Palin & the Media

It became obvious this afternoon that the tack the McCain campaign was going to take regarding its defense of Sarah Palin was to attack the media. The line would be that the media -- excuse me, the liberal East Coast media -- was unfairly attacking this mother of five, who is new to Washington, and who is equal parts Phyllis Schlafly & Joan of Arc. Well, Mrs. of Arc, I'm not impressed with this defense.

Republican talking points made it clear that the party line would be that all of the revelations about Palin since her announcement as McCain's pick for VP were nothing more than a "faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee" for vice president. That's ridiculous, of course, and then it managed to get worse. From an AP story by Liz Sidoti:

The Arizona senator's campaign set the tone for the day early with a written statement that stood out for its admission that Palin is under siege — it condemned "this vetting controversy" — and for its attempt to blunt questions about how rigorously McCain and his campaign explored the background of a candidate who may get the nation's second most powerful job. It also suggested that Palin is a victim of gender bias in the media

"This nonsense is over," senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt declared in the statement, lashing out at "the old boys' network" that he says runs media organizations. "The McCain campaign will have no further comment about our long and thorough process," Schmidt said.

Steve Schmidt talking about an "old boys' network" is the pot calling the kettle black. Schmidt is McCain's campaign manager and a long-time Washington insider who has helped craft the media image for many Republican politicians.

How does one respond to such an obvious attempt to divert attention away from a candidate's weaknesses by attacking a third-party, in this case, the messenger? Here, I can't do better than with the words of Time columnist Joe Klein and Rachel Sklar of The Huffington Post.

Joe Klein has a new column out titled Angry Amateurs, quoted here in full.

The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign's war against the press. This has been building for some time. Those of us who have criticized the candidate--and especially those of us who enjoyed good relations with McCain in the past--have been subject to off-the-record browbeating and attempted bullying all year. But things have gotten much worse in recent days: there was McCain's rude, bizarre interview with Time Magazine last week. Yesterday, McCain refused to an interview with Larry King, for God's sake, because Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before, asking McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds what decisions Sarah Palin had made as commander-in-chief of the Alaska national guard. (There was an answer that the unprepared Bounds didn't have: she had deployed them to fight fires.)

So what's going on here? Two things. McCain is just plain angry at us. By the evidence presented in the utterly revealing Time interview, he's ballistic. This is a politician who needs to see himself as the man on the white horse, boldly traversing a muddy field...any intimations that he's gotten muddied in the process, or has decided to throw mud, are intolerable.

The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair--sexist (you gotta love it)--personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media--about the substance of Palin's record as mayor and governor. Sure, there are a few outliers--and the tabloid press--who have fixed on baby stories. That was inevitable....the flip side of the personal stories that the McCain team thought would work to their advantage--Palin's moose-hunting and wolf-shooting, and her admirable decision to have a Down Syndrome baby. And yes, when we all fix on the same story, whether it's a hurricane or a little-known politician, a zoo ensues. But the media coverage of the Palin story has been well within the bounds of responsibility. Schmidt is trying to make it seem otherwise, a desperate tactic.

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.

Rachel Sklar takes Palin herself on in this column titled Back Up Media. If You're the Enemy, You're Finally Doing Something Right. Quoted in part:

Sarah Palin isn't even finished her speech and already the "blame the media" meme has been pushed explicitly to the forefront — this woman who has spent less than a week in the media spotlight, who has thus far made herself completely unavailable for interviews, has blasted the media with both barrels, deriding them for daring to cover her and the revelations that continue to emerge about this untested, unknown and unvetted candidate.

...

I don't think the press has any problem with mavericks — hell, John McCain has gotten by on that one with the help of his 'base' for eight years now. And I don't think that the press requires any candidate to be party of the "Washington elite" or the "permanent political establishment" — otherwise a certain former community organizer (new dirty word!) wouldn't have had a hope in hell of those glowing magazine covers. But it's not unreasonable to expect that a candidate for the second-highest office in the land make herself available to the media — the representative of the people, at least in terms of asking the hard questions that a governor might, say, hire a lawyer to consult with before answering. Just by way of example.

So the McCain campaign was so miffed by Campbell Brown's tough questioning of their surrogate — a trained, smooth, competent, TV-ready surrogate well-versed in talking points — who still couldn't muster up proof of Palin's leadership mettle in the Alaska National Guard — that they pulled McCain from an interview? So they're accusing the press of being "on a mission to destroy" Sarah Palin? That's crazy. No one has had time yet to form an opinion — let alone enough information. And a campaign with nothing to fear would have no problem throwing open the doors and saying, come on in, we've got nothing to hide...and we know that because we actually, you know, checked. You need a whole lot less bluster when the facts are on your side.

There's no reason for Sarah Palin — or the McCain campaign — to be so shocked that the media might want to actually know something about a VP nominee. My God, how many weeks of speculation and discussions about vetting did we endure between the end of the primaries and this point? Palin was a wild-card candidate, so far better known for her penchant for moose-burgers, aerial wolf hunting, and — yes — her pregnant and unmarried 17 year old daughter than she is for her actual qualifications that being a heartbeat away from the presidency. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the media's desire to even that score. That is its job, plain and simple — and if it doesn't always thrill the guy on the Straight Talk Express, well, so be it.

So — here's a little newsflash for Sarah Palin, to paraphrase her speech: The media isn't writing about you to seek your good opinion — they're writing about you to serve the people of this country. Americans expect the media to investigate their candidates for office for the right reasons, not just to get the right access. If you really want to serve the people — as opposed to just your party, or yourself — then you'll do well to remember that.

As I said, I can't do any better than did they.

4 September 2008