When Politicians Debate Fictional Characters, It's Time for a Reality Check

Sarah Palin's recent problem with "Family Guy" has some historical precedents. It was in the early 1990s that some politicians began to have a problem distinguishing between reality and fiction: they actually began attacking fictional characters. In Michiko Kakutani's Fiction and Reality, Blurring the Edges, we're reminded:

... Vice President Dan Quayle attacks Murphy Brown, the fictional anchorwoman played by Candice Bergen, for undermining traditional family values by deciding to become a single mother, and in this week's season premier of the show [week of September 25, 1992], Murphy Brown strikes back, having already elicited even further condemnations from Mr. Quayle.

President Bush [The Elder] speaks of wanting to see an America that looks a lot more "like the Waltons and a lot less like the Simpsons," and in a subsequent episode of the popular television show, Bart Simpson retorts, "We're just like the Waltons. We're praying for the Depression to end, too."

Even Ross Perot, who mocked Mr. Quayle's remarks about Murphy Brown, has gone on the record as condemning the television character Doogie Howser for having sex with his girlfriend ...

And Ms. Kakutani concludes:

In the end, it's dangerous to mistake fictional representations for the real thing. To do so is to ignore one of the most basic impulses behind art -- the impulse to order the chaos of regular life, to transform it into something more perfect, more shapely and more satisfying, to turn it into something with a beginning, a middle and an end.

Worse, to erase the boundaries between reality and fiction means forsaking our ability to make distinctions. It means living in a dimly lit world of shadows, mirrors and self-delusions, content with approximations and soothing mispresentations, instead of continuing to try to discern the truth. One ends up like Don Quixote, Cervantes's would-be knight whose sense of reality was shaped by popular chivalric romances -- a hapless, if well-meaning fellow who believed he could model his own life on that of his favorite literary heroes and who ended up tilting at windmills.

The New York Times has published three articles about Sarah Palin's dust-up with "Family Guy," here, here, and here. Sarah Palin, of course, took confusing reality with fiction to a new level.

Michiko Kakutani is a Pulitzer Prize winning critic for the New York Times.

Strike three! You're out, Sarah Palin!

In writing and in speech, Sarah Palin has a problem with citations. She cites others' work, out of context, to support whatever she's chosen to write or talk about.


Strike One

Defending 'Death Panel' Claim, Sarah Palin Misleadingly Quotes Op-ed That Criticizes Her

In a September 8, 2009 Facebook note, Sarah Palin posted her written testimony for the New York State Senate Aging Committee. In her testimony, she defends using the "death panel" phrase and insists "its accuracy has been vindicated." To support this false claim, Palin cites a piece written by the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. She doesn't mention that Robinson's very next sentence calls her "death panel" claim outlandish and false. ...

Strike Two

Palin Advocates War With Iran After Apparently Misunderstanding Buchanan Column

Citing a column by Pat Buchanan that clearly argues against conflict with Iran, Sarah Palin on Sunday suggested that a war with Iran would be good policy and a boon for President Obama's 2012 reelection hopes. ...

Strike Three

Palin Takes the Easy Road on Climate Change

... Palin's post [on climate change] is a prime example of such an attempted diversion. She writes, "The IPCC’s supposedly definitive report proving the theory is riddled with serious errors," while bulldozing over the fact that those errors don't speak at all to the core of climate science. In reality it's a perverse sort of ad hominem attack on the IPCC and the 620 scientists who authored the 4th assessment report. The argument goes: they've made these errors, therefore everything they've said must be an error. But, in reality, none of these mistakes undercuts at all the scientific consensus that greenhouse gases have raised and will continue to raise global temperatures, a belief held by nearly all climate scientists.

She then tries to back herself up by suggesting that the former head of the IPCC, Greenpeace UK, and the Natural Environment Research Council are in her corner. They clearly are not. They have attacked the IPCC because they believe, rightfully so, that these petty errors can be used by opportunists to distract from the central and unwavering truths of climate science. Alan Thorpe says as much in the article to which Palin links:

We open ourselves up to trouble if we start getting into hearsay and grey literature. We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, so it is concerning that the IPCC has strayed from that. ...

There you have it. Sarah's out. Time to retire the side?

Flightseeing In Alaska

Journeys

Alaskan Road Trip, 500 Feet Up

Scott Dickerson for The New York Times - A flightseeing tour of Alaska.

By SARAH MASLIN NIR

Published: February 21, 2010

[I]n Alaska, a vast state covering 663,267 square miles, much of the terrain is completely cut off from roads. By conventional means, a tourist can get only so far — or rather, so near. Standing at the end of the Homer Spit, I’d reached the end of the road: a few feet in front of me, the pavement dropped off into the sea.

Slideshow

Above it All in Alaska

Sarah Maslin Nir also wrote Sarah Palin: Going rogue in Wasilla

Wendy Kaminer on Ghostwriters

Wendy Kaminer is a lawyer and writer. Recently, she wrote, in Ghostwriters, Speechwriters, and the State of Our Union,

... [F]reshman Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown is "writing a book," and I suppose that's an accurate statement if "writing a book" means hiring someone to write a book for you. As Brown's spokeswoman says, he "will work with a collaborator," indicating that like most celebrity athletes, pop stars, and politicians, he will be the "author" of a book (a memoir, no less) that someone else has written.

But the degradation of authorship, hardly a new phenomenon, does seem a most appropriate one today. When political inexperience and ignorance are practically qualifications for office, why should literary experience or talent be required of authors? People who can't or won't govern are elected to high office, so why shouldn't people who can't write win lucrative contracts to author books? ...

... [C]andidates for offices that require extensive knowledge, intelligence, reason, fairness, and nuanced judgment often boast of their ordinariness (at least you can't accuse them of false advertising). Scott Brown posed with his truck; Sarah Palin introduced herself as a "hockey mom[.]" ...

Ordinariness is supposed to signal the candidate's authenticity, but authenticity, in politics or publishing, is carefully constructed by agents, consultants, and other marketers--with the full cooperation of voters and consumers. (Voting, as many have observed, has devolved into consuming.) The construction process is surprisingly and disturbingly transparent. ...

... It's no secret that Lynn Vincent ghostwrote Sarah Palin's book, but her critics and detractors alike have treated Palin as both author and writer anyway. "She writes with sensitivity and affection," the Wall Street Journal's Melanie Kirkpatrick opines. (Actually she writes with Lynn Vincent.) ...

... Politics matters. Celebrating Ronald Reagan for what we knew to be Peggy Noonan's eloquence mattered. Political consultants openly fashion "stories" and "narratives" about candidates, as if they were fictional characters engaged in metaphoric quests. And we oblige them by reacting less like citizens than members of an audience, willingly suspending our disbelief.

Many leaders have used speech writers and ghost writers, but every thoughtful, intelligent one has the capacity to write for himself or herself, simply because they are able to think for themselves. We do need to know what and how candidates think before we vote for them, because they're going to be making decisions on our behalf, if they're elected. We shouldn't have empty vessels making decisions that will affect our lives and the lives of others. Perhaps we should give more weight to what candidates say during in-depth interviews, press conferences, and substantive debates, as well as what they wrote before trying-out for the big leagues.

Continuing with Wendy Kaminer's observation that voting has devolved into consuming, we might all be better off if the schools taught children to think critically about advertising. It could begin with taking apart toy and food ads, so they would grow up understanding how they're influenced by advertising and be able to see through it, appreciating it as entertainment that is sometimes done well, sometimes poorly, rather than the truth.


Here's Wendy Kaminer's website.


There are several blog posts concerned with the false narrative constructed by Sarah Palin. You can find them on the sidebar, by scrolling down to the Mythbusting Sarah Palin section.

PROOF! Sarah Palin Doesn't Write OR Read Her Facebook Posts - UPDATED

On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, Sarah Palin wrote signed this statement on Facebook:

Women’s Rights groups, like NOW, commendably call out advertisers and networks for airing sexist and demeaning portrayals of women that lead to young women’s diminished self-esteem and acceptance of roles as mere sexed-up objects.

On Thursday, January 28, 2010, Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteren:

I mean, there are so many offensive commercials out there and, um. There's commercials out there that belittle women and demean them and make them feel like sex objects and I haven't heard a whole lot of protest from N.O.W. on that. H/T Bree Palin and a Guest commenter.

Tuesday, she commended N.O.W.; Thursday, she slammed them — for not doing what she had praised them for doing on Tuesday!

Who wrote the Facebook post? Why wasn't Sarah Palin familiar with the post's contents?


Update: Here is the snapshot of Sarah Palin's Facebook Post on Tuesday:










Update: Listen for Sarah Palin's statement on Thursday, about the 2:12 mark:

Wasilla's Light

At Gryphen's, there is a story from The National, a newspaper in the United Arab Emirates. In The National's story, about Sarah Palin's book signing in Wasilla, there is a photo of Wasilla's Mocha Moose, during full daylight, and a photo of Jessica's Beehive Beauty Shop in low-light. The National's Mocha Moose photo reminded me of a photo of the Mocha Moose made in low-light by Bill Hess. Seeing The National's photo of Jessica's beauty shop reminded me, too, that there can be some beautiful light in Wasilla.

Here's The National's Mocha Moose photo, where Sarah Palin drives-through:


Here, Bill Hess has made a photo of the Mocha Moose when he visited at another time of day:

As I pulled up to the drive-through at Mocha Moose for my
afternoon coffee break, ...

And, here is the low-light photo of Jessica's Beehive Beauty Shop, where Sarah Palin has had her hair done:

Frank Flavin's photos are from a story about Sarah Palin's book signing, in Wasilla, Alaska.

Bill Hess covered the book signing, too. Bill Hess has seen Russia from Alaska! Bill Hess' blog — Wasilla, Alaska, by 300 ... — can be found on the blogroll.

It Was Fact-checked!

What? Going Rogue was fact-checked?

No! We're not fools. Me and Mrs. Palin was fact-checked!

We can now read the story as a series of episodes out of Levi's life with the Palins.

We can now ask, "Who was present in each episode? Who could verify this?"

Remember! It's not necessarily someone we're told was present.


How do I know this?

Levi Johnston encountered Meghan McCain at the 2008 Republican National Convention:

The night Sarah made her speech, Willow and I were in the hair room. One of the hairdressers was working on Willow’s hair, and the other was doing mine, when Meghan McCain walked in and asked if someone could do hers. “I have a show,” she said. One hairdresser told her she would do her hair as soon as she was done and Meghan just lost it. “You’re going to do her hair before you do mine?” She got riled up and started dropping cusswords. “How are you going to do her hair when I have a show in 20 minutes? You guys are supposed to be working for my dad,” she said. “You’re not doing my fucking hair? Maybe you need to get some more people.” Then she left. [A representative for Meghan McCain called Levi’s account a “naïve mischaracterization.”]

If characterizations weren't imperfect — it wasn't a lie, but Levi's naïve and unaware that there is royalty in America — Levi might have told us of his regret about failing to realize that he should have jumped from his chair so Meghan wouldn't have to wait. So, you see, Meghan didn't actually "lose it;" her reaction wasn't unusual, given her status. Anyway, the takeaway from Levi's description of that scene is that Vanity Fair checked-out what Levi told them.

Meghan McCain pushed back! Over a "naive mischaracterization," not a lie.

None of the story's other participant's pushed-back!