Who is Introducing Sarah Palin... and to Whom?

McCain's VP choice is particularly controversial because Palin is relatively unknown to the American public. How, critics question, can McCain choose a stranger to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

One answer that has been surmised is that Palin was McCain's answer to the popularity of Hillary Clinton. Given that some die-hard Clinton supporters have turned their bitterness over Clinton's loss in to refusing to support Obama, perhaps Palin was chosen to lure Clinton supporters to the GOP bid.

A Google search of "Palin vs. Clinton" returns pages of links to legacy media articles, you tube clips, and blog posts. The only thing that, on the surface, seems to distinguish these sources is the familiarity of the name of the news institution and the trust that is associated with those names.

When reading "Can You Cross Out 'Hillary' and Write 'Sarah'?" by Kate Zernike of the New York Times, one is confronted with a fairly balanced inquiry as to whether or not Palin appeals to the same women that Clinton won over. The article does not conclude with a definitive answer to this question; rather, it finds that, regardless of political leanings, women are a significant demographic in this election and the choice of Palin acknowledges that fact.

In an agenda transparent blog, Feministing.com, a post by a blogger called "Ann" is much more opinionated in her comparison of Palin and Clinton. Ann states that McCain's choice is a "ploy to snag the votes of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters." The author then goes on to say that although she is happy that Republicans have chosen a woman for the ticket, gender is only a small factor in the decision and that "quite frankly, Palin's political views suck."

A consumer, such as myself, would not expect such blatantly biased criticism from the traditional news media unless one were reading op ed pieces. However, using words like "suck" or declaring that Palin is a "MILF," probably wouldn't be mentioned even in editorials of legacy media outlets. As a result of my expectation, I would not consider Feministing.com, or Asylum.com, a reliable news source.
 
It seems that more traditional news sources adhere to certain standards and practices that are identified as aspects of proper journalism. In the context of the traditional, ranting on a topic or discussing an issue like "hotness" is reserved for reactionary amateurs who have now been given a voice through distribution on the Internet. This idea of "proper journalism" limits the forum in which people are considered professionals to those that would be willing to stick to the time honored news writing protocol. However, does use of a more vernacular approach to article writing or opinion posting declare that a reporter is an amateur? And how much of the definition of "professional journalist" lay in the readers' expectations of story presentation? Or, is the title "professional journalist" awarded to those who get paid to commit journalism?

After all, what is the difference between outspoken blog posts and articles written for magazines like Mother Jones? At times, it seems the only difference is paper and production quality.

Of course, the implication of getting paid to commit journalism is that a reporter is expected to be a kind of expert on a topic. A reporter feeds his family by learning all there is to know about a subject and then parlaying that education to the public who doesn't have time to become an expert because they are busy feeding their families by doing something else. In that sense, one would hope that a professional journalist would be, simply, more reliable. The "mass amateurization of publishing" is good for mainly two things: sharing opinions and creating group actions. Well, three things: entertainment as well.  Amateur media has not yet replaced the traditional news source; and, in my humble opinion, it probably never will.

However, at this point we are still grappling with definitions. The lines are hardly unmistakable in all situations. The new business model has yet to be decided. At that point, maybe, we will have a clearer view.