a mile away earlier this week. For those of you who don’t follow the strip, longtime Washington Post reporter Rick Redfern is being laid off. Now we’ll (I’ll) enjoy watching him take baby steps into the wonderful world of blogging.

Come on in, Rick - the water’s fine!

Vote08 wishes you well!

I’m pretty speechless here.

As you can see, Fox News’ Greta van Sustern seems to be fixated on a certain phrase..

My fingers are crossed that the Sean Hannity interview of Sarah Palin (yes, we’ll post the clips here when they’re available) will not be this bad.

By the way, re: that Hannity interview, I’m willing to bet anyone $10 that one of the questions he asks will be:

“Why do you think people on the left hate you so much?”

What do you think?

Above: gas station lines near the Wal-Mart on Keith Street, Cleveland, Tennessee. Photo by Sarah Jennings.

Goodness gracious did we ever see a panic yesterday.

I happened to be producing NewsChannel9’s 6pm newscast, & hadn’t planned on doing the story at all.. until about 3:30-4pm, when the calls started coming in. All were along the lines of

“Hey, have you heard that gas prices are gonna shoot up $1.50 overnight? I’m getting gas & sitting in a line & wanted to make sure you knew about it.”

As you know by now, this was fueled (heh) by the potential for Hurricane Ike to cause major damage off the Texas coastline. Ike forced several oil rigs there to send its employees packing, reducing the supply of oil out of that region to a drip. The Chattanooga area & the southeast gets a good chunk of that oil. Thus.. the rumors started flying about “just how high it’ll go.”

I’ll admit - there was considerable debate in the newsroom about how to handle this story.

On the one hand, there was considerable interest in this story. People were calling us, turning on our newscast, & going to the web to get as much information as they could about the story.

On the other hand, though, there was the “you’ll throw gas on a fire” argument. That doing the story would only send more people to line up at the pump & deplete an already almost-tapped-out supply.

(these two schools of thought I’d say split the newsroom down the middle).

We ultimately did the story at 6pm. & when the live shot was posted to the web, you made it our most-viewed video in record time - just 4 hours.

But what happened then?

I drove to work this morning & passed 5 gas stations, who were all tapped out.

The price of gas didn’t in fact go up $1.50, but rather about 15 cents. So the rumors were 90% inaccurate.

& from what we’re reading .. apparently the Tennessee Valley the only region in the southeast that behaved this way.

& Ike hasn’t even hit.

The thing I was telling the plethora of callers was this: just because the price of gas may go up.. doesn’t necessarily mean that it will stay up. If you’re hovering around “E,” then you had best fillerup. But if you can afford to wait a few days.. you’ll probably see prices stabilize. The empirical evidence I viewed this morning (gas at $3.65, up from $3.54 the day before) helped prove my point.

Above all, next time: don’t panic.

I’ve said earlier that I’m a big fan of PBS’s coverage of Campaign ‘08. No shouting, &, in the case of Mark Shields & David Brooks, a frequent airing of both political viewpoints that contains nothing but respect for each other.

Anyway, I thought their commentary on Friday night’s NewsHour on the state of the race was illuminating & informative (in case you’re unfamiliar with the pair, Shields leans left & Brooks leans right). After the jump, a really is a good sum-up of the state of the race at this very moment:

JIM LEHRER: OK. McCain-Palin versus Obama-Biden, what is this actually going to turn on, right? We don’t know exactly what could happen tomorrow, whatever. But what is the issue between these two tickets right now that you think that could decide it?MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think the fundamentals of this election, Jim, tilt very heavily against the Republicans. I have never seen a playing field more unfavorable to a party holding the White House, including 1992, with President George Herbert Walker Bush, when Bill Clinton…

JIM LEHRER: You’re talking about the party?

MARK SHIELDS: I’m talking about the — I’m talking about a set of realities that John McCain had to deal with at that convention. He had to try and kind of get a little leg from George Bush, never mentioned his name, said “the president” had done a wonderful job after 9/11.

Bush wasn’t mentioned. Cheney wasn’t mentioned by the nominee of the party.

You know, today we had 84,000 more people unemployed. We had 610,000 people in this country who had a job to go to on January 1 who didn’t have a job to go to on September 1.

All of these are really — make it very difficult, in a time when people are demanding change, want change, John McCain, to me, what Sarah Palin served for him, she became his proxy for change. He didn’t have a program for change. He didn’t have a policy change. She became his proxy for change.

And she is — I mean, she is change. David’s right. It’s a generational change. It’s a stylistic change. And it’s a demographic change. Let’s be very blunt about it, not simply from Alaska, from a different — off the continent, but a gender and all that that represents, and sort of, you know, the Mike Huckabee school of the Republican Party to some degree.

But I would say right now that — I mean, it’s tough. It’s an uphill struggle for McCain and Palin against Obama and Biden.

DAVID BROOKS: Sure. I mean, it’s obviously an uphill struggle, but still the issue is change, and it’s over a definition…

JIM LEHRER: It’s going to be a change no matter who…

DAVID BROOKS: But whose definition of change wins? That’s the crucial issue of this election. If you’re definition of change…

JIM LEHRER: People unhappy with the way things are now, and they want it to go better.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. So if your definition of change is we’ve had one set of policies, we need another set of policies, if it’s left-right change, then Barack Obama is going to win.

If it’s more existential change, the system is terrible, we need someone who knows the system, who has a history of fighting the system, who will fight the system, and who is in his nature to be an insurgent and a system-fighter, if that definition of change carries the day, then John McCain will win.

And so it’s about change, but two different views of change.

JIM LEHRER: What about the ideology? Is this going to shape up? Do you think it’s going to shape up as a simple liberal-versus-conservative struggle?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, there’s an element of that. And I’m struck by how traditional that is. And I think the McCain campaign is insane for trying to — they think they can win a traditional left-right.

I understand why Barack Obama has come back and become a more conventional liberal. I do not understand why John McCain has not broken out and become a very untraditional Republican, just the way — Andy Kohut all week was telling us these numbers on, do you favor the Republicans or Democrats on health care, education, and so and so? The numbers are hugely in favor of the Democratic Party.

And still, again, the major disappointment with the McCain speech, it was not the way he delivered it, though that was not great, and the conviction I thought was good, the story was good. It was the policy that was not there.

MARK SHIELDS: John McCain 2000 is a very serious challenger against Barack Obama 2008. John McCain 2008, I think, is a less formidable challenger against Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

I mean, along the way, I mean, however you want to put it, he’s not — he’s not the insurgent he was. He’s not — I mean, he really isn’t, I mean, whether…

JIM LEHRER: But what about the ideology thing?MARK SHIELDS: Well, on the ideology thing, I think it’s crazy. I mean, John McCain stood up and said he’s for deregulation. I mean, he kind of goes through this mantra of, “We’ve got to get rid of the bureaucracy.”

Jim, the American taxpayers right now, a beleaguered group of people, according to all measurements, are now bailing out because we’ve had a deregulated financial industry in this country, and we’ve had collapses and crises, and we’ve had continuing collapses and crises, and the bailout of Wall Street and banks is being paid for by American taxpayers because of deregulation.

Any time there’s a financial crisis, the impulse in American voters historically has been for more regulation. So, I mean, ideologically, he’s fighting a losing battle there.

But when he said it — you know, that wasn’t said with the passion and conviction that he ended the speech with. I mean, that was just sort of a throwaway line that, well, this is Republican talking points.

DAVID BROOKS: Just on the 2000-2008 point, I mean, I’m just sitting here for five seconds. The things that John McCain has done between 2000 and 2008 that come immediately to my mind, fighting Jack Abramoff, taking on and destroying a very corrupt Boeing contract, fighting immigration, campaign finance reform, Gang of 14 on judges, earmarks, voting against the Bush energy policy.

These are all policies where he substantively has taken on either his party or the normal Washington way of doing things and has changed things. That’s the difference between 2000 and 2008. He’s built on another layer of things he’s actually done.

Now, has he run the kind of campaign that reflects that in the primary season? Not to my satisfaction, not to a lot of people’s satisfaction.

So I understand where Mark is coming from. But, you know, I don’t want to sound like I’m talking the Republican talking points. But you compare this to voting present, on the substance, he’s got a decent record.

MARK SHIELDS: On immigration, backed off. Agents of intolerance, which was a big thing in 2000, when he stood up and took on the right wing of his party, the religious — what he considered to be the religiously intolerant, he then spent the following year…

JIM LEHRER: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson.

MARK SHIELDS: … Jerry Falwell, becoming Jerry Falwell’s new best friend. On torture, John McCain took a very principled stand, has backed off on it.

His principal promise in the Iowa caucus was, “I will close Guantanamo.” That was the first act of president. He has not mentioned it since. I mean, you know, you can go through where he has — he has changed. He has trimmed, to say nothing of tax cuts.

You know, so there is a backing and filling.

DAVID BROOKS: This is fair. I mean, this is a fair question, because I’ve had a Democratic senator, and he says to me, “You think the McCain you saw in the Senate is the real McCain? I have news for you. This McCain on the campaign trail, that’s the real McCain. You are stupid.” I still think the McCain I saw in the Senate is the real McCain.

JIM LEHRER: And he is…

DAVID BROOKS: … and will be the president. If he’s elected president, he’ll be that guy and not necessarily the guy which Mark accurately describes.

MARK SHIELDS: The guy in 2000, I’ve got to tell you, I was ready to put his bumper sticker on, you know, I mean, and risk domestic harmony. But, I mean, I just — if something happens, whether it’s Icarus and, you know, getting so close to that flame, whatever it is, you know — and I think you can see it with Obama.

I mean, they just — they just start to pull back. And someone’s whispering in their ear, and I think that’s what’s happened to McCain.

George Bush happened to McCain. If John McCain loses, it will let history record George Bush twice deprived him of the presidency, in 2000 in South Carolina and in 2008 with his record.

What do you think?

What are the political opinions of NewsChannel 9 employees, & does it affect the kind of coverage the presidential campaign gets? The answer after the jump.

Glad you asked!

I’d like to take the opportunity here to emphatically assure that regardless of how NewsChannel 9 employees feel politically, we bend over backwards to make sure those views do not interfere with our attempt at reporting stories fairly.

One of your top 5 concerns for local media in this market is that it portrays both sides of an issue & fairly. & you may be surprised how many times we choose not to do a story because that story does not meet this test.

As far as the political persuasions of my co-workers here, let me assure you that they run the gamut.

You have your

-hardcore Obama supporters

-hardcore McCain supporters

-lukewarm Obama supporters

-lukewarm McCain supporters

-voted-for-Hillary-now-voting for Obama

-voted-for-Hillary-now-voting for McCain

etc., etc., etc. I could go on.

There are just as many diverse opinions on politics in general, & presidential politics in particular, as there are out in the public at large. & just like the public, there are those who work here who are not paying attention to the race, or (much to my chagrin, frankly) don’t plan on voting this year.

But we take “fairness” seriously. Being fair is something that is drummed into our training as journalists. We also realize you, the viewer, are smart enough to figure out when someone - or a particular viewpoint - is not being treated fairly.

Which brings me to this blog. I have said a lot recently that all opinions are welcome. If you go to the “Friday Feedback” post you can see that I have achieved my goal of getting just about every major political viewpoint represented on this blog.

My goal with the Vote08 blog is to inform you about the candidates & the race. But it’s also to encourage you to consider all sides of what is a many-faceted coin. I want your decision, one of the most important in decades, to be made from an informed viewpoint - not from opinions based on rumor.

Now, this is not to say that I don’t feel this blog should express my opinions (& I’ve never failed to label these pieces “commentary”). For instance:

I feel strongly that we deserve more from our leaders.

I believe we have the right to demand honesty, fairness & accountability in our leaders.

I believe strongly in the system of pluralism, which lets various groups have an equal say in how Washington is run. I reject attempts by any politician to reduce the influence of pluralism.

I believe the war in Iraq was a huge strategic blunder, but that for the past year we have stumbled upon a winning strategy that should be applied throughout our nation’s foreign policy.

I believe that the partisan rancor which has ruled the country for two decades has to end, especially because we’re facing the greatest challenges as a nation we’ve experienced since World War II.

I believe in the ideals of this, the greatest country on the face of the earth.

I can not promise you that everything you read on this blog will conform to your views. In fact, I hope that’s not the case. But I do hope you realize that it is my goal to present as many viewpoints as possible here, as fairly as I possibly can.

If you haven’t made your mind up on which candidate to support - great! That’s what I’m here for. I hope that on this blog I can deliver on the NewsChannel 9 brand promise, which is:

Every day we take the extra steps to make our viewers more aware, more prepared & better informed.

With that in mind, I hope you make this blog a ‘favorite’ during these next few exciting weeks.

(this post originally appeared on this blog on July 3rd)

Great piece for those of you who aren’t necessarily political junkies from NPR’s Dick Meyer on how to ingest campaign news & commentary between now & November [I've underlined the passages which I believe are most essential & thus give my full-throated endorsement]:

“July 3, 2008 · The marathon of civic marketing and obsessive-compulsive horse-race political news coverage (also known as the 2008 presidential campaign) that began in December 2006 is now in a somewhat quiet state as it approaches the autumn stretch.

It has been a wild ride for political consumers, also known as voters. Much of it has been positive.

The primary season was uniquely fascinating and potentially historic. The drama of the primaries has been the great virtue: Clinton’s fall, Obama’s rise and McCain’s resurrection. The prospect of electing the first female or African-American president added gravitas to a campaign ritual that seemed to have lost any in recent years. The notion of electing a Republican war hero whose personality is anti-authoritarian and maverick has some fun civic mischief about it.

All this nourished more civic engagement than usual, more voting and more participation.

Still, the marathon has been hard to endure for many. Twenty-three months is an absurd amount of time for a campaign. The length of the campaign, its repetitiveness and high malarkey factor, along with the triviality of much of the coverage, are all frustrating.

Our 21st century campaigns have a postmodern aspect, where every voter is both a pundit and an analyst. Cable news networks spend hours upon hours showcasing heads talking about tactics. The gluttony of ads, stage-managed events and focus-group-tested sound bites of the candidates and their surrogates have a natural repugnance for Americans.

Still, it has been a great campaign. Since we’re so close to the finish line, consider trying some adjustments of temperament and philosophy to get the most out of the remainder of Campaign ‘08.

GRATITUDE. Few intense partisans will like this: In this election, more than any I have covered, the voters have much to be grateful for.

I think independent and moderate votes — that is, about 75 percent of the electorate — understand this already. For hard partisans, it would be prudent and satisfying to suspend the shackles of party, ideology and pet passions for a moment and look at John McCain and Barack Obama as vying for an impossible job. I believe these are two good men who have both spent their adult lives in service to their communities and country. I don’t think either is greedy, power-hungry or trivial. I know that is corny, but that is my argument.

I further believe both candidates are trying to campaign using less spin, claptrap and phoniness than in most recent campaigns. They are failing. But they are at least trying a nearly impossible task. We ought to acknowledge that, appreciate and vote for the candidate we respect most.

PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. The amount and volume of news coverage and argu-tainment attention to this two-year campaign are painful to stomach. I grant that.

But you alone are responsible for the quality and quantity of political information you consume. “The media” are not. Neither are the candidates, the parties or the ad agencies. You are.

My strong counsel is to go on a media diet until Election Day. Consume less television, radio, cable, and print political news (especially cable!). Focus on hard news reporting. Most important, try to read and hear the candidates’ unmediated words. These are two statesmen who use plain English and avoid what linguists call “crafted speech,” that is, market-savvy sound-bite talk.

Most important, accountability means being as tough on yourself as you are on the candidates. This means asking if you really are so convinced that people who disagree with you on, say, abortion, gun control or global warming are evil rats. Is it true that people you disagree with “just don’t get it” or are “just biased”? Are you really as confident in the righteousness of your positions as you think you are? When you get into a heated political argument, are you able to keep listening?

DIVERSIFY. Don’t get all your news and views in one flavor.

If you lean right, make it a point to go beyond Fox News and The Wall Street Journal op-ed page. If you lean left, go beyond Huffington Post and The Nation. I hope my bosses aren’t reading, but if you are an NPR fan, find some other regular destinations. Do that no matter what your favorite news source is.

In short, take some time to see the campaign through someone else’s eyes.

Political empathy, the capacity to tolerate and even embrace the radically different views of others, is perhaps the cardinal civic virtue in a wildly pluralistic, diverse society. Remember what the money says: E Pluribus Unum. Radical tolerance is a skill of citizenship and statecraft that has atrophied in recent years.

All this takes effort. But generally in life, you get what you give. Enjoy the campaign.”

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.