Playing the ref is nothing new in politics. The Republicans have been hurling the "liberal media bias" accusation for decades but in this election cycle the jabs are particularly sharp and the fodder particularly rich.
The role of the press in lionizing Obama at the expense of Hillary Clinton during the primaries was hotly debated. Now critics have a new target in Sarah Palin. Questions over the media's unfair treatment of Palin began almost immediately as organizations scurried to dig up all and any information on a relative political cipher. The teen pregnancy frenzy entrenched that debate even further, driving the level of scrutiny of the media coverage to an all time high.
The role of the press in lionizing Obama at the expense of Hillary Clinton during the primaries was hotly debated. Now critics have a new target in Sarah Palin. Questions over the media's unfair treatment of Palin began almost immediately as organizations scurried to dig up all and any information on a relative political cipher. The teen pregnancy frenzy entrenched that debate even further, driving the level of scrutiny of the media coverage to an all time high.
Delegates at the Republican Convention chanted "NBC! NBC!" after
speakers repeatedly indicted the "elite media." The McCain campaign
issued a warning that Palin would not be made available for interviews
until it was clear members of the media would be willing to treat her
with "some level of respect and deference."
Is it the media's place to show deference? Los Angeles Times Columnist James Rainey noted, "The dictionary definitions I find begin with 'respectful submission' and 'yielding'."
Politico.com responded to the controversy with a mock apology lambasting the partisan logic of criticizing the media for performing its given function:
Whether it is Sarah Palin herself that represents the threat to "elite media" or rather the thorniness of her personal narrative as the press attempts to flesh it out, the media has been in rare self-reflexive form. And no media coverage has been more closely anticipated than Charlie Gibson's series of interviews with Palin for ABC - not only to weigh in on the nominee's performance, but Gibson's.
While critics on the right drew their claws, ready to eviscerate Gibson and ABC for media bias, critics on the left held out for hardballs. After all was said and done the dust settled on a pretty bloodless scene. The interview either revealed Palin's flaws or strengths to the appropriate degree depending which side of the fence you're already on.
Of course some, like conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, took issue with Gibson's interview, headlining "ABC News Blows It," and enumerating their sins: "Taking quotes out of context. Getting basic facts wrong. Engaging in distortionary hype."
Most criticism revolved around the squirm-inducing question about the so-called Bush Doctrine, in which Gibson quizzed Palin in the "gotcha" style that brought criticism of his moderation of a Democratic primary debate earlier this year. Palin equivocated uncomfortably before Gibson called her out for her ignorance of the Bush Doctrine "as he understood it" of the right to unilateral preemptive strikes.
A convoluted whirlwind of definitions has since sprung up as to the precise meaning of the Bush Doctrine, in order to vindicate Palin. On conservative blog TownHall.com, Charles Krauthammer defends Palin as the man credited (by Wikipedia at least) as the first to use the term Bush Doctrine.
Is it the media's place to show deference? Los Angeles Times Columnist James Rainey noted, "The dictionary definitions I find begin with 'respectful submission' and 'yielding'."
Politico.com responded to the controversy with a mock apology lambasting the partisan logic of criticizing the media for performing its given function:
"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."But despite Politico's strong assessment of the ethos of journalism, reaction to coverage by the public and the campaign has sent the press into a meta-journalistic tailspin. Newt Gingrich told Newsbusters.com the Republican Convention, "I think no one on the right should underestimate the level of threat [Palin] poses to the elite media, and therefore, the level of frenzy you're going to get."
Whether it is Sarah Palin herself that represents the threat to "elite media" or rather the thorniness of her personal narrative as the press attempts to flesh it out, the media has been in rare self-reflexive form. And no media coverage has been more closely anticipated than Charlie Gibson's series of interviews with Palin for ABC - not only to weigh in on the nominee's performance, but Gibson's.
While critics on the right drew their claws, ready to eviscerate Gibson and ABC for media bias, critics on the left held out for hardballs. After all was said and done the dust settled on a pretty bloodless scene. The interview either revealed Palin's flaws or strengths to the appropriate degree depending which side of the fence you're already on.
Of course some, like conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, took issue with Gibson's interview, headlining "ABC News Blows It," and enumerating their sins: "Taking quotes out of context. Getting basic facts wrong. Engaging in distortionary hype."
Most criticism revolved around the squirm-inducing question about the so-called Bush Doctrine, in which Gibson quizzed Palin in the "gotcha" style that brought criticism of his moderation of a Democratic primary debate earlier this year. Palin equivocated uncomfortably before Gibson called her out for her ignorance of the Bush Doctrine "as he understood it" of the right to unilateral preemptive strikes.
A convoluted whirlwind of definitions has since sprung up as to the precise meaning of the Bush Doctrine, in order to vindicate Palin. On conservative blog TownHall.com, Charles Krauthammer defends Palin as the man credited (by Wikipedia at least) as the first to use the term Bush Doctrine.
"There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today."Whether or not Palin escapes unscathed from the Bush Doctrine confusion remains to be seen, but the uproar over Gibson, and by turns the media, seems to be largely muted, paving the way for the media to get back to the business of the 24 hour spin cycle of cosmetics and barnyard animals.
Leave a comment