Why the media should apologize to Sarah Palin

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

By ROGER SIMON | 9/4/08 12:15 AM EST

ST. PAUL, Minn. — On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn’t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

But where did we go wrong with Sarah Palin? Let me count the ways:

First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes mooseburgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture.

Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it).

Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: “Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. … Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints.”

Why go there? What trees does that plant?

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.”

Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to.

Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.

Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

The official theme of the convention’s third day was “prosperity,” but the unofficial theme was “the media are really, really awful.”

Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying “I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,” discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody.

“I’d like to thank the elite media for doing something,” Huckabee said, “that, quite frankly, I didn’t think could be done: unify the Republican party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media? To unify the Republican Party?

No, that is simply the cynical, media view.

Though as Lily Tomlin says, “No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”

I couldn’t resist that. For which I am sorry.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just had to laugh at the title - the media should apologise for doing what they always do.

Good satire though

Edited September 4, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[AlHayatZween 2]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, I am glad they finally apologized!

[Ban Hammer 13,692]

Well, I am glad they finally apologized!

[almaty 19]

lol..good satire

[alienlovechild 75]

No doubt Palin will be forced to apologize to America for being a bad mother.

[Eric_and_Corinna 0]

That's funny stuff.

[IAMX 3,055]

I think the media should get more intruding and divisive, so people can either go completely crazy, or turn off their damn TV's and demand the media actually cover issues for a change. Ultimately, I see the first part happening. Think it's 50/50 whether people will be turned off by the media, or sucked into it and continue cheerleading even harder for their corrupt Democrat or Republican nominee.

[alienlovechild 75]

I think the media should get more intruding and divisive, so people can either go completely crazy, or turn off their damn TV's and demand the media actually cover issues for a change. Ultimately, I see the first part happening. Think it's 50/50 whether people will be turned off by the media, or sucked into it and continue cheerleading even harder for their corrupt Democrat or Republican nominee.

AT&T, Big Oil and Homeland Security won't allow us to cover the real issues so we're going to concentrate on Palin's hairstyle.

[IAMX 3,055]

I think the media should get more intruding and divisive, so people can either go completely crazy, or turn off their damn TV's and demand the media actually cover issues for a change. Ultimately, I see the first part happening. Think it's 50/50 whether people will be turned off by the media, or sucked into it and continue cheerleading even harder for their corrupt Democrat or Republican nominee.

AT&T, Big Oil and Homeland Security won't allow us to cover the real issues so we're going to concentrate on Palin's hairstyle.

Or, for something more logical, it's because:

1. The masses watch.

2. It affects how the masses vote.

[PlatyPius 5]

I think the media should get more intruding and divisive, so people can either go completely crazy, or turn off their damn TV's and demand the media actually cover issues for a change. Ultimately, I see the first part happening. Think it's 50/50 whether people will be turned off by the media, or sucked into it and continue cheerleading even harder for their corrupt Democrat or Republican nominee.

AT&T, Big Oil and Homeland Security won't allow us to cover the real issues so we're going to concentrate on Palin's hairstyle.

Don't forget that uber-important freethrow AND the beauty contest!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I was watching Charlie Rose last night and one of panelists this week is Al Hunt. Charlie asked Al what he thought of the Republican criticism of the 'liberal media' setting its attack dogs on Sarah Palin. Al responded by saying, "they're working the refs." That description made me smile because that's exactly what they're doing. Al went on to say that both Nixon, Bill and Hillary Clinton, had also "worked the refs" and interestingly, it does tend to work.

I'm still trying to rap my head around why nobody was "working the refs" when both Barack and Michelle Obama were thrown over the coals with such accusations that questioned their patriotism, their religion, their education, and their economic success in life.

[Peikko 1,575]

No doubt Palin will be forced to apologize to America for being a bad mother.

I don't think she is a bad mother. Does anyone think she's a bad mother? I think some people think her decision to deny sex education might be a flawed one but giving complete credit where it is due, despite her personal objection to sex before marriage she is showing a great deal of love and support for her daughter during this time.

What would be nice, would be to see her extending the same compassion towards teenagers who for whatever reason do not have the love and support of their own families and require intervention from the state to support themselves and aid them to become prodcutive members of society. That would be excellent. I look forward to her showing that side of herself.

[alienlovechild 75]

Or, for something more logical, it's because:

1. The masses watch.

2. It affects how the masses vote.

Here's some more "logic" for you.

1. The masses aren't watching the conventions. More people saw Big Brother, CSI and Moment of Truth and assorted other shows.

"RANK NAME NETWORK VIEWERS (P2+)

1 VOTE2008:DEM NAT CONV-THU(S)-08/28/2008 ABC 6,584,000

2 DECISION ‘08 DEM CONV THU(S)-08/28/2008 NBC 6,100,000

3 BIG BROTHER 10-THU CBS 5,969,000

4 CSI CBS 5,297,000

5 MOMENT OF TRUTH 8/28-9P(S)-08/28/2008 FOX 5,179,000

6 AL DIABLO CON GUAPOS THU UNI 5,127,000

7 CAMPAIGN 2008-DEM CONV-TH(S)-08/28/2008 CBS 4,722,000

8 FUEGO EN LA SANGRE THU UNI 4,685,000

9 GREY’S ANATOMY-THU 9PM ABC 4,008,000

10 MOMENT OF TRUTH 8/28-8P(S)-08/28/2008 FOX 3,690,000

Source: The Nielsen Company (August 28, 2008)"

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/category/politics/

2. More likely voters aren't heavily political so they vote based on the buzz about the candidates.