Are Sarah Palin's Pratfalls Newsworthy?

In his "Politico: Yes, Palin degrades our discourse, but she drives traffic" column at The Washington Post, Greg Sargent wrote, couching his statement in an "admission" by Politico, that "Frivolous items about Sarah Palin do degrade our discourse, but we need to do them, because the simple fact is that people click on them in droves." He was writing about Politico's article, "The Age of Rage," which, although it hardly mentioned Palin, did make some trenchant observations about political news coverage:

Obama put it best earlier this year, after Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “you lie” during the president's State of the Union speech. "The easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude,” the president told ABC News.

Indeed, at first Wilson seemed embarrassed and apologized for his outburst. But within days, Wilson and his opponent were both flooded with campaign contributions; Wilson took in more than $700,000 in the immediate aftermath of his outburst and was a guest of honor on Hannity’s show and Fox News Sunday.

It’s a well-traveled path: Flamethrowers Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) join Wilson on the list of Top 10 House fundraisers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

At POLITICO, we have an unusual vantage point on this new reality. We are both an enabler (in the eyes of some critics) of the deterioration of political discourse, and a target of it (as we try to defend our values as neutral journalists amid constant criticism from activists who think we fail at neutrality or are disdainful of the goal in the first place).

There is some truth on both counts. Like all news sites, we are aware that conflict clicks. More traffic comes from an item on Sarah Palin’s “refudiation” faux pas than from our hundreds of stories on the complexities of health care reform or Wall Street regulation.

Sargent's post followed his recent post, "Sarah Palin plays media for chumps," which recalled another Politico story, "The Sarah Palin-media co-dependency."

I don't know what the question is, let alone the answer. Most news organizations are businesses, but so is The NY Times, which rarely runs Palin "news." Are loud-mouthed politicians rare birds in the sense that they're honestly expressing what they think and, so, worthy of a lot of coverage?

Politico states that they're driven by clicks; Sargent seems to agree and states that that is the reason stories about Sarah Palin's pratfalls need to be covered.