Quite a few folks wrote in, saying they wanted to comment on Friday’s Palin post. Commenting should be back soon.
Presume, for the sake of this discussion, Palin wants to run for president. It remains possible she won’t run; she’s a young woman by the standards of presidential candidates, with young children. (This probably goes without saying, but presume that if she runs, she wants to win, and not just make a point or call attention to her preferred issues.)
If Palin wants to win, she will have to win over skeptics. She enjoys a devoted following, but they don’t add up to a majority in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes yet. If she wants to win, she’s going to have to move people who are iffy or doubtful about her now and turn them into supporters.
On the NR cruise, media bias was one of the most frequently invoked points, with the question often asked, “what can we do to stop the media bias and the lies? Why doesn’t our side ever fight back?” The complaint was invoked so frequently that I worry conservatives have come to use media bias as an excuse for when their preferred candidates and advocates just don’t get the job done and fail to win over persuadable voters.
Media bias is not the deciding factor between Republican victory or defeat. We can argue whether the MSM is worse today than it was in the Bush years or the Clinton years or the Reagan years. But few if any Republicans would argue that media coverage in any of those eras was good for the party. Yet despite the coverage of Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Bryant Gumbel, etc., Ronald Reagan won two landslides, the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Republicans enjoyed good years in 2002 and 2004, and of course, we saw this November another example of widespread GOP victories while many are convinced the media is tilted against them. (Ask Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Allen West, or Renee Ellmers how friendly the media was to them.)
Whatever filtering ability the media has, it is not capable of completely filtering out arguments in favor of electing Republican candidates.
The media is not what it once was. The complaint about media bias carried a great deal of weight in an era of three networks and every major newspaper taking their cues from the New York Times. But in an era of many, many competing news sources, are any swing voters persuaded by Keith Olbermann? Rachel Maddow? How about Katie Couric? Christiane Amanpour? The MSM is, bit by bit, being replaced and consumed by alternative media.
This is not to say that the coverage in many major institutions doesn’t drip with a liberal bias, nor that the complaint isn’t legitimate. But it’s easy to wonder what good comes from complaining about it, or at least reason to worry about complaining too often. Of course it isn’t fair. As everyone from JFK to Rush has observed, life is not fair. No presidential candidate gets the coverage they think they deserve. (Obama got coverage that was exponentially better than he deserved, and even he whined like he was unfairly criticized. As President, the whining has continued.)
If favorable media coverage is really important to someone, they probably shouldn’t be a conservative.
Complaints about media bias give off a whiff of victimhood. In the Rush monologue linked above, he says, “Everybody tries to live their life. Some people get a better handle on it than others. Some people think they have no control over their lives. They are constant victims that are always looking to blame everybody else for what doesn’t go right in their lives. Other people don’t have time for that. They realize they only have one life and every day is something to seize, to make the most of.” Yes, many folks in the media are so wedded to the Palin-is-dumb line that they completely misinterpret what she says (1773!) and refuse to run retractions and corrections. So what? How many of those folks have real credibility with persuadable voters anymore? Of course they’re dishonest; it’s the only way to cope with all the cognitive dissonance. Besides, why should a potential president worry what they think of her when the New York Times editorial board meets?
It’s a free country, and Sarah Palin can punch back at her media critics all she likes; the fights continue to enthrall her base. But if she wants to expand that base, she’s probably better off sticking to kitchen-table issues and laying out her agenda and vision. She has bigger fish to fry, and I don’t just mean that halibut.
Jim, you write that Palin could address the media's nearly psychotic bias against her or stick to "kitchen-table issues," but I don't see why she can't do both.
Palin has used humor in responding -- in what you quote and in writing "Hi mom" on her hand after the mock outrage of her having a note written on her palm -- and that's probably the right approach to avoid the appearance of a victim's mentality. Palin might not be the next Reagan, but he was right to deflect the question of his age, in a venue as high-profile as a debate, with his droll comment that he wouldn't make his opponent's youth and inexperience.
But, really, I think your approach is creating an unnecessary Catch-22 for Palin. In a time of soundbytes and viral videos, it's all too easy for the legacy media to reinforce an image of Palin as inexperienced and dim, even when EVERY politician is guilty of similar gaffes.
If Palin doesn't hit back, I suspect that many moderates who don't keep up with politics all too closely will ignore her "agenda and vision" by writing her off simply because of the prevailing narrative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone who believes that the MSM didn't damage Palin is nuts. Pointing out this bias is not whining. You would be surprised as to how many people still believe the MSM is fair. It is important to set them straight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot only are the media not the gatekeepers they once were, but Palin, through her reality show and her facebook page, has widely viewed venues in which she can express herself directly to the public without going through the media at all. Reagan outdid the Dems every time he spoke directly to the people. It just might work for Palin too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUsing Palin simply for the purpose of an example, not correcting the record when the media deliberately portrays it inaccurately isn't a formula for winning the hearts and minds of the undecided, and in the case of Palin, changing the opinions of those who feel she isn't credible. While I don't think it is necessary, (or desirable), to engage these media frauds personally, I don't see the downside in ensuring that the truth becomes a matter of public record. That isn't playing the victim card.
When some voters are actually turning to the likes of the Comedy Channel as their source for real news, (and make no mistake, they are), I feel we shouldn't concede the intellectual battlefield to the clowns. Sometimes, the half-truths are more damaging than the outright lies, and once voters are indoctrinated that ANY potential candidate isn't credible by the media, that lost ground is almost impossible to recover.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeorge Allen would beg to differ. That Macaca moment was a media creation intended to destroy a Senatorial (and potential presidential) candidate. The Washington Compost pushed that story day and night until it sunk him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSarah Palin, to her credit (with an assist from B.Obama) has driven a stake through the heart of 'serious' journalism. By going to any lengths to destroy her and equal lengths to elect Obama they have lost ALL credibility with the American people. May they rest in pieces.
While I applaud Mr. Geraghty's stance of taking the moral high road and ignoring the main stream media, especially as it becomes less and less relevant, you cannot allow media lies and bias to be published without responding. To do so is foolish. It allows a lie to fester in the public domain and become a "truth". In addition, you need to expose the liar as a liar (or biased commentator/reporter) to the public.
"A lie told often enough becomes truth"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse- Vladimir Lenin.
"A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth."
- Joseph Goebbels
Excellent advice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim you RINO hack, Sarah Palin is fighting the media because they lie about her every single day. Big lies.
Then there are nimrods like you who have been in the Beltway too long and have no earthly idea what's going on in the real world. (but feel compelled to put something silly like this online anyhow)
As for electoral votes, please, oh PLEASE name me one state that George Bush won in 2004 that Sarah Palin won't win in 2012, just one. Bush, BTW ended up with 286 EVs.
Now... remember this, several states that Bush won, and Sarah will win, are gaining EVs due to reapportionment, because of population shifts. Also states that Obama might win, will have less EVs, making his already near impossible path to re-election even more difficult.
Of course, all of this is just a baseline.
2012 will be all about Obama. Obama is our worst president in history, having already eclipsed Jimmy Carter, and he has two years to go!
Reagan won 44 states in 1980 and 49 in 1984.
By the time Obama gets done, you can almost bet more people nationwide will be done with "hope and change"
Palin could easily win as many as 40 states and maybe get Reagan like numbers. She appeals to the exact same people as Reagan did.
Past that, no one in the country is better at retail politics than Sarah Palin. Remember, she got in a big fight with the McCain campaign because she wanted to go try and win Michigan, and they blew her off.
You can bet she will at least TRY to win all 50 states.
I suggest you take a trip out into the real world and see what's going on for yourself. In the real world Sarah Palin will defeat Obama handily. In fact, she's the only one who can.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you're underestimating the influence of media bias. It is the first opponent of any national GOP figure, given the importance of earned media in most campaigns. If the next Palin can define themself before running for national office, great. But what happened to Palin wasn't personal-she got full Biting on Shields Berserker Fury from the media because she was both a threat and relatively unknown, meaning that they could shape her operating environment. Given their success at damaging her, I'd expect to see the same thing with similar results the next time a newbie shows up.
For example, before Palin can win over independents by claiming she has a superior foreign policy, first she has to convince them that she never claimed to see Russia from her house. You can assert that conservatives have had good years despite media bias, but to claim that it hasn't cost inches where they counted seems a bit blase.
Personally, I think Palin's great, but she's damaged goods now with little crossover appeal. She didn't do herself any favors with some of her choices (like resigning), but if you looked at Palin's persona prior to her nomination, she was a popular, pragmatic governor of a small state. I will cede that her choices in the past year have made her less electable, but when you're up against a media that runs stories mocking your turkey pardoning photo op, I don't know what choices she could've made that would've preserved her electability. If she can at least stop this from happening again by hanging a lantern on it, I say more power to her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe left wing media never stopped trashing the Palins ever since they stepped out onto the stage in 2008 for the announcement of Sarah's VP candidacy. She has done nothing to deserve this organized effort by the left, through the media, to trash her. I applaud Sarah's use of other avenues in talking directly to the people, in her own words.
pnKearns, add this to that list you have going above:
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse- Saul Alinsky
I disagree. Individually the media is not as powerful as they once was, but COLLECTIVELY, they're just as powerful as they were decades ago. Those who argue that the media didn't damage Bush or any GOP, esp Palin are nuts imho
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can think of two responses to this post--
First, I agree that conservatives should man up and accept reality. Media bias is real and pervasive, and I personally just assume that it consistently pulls the vote about, oh, say, 5 points to the left. Don't bother crying about it, just work on developing alternative communication strategies that bypass the media as much as possible. Reduce the media's cachet with the independents and moderates as much as possible, and find ways to present the conservative message directly. And never think that the media is your friend.
Second, the media should still be called out when they are being egregiously and viciously partisan. The media's treatment of W. and Palin are cases in point. The leftist worldview that informs the media, the entertainment industry, and academia sees political opponents as not merely wrong but evil, and needing to be destroyed. It's not just the bias against Palin, but the treatment has been an order of magnitude worse than usual.
So conservative strategy should be to call them on the obvious biases, because it can lead independents and moderates to question the standing of the mainstream media. Once they see that the press has lost credibility, it opens up new avenues for communicating the conservative message. The goal should not be to try and reform the press, but to expose it's biases, and reduce it's influence.
Or is accountability and honesty too much to ask?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTime will tell if you're right, I think her use of twitter and facebook will give her access to people that otherwise would only get their info about her from MSM headlines and Jon Stewart. In the mean time, her attacks on MSM are highly entertaining.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI want to expound on the media bias thing. It is 100% true that it is a problem, but not the whole problem. What we need to understand when we talk about it is popular culture bias. Popular culture is the crux, popular media / MSM is the outlet / manifestation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember, the GOP nomination comes before the general election. Hitting back at media bias seems like a perfectly sound strategy to me if Palin's first goal is to secure the nomination. It plays very well with GOP Primary voters.
That being said, look at how the "taking the high road and ignore it" strategy worked out for George W. Bush after achieving the office of POTUS. He left office with a 22% approval, and a wasted second term with little or no domestic political accomplishments.
Assuming there really are only two choices (fight back or ignore it); I would say the first is preferable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd like to make a point that I think is often overlooked.
Aside from pure media bias and the double standard applied to Dem/Repub politicians and candidates (which is so blatant that only a committed lefty or dem pol could fail to see it), there is another danger to Republicans from the media.
That is the desire of some of them to get good coverage. This is the absolute downfall of so many republican politicians, I think George W. Bush is a shining example of this. Despite anything he might say about it (and Bush is a very sincere and good man, imho), Bush CARED what the NY Times, et al. said about him. I think this was the problem with George Allen too.
Compare and contrast with Rudy Giuliani, not a social conservative, but a law and order guy. Despite his social liberal bona fides he was trashed day in and day out by the kings of all media in NY City. Yet he never let it break his stride. He fought back against them, but the main point was HE DIDN'T CARE and one could see it. He thought they were idiots (which they manifestly are) and he conveyed that in his responses.
It is very important we find a candidates with this attitude to the press and the MSM.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe prevailing MSM narrative is that all conservative candidates for POTUS are dumb in the extreme, and all liberal candidates for same are brilliant in the extreme.
Obama was so brilliant and together, the comedians originally claimed they couldn't find anything funny to say about him. Sarah Palin is so dumb that they FALSELY CLAIM that they would be ecstatic if she won the Republican nomination, though that is the very thing they fear, even as they continue the drumbeat of daily attacks against this wonderful woman.
Go Sarah!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse.
I agree that media bias is waning simply because the new media has pushed the obvious MSM bias into the limelight. Since people hate being lied to they are abandoning the MSM in great numbers.
Still, to claim it is not the reason for Democratic (or progressive) success is not quite right.
Here is an example. I have a relative who hates Sarah Palin. She claims Sarah is an evil woman who despises real women. My relative had no clue as to how Palin took on the Alaskan ol' boys political network and won. She had no idea she took on Exxon and won. She had no idea that Palin signed the Trans-Canada Pipeline agreement that had languished for years. Why does she believe Sarah is an evil, incompetent, buffoon of a girl? Because she still gets her "news" from MSM sources and those daily doses of MSM bias are reflected in her beliefs.
We won't be able to blame the media forever but for now, they are the enemy of individual liberty. They are pushing a progressive agenda. They should be held accountable for their bias and bigotry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse