Megan McArdle has a post today in which she takes the media to task for what she deems "Palinoia." She writes:
Y'all well know that I really don't like Sarah Palin. In fact, more than one of you has yelled at me about this. And I find the whole schtick about how the media is just a bunch of elitist hooligans who are out to get her really grating. That's why I really wish the media wouldn't act like, well, a bunch of elitist hooligans who are out to get her. I've coined a new phrase to cover the situation: Palinoia. It's when you think people are out to get you, and then they do their best to justify your erroneous belief.
As examples, McArdle instances the absurd Newsweek cover of Palin, and the fact that the Associated Press had a bunch of people fact-check her book. There are a few issues here. McArdle's point has a germ of truth, but I don't see why either is an example of elitism. The sexist cover was a sign of sexism, which tends to exist regardless of the political party in question. (Presumably Palin types would argue--at moments when it suited them--that an elitist outfit like Newsweek would be too politically correct to even flirt with sexism, but I digress). The AP fact check was not very good (i.e. the news service seemed to be checking a lot more than facts), but Michael Calderone explains why 11 people were involved, and the explanation makes sense. McArdle wants to know "how come Palin's book gets a team of fact checkers, when books by other politicians get the standard gloss?" which is indeed a good question, even if Palin has shown a particular allergy to the truth. My guess is that it has more to do with interest in this book, although McArdle is right that more politicians deserve the scrutiny. Finally, she adds:
And really, guys, if you'll just back off a little, she'll do the job for you. Have you seen that resignation speech? How about we all act like she's a former governor and vice presidential candidate, rather than Public Enemy #1?
Exactly. I do think the people who view her with the utmost seriousness should take a deep breath. The woman may once have been close to the vice presidency (and John McCain was getting old), but she will never be president now. She is nothing more than a symbol of the decline of the GOP and the "intellectual" organs of conservatism. By all means, I say, let's mock and laugh--especially when she reveals her contempt for urban, "elite" America--but it's not worth pretending that this is a matter of the utmost importance.
P.S. Damon Linker has some interesting thoughts here.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (5)
I don't like to agree with McArdle, but I think she's basically right. I counted 4 different liberal sites that came out (on release day!) with their own index of Going Rogue, which were pretty obviously not done because her writing deserves being read and organized. I don't think you can wave away the AP's "fact checking" so easily either. She's obviously trying to provoke a response, and that so many grown-up professionals fall for it is pretty sad.
I don't like to agree with McArdle, but I think she's basically right. I counted 4 different liberal sites that came out (on release day!) with their own index of Going Rogue, which were pretty obviously not done because her writing deserves being read and organized. I don't think you can wave away the AP's "fact checking" so easily either. She's obviously trying to provoke a response, and that so many grown-up professionals fall for it is pretty sad.
McArdle is right today, but only if you ignore how close Palin came to becoming the Vice President (and maybe President) a year ago. Isn't it the media's job to scrutinize Palin even now so that neither she nor anybody like her is ever again seriously considered for such a position. And doesn't such scrutiny serve to expose the unseriousness, the cynicism, of those who were and continue to be her most ardent supporters, including Kristol and the others and the WS.
McArdle is right today, but only if you ignore how close Palin came to becoming the Vice President (and maybe President) a year ago. Isn't it the media's job to scrutinize Palin even now so that neither she nor anybody like her is ever again seriously considered for such a position. And doesn't such scrutiny serve to expose the unseriousness, the cynicism, of those who were and continue to be her most ardent supporters, including Kristol and the others and the WS.
"... but she will never be president now."
And surely the Chancellor will never pose a threat to the rest of Europe now that he's so busy digesting the Sudentenland. Come off it. The woman is a serious contender for future presidential nominations by one of the only two parties that supplies our presidents. Sure, Americans have a decent record of not electing Palinesque candidates, even when they're nominated three times. But then again, nobody's perfect, and while it's great that William Jennings Bryant was not elected the second or third time around, Dick Nixon was.
However, the newsmedia in general should employ less snark on all stories, Palin included, and it should also learn to look u ... view full comment
"... but she will never be president now."
And surely the Chancellor will never pose a threat to the rest of Europe now that he's so busy digesting the Sudentenland. Come off it. The woman is a serious contender for future presidential nominations by one of the only two parties that supplies our presidents. Sure, Americans have a decent record of not electing Palinesque candidates, even when they're nominated three times. But then again, nobody's perfect, and while it's great that William Jennings Bryant was not elected the second or third time around, Dick Nixon was.
However, the newsmedia in general should employ less snark on all stories, Palin included, and it should also learn to look up facts in advance of interviews -- what used to be called "reporting" -- in order to challenge politicians of all types when they attempt to bullshit the public. If the newsmedia operated in such a way, Palin would be much less a threat to win a presidential nomination, and thus the presidency, and she would not be able plausibly to play the victim.
And, its bad for progressives to let Palin be the manifestation of the kind of challenger they will face next year and in 2012. The game would seem to easy and so donations to progressive candidates would dwindle, and then conservatives can pitch the ball to someone else and let them run right up the middle where there is no coverage.
What I want to know is why no one is calling out Mary Matilin for being a terrorist. Yes, a terrorist. Because the garbage she produces sells like hotcakes and it floods the publishing market, which can lead publishers to believe there is more demand for published materials than actually exists, which is of course terrible for the industry. I hope publishers ... view full comment
And, its bad for progressives to let Palin be the manifestation of the kind of challenger they will face next year and in 2012. The game would seem to easy and so donations to progressive candidates would dwindle, and then conservatives can pitch the ball to someone else and let them run right up the middle where there is no coverage.
What I want to know is why no one is calling out Mary Matilin for being a terrorist. Yes, a terrorist. Because the garbage she produces sells like hotcakes and it floods the publishing market, which can lead publishers to believe there is more demand for published materials than actually exists, which is of course terrible for the industry. I hope publishers take out Matilin's numbers when they examine their graphs.
I cant help but think, on reading this, how much more appropriate the heading of this article would be if "Palin" were replaced by "Obama".
I cant help but think, on reading this, how much more appropriate the heading of this article would be if "Palin" were replaced by "Obama".