" 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.”
Rest of the article here.
9 comments:
Is this article sarcastic? I think we all can agree that it is. If this is true how is it that this author isn't getting attacked for his sarcasm? (we did all agree that you must be very careful, especially when writing online, about tone and that the best approach is the "better safe then sorry" one).
Well, we agreed that WE would be conscious of tone -- I, for one, have no control over Roger Simon. A note to The Inheritor: offset direct block quotes so that it's clear to the reader that it is not you speaking, but the source you link to.
thanks for the tip cranky
We aim to please.
Daniel,
I think he's making a point with his sarcasm. But, do you think that his sarcasm is a fair tactic? Do you think he has a good point at all?
Matt, you ask a lot of questions :P
What do you think? Personally, I think the media is only doing its job when it's being vicious. And by trying to stack it as an arm of some LIBERAL CONSPIRACY, Sarah Palin was being cynical, disingenuous and self-serving. Let's be really honest here -- no Conservatives complain when Democrats are hit hard by the media. It's the Beirut study.
Actually, the Beirut study focused upon genuine (and mutual) belief in bias. You are suggesting something different -- a faux outrage that's political/media strategy.
I'm sorry. I was being inarticulate. What I meant to say was that the Palin campaign is using the charge of bias as a cynical technique. The reason it rings true for voters is because of the Beirut syndrome. Ie: They are already predisposed to believe that coverage against their candidate of choice is biased.
Yes. A nice distinction.
Post a Comment