Lest there be any doubt, media, you are already failing:
"Based on what you have seen or heard about Sarah Palin so far, please tell me whether or not you think each of the following phrases describes Palin. What about [see below]? Does this describe Palin, or not?" (9/10-11/08) - Newsweek
|
"Has taken on her own party to fight corruption in the Alaska state government"
| Does Describe | Does Not Describe | Unsure |
| 60 | 18 | 22 |
|
"Has a record of opposing wasteful earmarks or 'pork barrel' government spending"
| Does Describe | Does Not Describe | Unsure |
| 47 | 31 | 22 |
|
"Shares your views about environmental policy and climate change"
| Does Describe | Does Not Describe | Unsure |
| 49 | 31 | 20 |
|
After the media failed catastrophically to accurately inform the public about there being a very weak case for believing that Iraq had WMDs and more specifically, nuclear weapons, many more eyes opened up to how badly the press has been functioning since at least the Clinton/Lewinski period.
Unfortunately, most of those eyes have been DFHs like ourselves in the unwashed rabble of Bush's "angry left."
But the beautiful thing here is that here is a chance at redemption media. Prove us wrong. John McCain and Sarah Palin don't just think the American people are stupid, they think you the media are stupid, or at least hopelessly ineffectual. They think they can put one over you, and lie with impunity because you won't make them pay any price for it.
Ezra Klein thinks its because the media haven't figured out that they are part of the story too:
But there is arguably no political player as important in the election as the aggregate media. But the media won't report on itself. Which means they can't really report on the campaign: They can only report on the campaign-minus-the-media, which is an impossible thing to do, and requires them to invent all sorts of explanations for how the things that they're doing are happening.
emphasis mine
Yglesias has issued a challenge too:
That said, to dial down the tone of accusations a bit is only to leave us with the more fundamental issue - what is all this campaign journalism for? A few news organizations still maintain large bureaus in Baghdad. They do this, it seems, to inform people about events in Iraq. But if lying works as a campaign strategy, rather than backfiring and getting the liar branded as an untrustworthy character, then what's the campaign journalism for? On some level, like everything else in the media, it's there to make a profit. But what's the intended audience? ESPN News' coverage doesn't have any higher purpose, but it's there for people who want to learn about the day's sports news and it gets the job done. But what's the campaign press doing? It seems to me that if the practitioners of campaign journalism can't figure out a way to make it so that lying is punished, rather than amplified and rewarded, by the press then they ought to pack up their bags and go do something else.
So the gauntlet has been thrown down Media. Not so much by us bloggers, but by McCain himself. His campaign has put you on the enemies list. There won't be any more tire swing BBQs until the election. Palin is being held back until you're "deferential" enough, and certainly doesn't hold you in high esteem judging by her campaign rhetoric.
So what are you going to do, punks? We've seen what you guys did to Al Gore, John Kerry and Howard Dean - we know you can do it.
It isn't hopeless either, from that same poll as above:
"Based on what you've seen or heard about the so-called 'Bridge to Nowhere' -- a 400 million dollar proposed transportation project in Alaska -- which of the following best describes Sarah Palin's role in stopping the project? Palin personally stopped the project by telling Congress 'thanks but no thanks,' rejecting federal funding. OR, Palin dropped her support for the project only after it became clear that Congress would not fund it." (9/10-11/08) - Newsweek
|
| Personally Stopped the Project | Dropped Support
After Clear
That Congress
Wouldn't Fund | Unsure |
| 24 | 41 | 35 |
|
But given the above, and the great focus on the Brooklin Bridge that McCain and Palin are selling to America, I don't think 35% unsure is anything great to hang your hat on either media. Given the numbers quoted above you aren't translating the lies on this story into a broad public understanding of how dishonest Palin and McCain are being in general.
So, I give you a C+ on the Bridge story debunking, and solid F's on Palin opposing earmarks, fighting her own party (while chairing a Ted Stevens fundraising project), or sharing the public's views on climate change. |
STATE BLOGS
