Palin's Bad Relationship with the Press

Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, has written a thoughtful article about Sarah Palin's relationship with the press. It's worth reading in its entirety, so I'll only excerpt one paragraph:

... Palin’s disdain [for the press] goes beyond the bitterness of a public figure who has been burned by the press. Plenty of others have endured the pain of mainstream-media excoriation but have remained civil and responsive. What these politicians have in common, though, is enough confidence in the strength of their ideas to imagine that they can make a case through the press, if not actually to the press. Perhaps one key to Palin’s dislike of the news media is a streak of intellectual insecurity, or a trace of impostor syndrome. Her best defense against being found shallow is a strong offense. ...

So, does anyone think she'll run? With this sort of relationship with the press? Read what Keller had to say about Ronald Reagan.

The Press Begins to Question Its Coverage of Sarah Palin

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank has written "I'm declaring February a Palin-free month. Join me!"

New Yorker magazine's Amy Davidson responded with "No Pledge on Palin."

Andrew Sullivan says, "No surrender" in "A Palin-Free February?"

Rather than debate whether Palin should be covered, it might be better to decide what is worthy of coverage.

A tweet? That's 140 characters, max. Can anyone address a foreign policy question, domestic legislation, taxation and a host of other issues in 140 characters? Probably not. But things like a meeting with a newspaper's editiorial board or an in-depth interview would be worth covering. So would an announcement that she's going to run for the Republican nomination. So would a news conference.

A Facebook post? Probably not, because, like a tweet, there isn't an opportunity to ask questions, to clarify what she means.

The one thing that distinguishes Sarah Palin's interaction with people is that it's all one-way communication. Perhaps nothing Palin says should be covered unless it involves some dialog, a little give and take. Let her meet the press and face the nation, then what she has to say may be worth covering.

For a long time now, this blog hasn't covered Sarah Palin's tweets and only rarely her Facebook posts, and, in the aftermath of Tucson, there may be fewer posts. There aren't as many things to blog about anymore; for example, the Palin Family Circus News may never appear again, because there no longer seems to be anything amusing about Sarah Palin. We even started Blogging towards Bethlehem, our Palin-free space, so we could continue to blog about important, interesting, even fun things.

Palin and the Press: A Failing Marriage?

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat characterizes Sarah Palin's relationship with the media as a failing marriage. In "Scenes From a Marriage," he writes:

In every twisted, wretched, ruinous relationship, there are moments so grim, flare-ups so appalling, that they offer both parties a chance to step back, take inventory, and realize that it’s time — far past time, in fact — to go their separate ways.

For the American media and Sarah Palin, that kind of a moment arrived last week. ...

... The whole business felt less like an episode in American political history than a scene from a particularly toxic marriage — more “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” than “The Making of the President.” The press and Palin have been at war with each other almost from the first, but their mutual antipathy looks increasingly like co-dependency: they can’t get along, but they can’t live without each other either

For their part, the media manage to be consistently unfair to the former Alaska governor — gossipy and hostile in their reportage, hysterical and condescending in their commentary — even as they follow her every move with a fascination bordering on obsession. (MSNBC, in particular, should just change its name to “Palin 24/7” and get it over with.) When commentators aren’t denouncing her, they’re busy building up her legend — exaggerating her political acumen, overpraising her communications strategy, covering her every tweet as if she were the Viceroy of Red America, and spinning out outlandish scenarios in which she captures the White House in 2012.

Palin, meanwhile, officially despises the “lamestream” media. But press coverage — good, bad, whatever — is clearly the oxygen she craves. She supposedly hates having her privacy invaded, yet her family keeps showing up on reality TV. She thinks the political class is clueless and out-of-touch, but she can’t resist responding to its every provocation. Her public rhetoric, from “death panels” to “blood libel,” is obviously crafted to maximize coverage and controversy, and generate more heat than light. And her Twitter account reads like a constant plea for the most superficial sort of media attention.

It’s a grim spectacle on both sides, and last week’s pointless controversy was a particularly low point. So let me play the relationship counselor. To the media: Cover Sarah Palin if you want, but stop acting as if she’s the most important conservative politician in America. Stop pretending that she has a plausible path to the presidency in 2012. (She doesn’t.) Stop suggesting that she’s the front-runner for the Republican nomination. (She isn’t.) And every time you’re tempted to parse her tweets for some secret code or crucial dog whistle, stop and think, this woman has fewer Twitter followers than Ben Stiller, and then go write about something else instead. ...

Douthat divides those obsessed by Palin into Palinistas and Palinoiacs. This morning, the Times' 538 blog attempted to refine Douthat's classifications. There, Nate Silver considers Douthat's Palinistas and Palinoiacs to be people with strong opinions about Palin, and he compares the strong opinions people have about Palin with their opinions of other politicians.

Douthat's characterization of last week's controversy as "pointless" may depend on the definition of "pointless." That it continues speaks volumes. To the extent that the "controversy" was about rights and responsibilites, it was not and will never be "pointless." Sarah Palin has a right to put rifle sights over a congressional district, but should she? Some believe that with rights come responsibilites.

It's interesting that Douthat considers praise of Palin, as though she were "The Viceroy of Red America," to be unfair to her. That is a different take on her over-the-top supporters. It never occured to me that comparing Palin to Reagan (or any other president) is unfair to her. It just seemed wrong. Of course, it is unfair to her, in the sense that she isn't comparable to any president; she cannot possibly live up to the expectations created by the comparison. Sarah Palin isn't presidential, at all.

It is very gratifying to read Douthat's words on Palin's prospects and his advice to the press: "Stop pretending that she has a plausible path to the presidency in 2012. (She doesn’t.) Stop suggesting that she’s the front-runner for the Republican nomination. (She isn’t.) There are no truer words than those.

Now, for a shameless plug: Don't forget to visit our new blog, Blogging towards Bethlehem. It's about a lot of things -- whatever we find interesting -- but not about Sarah Palin, unless it's a post like this one or snowbilly's last post, just below this one, which are high altitude views of all things Palin. And it won't be non-stop comic books and films; I promise. At times a brief respite from all things Palin can be a relief.