Journalism's new savior

I guess this will probably get locked, but I think that on the journalism board, the idea of a politician constantly lecturing to the media is worth discussion, particularly if we can keep it fairly a-political:

I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/22/palin-wont-waste-time-on-couric/#more-136711

 

Keeping this a-political (although I really need to take a "she can read?!" potshot), I think Sarah Palin only views the "media" through her only little horn-rimmed purview and can't divorce her political leanings from her assessment of others' worth.

She's pretty far right, so anyone left of her (including moderates or mainstream conservatives) are automatically part of the "lame stream media."

What's worse is that she consistently paints "the media" as Olbermann, Maddow, bloggers+ people she doesn't like. 99% of whom she speaks are not journalists, they are pundits. The fact that she was at J-school and doesn't seem to get the difference baffles me.

 

This comes just days after she opened her whole operation up to Robert Draper with NYT Magazine.

If she wants to be president, and she's got as good a shot as anyone, she has to start playing nice with some of these people instead of just taking generic, juvenile potshots at them all the time. Problem is, part of her appeal to the base is the fact that she picks fights with the media. It will be a difficult balance for her to strike.

Her constant negative generalizing about an entire profession, a noble and worthy profession at that, is very, very unbecoming.

 

So long as her "God, she sucks" rating remains well over 50%, her shot at POTUS is zero.

 

I'm not a big Palin fan. I don't want her to run for president in 2012.

That said, if someone can think of a single person who the media went after with as much vigor and vitriol during my lifetime, I'd like to know who it is.

I know nobody had heard of her and she was suddenly thrust into the position of possibly being the VP, but they went after her husband and her kids and I've never seen anything like that before.

 

Obama's is 44 percent now.

Bill Clinton's was 49 percent in 1992.

Ross Perot bailed him out.

She's trending in the wrong direction, though. And I guess I'm wondering if the constant drumbeat about journalism is exciting her base at the expense of turning off the independents and moderates that she needs to make a real run.

 

Just wait until it starts becoming, "Could she really be any worse than him?"

 

But how can this be?

She was herself a communications major! With an emphasis in journalism!

At Hawaii Pacific University North Idaho College University of Idaho Matanuska-Susitna College University of Idaho.

Plus, she's a bestselling writer of nonfiction and a commentator who earns a fat living from the very lamestream media she criticizes!

Cruel boomerang!

 

Who went after her kids? The Palins put out a press release stating that Bristol was pregnant.

The New York Times' story after her RNC speech was, "A star is born."

I think the Clintons would certainly argue against your point.

That being said, of course she was going to draw a ton of coverage. She was an unknown from our most remote state thrust onto a national presidential ticket. And a mother of five.

She's no victim.

 

She's not stupid. People throw that word around too loosely.

She's not qualified to be president? Fine.

If you disagree with her politics? Fine.

If you think her views are out there? Fine.

She's not stupid and saying so is pretty offensive.

 

The Sunday Times magazine piece was very, very good.

She wants it all her own way. She doesn't want to owe anyone jackshit.

Good luck with that, lady.

 

I don't know if she's stupid.

I do know that she does not display a grasp of policy with any depth whatsoever, settling instead on dramatic, generic proclamations. Which they all do, to an extent.