The Inevitable Bursting of Sarah Palin's Media Bubble - I Hope

I am tempted to insert the entire post from Politics USA: The Inevitable Bursting of Sarah Palin's Media Bubble written today by Sarah Jones. Please go read it in its entirety as it is one of the best I have seen on the subject of Sarah Palin's newest book and her relationship with the media.

Although the book is not due to be published until next week, several pages have been "leaked" and posted on Palingates and elsewhere. It should be noted that publishers release portions of books expected to generate a lot of interest in order to generate buzz and increase first day sales. Starting out at the top of the NY Times bestseller list is always a goal. On a side note, Sarah posted this tweet, clearly demonstrating her misunderstanding of copyright law, fair use law, and the First Amendment.

Yes Sarah, it is absolutely legal. Gawker also wrote at length about the excerpts as well as the ongoing controversy about Bristol and Dancing with the Stars, and she, in response to their posting pages from her book, and their "attacks" on her family, sent out this tweet:

 

This tweet was taken down almost immediately, but as she has yet to learn, the internet is forever.

Sarah Jones notes that Sarah Palin appears to be stuck in the past, 2008 to be specific. She uses race to attack the President, and remarkably, Michelle and Meliah Obama as well.

"Anyone who is surprised by this has not been paying attention. Sarah Palin is the great divider, a lowest common denominator among an already low-brow movement of proud to be ignorant, pseudo-rebellious anarchists who are super angry about the democratic process which renounced them in 2008."

Jones discusses how Palin has been talking about Reverend Wright, the supposed lack of qualifications of Obama, and other issues that have been thoroughly put to rest by anyone but her.

"None of these strategies worked in 2008 and beating these dusty memes only makes Palin look like the emotional retrograde she is, still clinging to her wounds from 2008 and sure that if enough people hear her, they will denounce Obama. Ms Palin is unaware that in real America, blatant racism doesn’t play well. And she is also unaware that our President and his family are too self-disciplined to even acknowledge her embarrassingly juvenile attempts to engage them."

[...]

"...Palin will not know what hit her because she is still stuck in 2008, seething with jealousy and outrage that she lost to a black man.

And this is why race will be her “issue”.

Palin is going to run for President, and this is how she will do it. Why? Because she has nothing else..."

Palin is the ultimate martyr and victim flashing a bit of thigh, appealing to the KKK type crowd.

"So Sarah Palin’s campaign has already begun and it will consist of trashy, unspeakable things that will hurt your soul, pain your heart and make you question the sanity of your country. And when no one pushes back hard enough against her outrageous claims (they will debunk the lie, but fail to expose the projection), you will find yourself curling up into a ball of horror at what your country has become."

 She limits herself to venues that are supportive, and reporters that let her set the tone, not believing that no one will let her get away with that should she run for President in 2012. She claims that being on Fox everyday gives her "exposure" not realizing that:

"Exposure is what celebrities do. It is not the same thing as taking questions and talking policy, in other words, interacting in live time with the fourth estate. Neither Facebook nor Twitter nor Fox are vehicles for the fourth estate to do their job. As a supposed journalism major (in spite of the fact that no one at her last college remembers her and we have not been gifted with proof of her degree), Palin should have at least cursory knowledge of the job of a reporter. Not many on Fox PAC will ever be accused of being a reporter. Twitter is not a reporter. Facebook is not a reporter."

Providing some well-earned criticism to the mainstream media, Jones notes that:

"While they will still miss the larger points, they’ve had time to get to know Palin’s reputation for lies and they will not want to be humiliated again. The press scrutiny of the VP candidate is nothing compared to the scrutiny she will face as the top of the ticket. If Sarah Palin thought the media was cruel to her when they asked her what she read, wait until they ask her why she lied about not having healthcare, about Troopergate, about the AIP connections, about Death Panels, the people who died under her administration or about her belief that Iraq bordered America"

Her conclusion is a direct message to Sarah, and indirectly to the media. It is one that I hope the media heeds, although I will not hold my breath.

"And that’s not even the juicy bits. Welcome to 2012, Ms Palin. If you insist upon bringing your scourge of hate upon this country, don’t think we’re going to sit back and take it like we did in 2008. Buckle up, sweetie. The spotlight is on you, where you’ve always wanted it, but I’m not sure you’re going to like it. Your dreams of stardom may well turn into a nightmare. You are about to learn what it feels like to be attacked for real."

Please do read the entire post here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

It's Not the Democrats Fault. Or the President's Fault. It's the Media. Still.

Okay. To continue piling on the media, who is so deserving, here is a short post from Bob Cesca:

"On Morning Joe just now, Tom Brokaw was complaining that Americans don't know what's in the healthcare reform bill. Scarborough laughing the background. As if this is the fault of the Democrats and the president.
You know what, Mr. Brokaw? This is your fault, sir. You and your colleagues.
The television news media has a responsibility to explain policy and, specifically, this legislation to the American people, and the television news media has failed in lieu of the Letterman and Tiger Woods underpants party. The television news media has failed in lieu of manufacturing "smackdown" drama. The television news media has failed on so many levels to deliver the readily available details of healthcare reform to the American viewing public.
So when you guys sit around and bullshit about how people don't know anything about policy, don't blame anyone but yourselves."

Normally I just excerpt, but this is short, to the point, and I couldn't say it any better.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

We Don't Know Enough Yet About Nidal Malik Hasan

Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist, opens fire at Ft. Hood in an enclosed area on unarmed men and women, killing 12 and wounding over 30 people before being brought down by a police officer. Throughout the day, we were given numerous news reports, most in error, but the name of the shooter was released early along with the reports of his death. I find it interesting that although they were not sure until hours later that he was solely responsible, and that we were not told until hours later that he was alive, we were given his name almost immediately.

Why?

Could it be because it is a Muslim name? If so, what were we supposed to make of it?

I know what the conservative media is making of it. On the furthest fringes of the right, World Net Daily claims that Nidal Malik Hasan advised President Obama. That lasted less than an hour as the headlines didn't even match the story they wrote. Evidently, he attended - as did hundreds of others - a conference. His name was listed in the program because he had sent in his RSVP. See how easy and what little it takes to set off the right wing fringies?

The news shows - even my favorites - were full of experts commenting on the state of Nidal Malik Hasan's mental health, while others suggested that this was a terrorist attack, a jihad because he is a secret Muslim extremist. Still others discussed PTSD, either pro or con - one 'expert' claimed that a psychiatrist could not possible suffer from PTSD because 1) he had never been in combat, and 2) he was a psychiatrist who treated PTSD so therefore could not get it. sigh. This one, offers the theory that even though Nidal Malik Hasan must be mentally ill to behave in this manner (although not PTSD), it must be an act of terrorism because he has a Muslim name.

Unfortunately, what I am seeing most often all over the net today is the latter. This is scary and very dangerous. Today, we had a mass shooting in Orlando, Florida. That gunman was also caught. I don't recall, during the approximately three hours it took before he was in custody, any media source discussing the suspected shooters religion or organizational affiliations. No one wondered - since he is white - if he might not be a Tea Bagger, or a right-wing extremist, even though they're the ones exhibiting the most violent behavior in this country lately.

Regarding Nidal Malik Hasan, all or none of the theories set forward may be true. We just don't know yet. At last report, he is in a coma. It is reported that he is a Muslim, that he was born in this country and raised as a Muslim. I don't know if that is true, but it has been consistently reported from several sources, so it sounds credible. It is possible that he had a kind of secondary PTSD. I know that people, especially young people and people who are first responders elsewhere, who spent a lot of time watching the towers fall over and over again on television, experienced, if already vulnerable, a form of secondary PTSD. As a counselor, I know that I am vulnerable from the stories that I hear if I do not ensure that I guard against it. Every responsible counselor knows that they need counseling when they are in the kind of job that Nidal Malik Hasan was in.

As far as his Muslim name? I have family who have Muslim names and are Christian (there are Christians in the middle-east). And even if they weren't, we do still have freedom of religion in this country. I find it incredible that Muslims can be attacked and harassed in America, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, we send our children to give their lives to build their countries. When our soldiers are there, they understand that not everyone with a Muslim name is their enemy. Does no one see the disconnect?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Why Sarah Palin Matters & How the MSM Fell Down on the Job

I've written more about Sarah Palin in the past couple of days than in the past year, leaving it for the most part to the truly excellent Alaska bloggers who have it covered. I've written recently, because of a couple of areas that I haven't seen covered in the way that I would like to see written about and because there's just so much to say.

Like many writers, I've had many people wonder over the months since the election why I cared about her at all. I have been asked, repeatedly, why she mattered. The election was over, the GOP lost, she's an idiot, no one would ever elect her to dog-catcher, so why pay attention to her ever again? People asked me why, not living in Alaska, I cared what she did?

She does matter. Perhaps now more than ever. Her poll numbers are rising. Donations to SarahPac are rising. Ethics charges continue and despite what she says, her resignation changes nothing as far as staff hours or state dollars spent on dealing with them. What does change, is that she can travel, gather in speaking fees, write her book (or rather, have it written for her) and pose for as many pretty pictures as she wants and not have to disclose a dime. She retains an enormous popularity despite (or because of) the recent attacks on her.

It's interesting that one of the reasons that she resigned is because of the mainstream media, yet, she has made herself available to them to an incredible extent since her Friday resignation. She has invited the networks to Dillingham for interviews, taking reporters out fishing and giving one on one's to TV and print reporters - some of whom she had threatened to sue the day before if they dared to report that there were rumors about her. When asked about her comments calling Hillary a whiner last summer in reference to media attacks, she immediately became defensive, stating that her case was completely different since the attacks on her were accusations that had been proven wrong whereas Hillary was just whining about normal, reasonable criticism that she should expect as a part of the process. hmmm.

So, why does it matter? Andrew Sullivan has written an excellent post today exploring this issue far better than I could ever do, stating something I have tried to say for a long time. The supposed 'liberal media elite,' or mainstream media, doesn't do its job. They don't ask the questions they should be asking. They simply report what they are told. They serve as stenographers to power, repeat what they are told, and when given an opportunity to interview someone, are careful to ask softball questions (to use a sports metaphor so beloved of Ms. Palin) in order to not offend and perhaps lose future access.

In his post, Sullivan says that:

"McCain knew full well that Palin was unqualified to be commander-in-chief at this period of time; and he knew there was no way she could ever learn enough to do the job. So his decision to pick her was pure cynicism and irresponsibility. The MSM knew full well that there were very serious questions about this unknown person's background, lies, mental stability, and secrecy - but they were so terrified of being called biased they refused to do the proper vetting. "

He also says that not only McCain and the press are to blame, but the entire GOP for selecting someone everyone knew was not only unqualified for the job, but dangerous to this country. He quotes Richard Cohen who says:

"Naming Palin to the GOP ticket -- a top-down choice by McCain -- was the most reckless decision any national politician has made in the longest time, and while it certainly says something about McCain, it says even more about his party. It has lost its mind."

This post explains why Sarah Palin matters and why it is important to stay on top of the media and demand that they begin to ask the right questions and that we as consumers expect that journalists begin to demand it of them.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Why the Main Stream Media is Dying

I recently got into a discussion with a close family member about the media. We were chatting about this and that, catching up on various family matters and he mentioned that he had recently watched Meet the Press. When I asked how he could stand to watch it, he replied that although David Gregory was no Tim Russert, he still enjoyed watching. When I then said, blehh, Russert. We got into a discussion of the merits of Russert, with him saying that Russert was a good reporter and interviewer, and me saying the he was merely a mouthpiece for the Republicans and in particular, for the Bush White House. I went into one of my rants about the mainstream media, particularly Russert, being one of the primary reasons we went to war.

He, like many of my friends and family members, chuckled, and said, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree."

During elections, friends say that politics is just a difference of opinion - which until the past 2-3 election cycles, I was willing to admit that it was.

Now? I'm not so sure.

Certainly we are all entitled to our own opinions. We are entitled to voice them. But I find that as I get older I have little tolerance for those whose opinions are just that - opinions - based on nothing.

To me, an opinion is a preference. I like blue over green, cherry pie better than apple. I'd rather go somewhere cold than hot, north than south. I love comedy, drama, theater and film. My secret vice is reality shows, but I'd rather have my teeth pulled than watch sit-coms. Opinions that have a basis in fact, should be grounded in fact.

People used to say that Bush was the man that they'd like to have a beer with, and so voted for him because he seemed the most like them. But why would that make you want to vote for him? There was no evidence linking Osama Bin laden to Sadaam Hussein, yet over 60% of the American people believed that we went to war with Iraq because of 9/11. And still do. Before we went to war, the claims that Bush made in his State of the Union speech and that General Powell made in his speech to the UN supporting war with Iraq, were found to be false. The weapons inspectors in Iraq had found no weapons of mass destruction and in fact, requested more time to search. The "smoking gun" of attempted purchases of yellowcake from Niger and the purchase of aluminum tubes for weapons making facilities were found to be false, before we went to war.

Yet, did the mainstream media report this? Did they emphasize this? No. Whatever the Bush Administration wanted said, they said. They simply reported. They simply served as stenographers for the Administration. Rarely did they question the information they were given. Rarely did they discuss the questions brought up by others and report on the debates that were going on outside the beltway.

When we did go to war, the media wanted to ensure access, so accepted quietly the terms given to them by the military. They bowed down to the dictates of the command structure and allowed themselves to embed--thus permitting the military to screen all images and messages we saw.

When Bush was up for re-election, the media did not question his accomplishments--or lack. They simply reported what he said. Campaign reporting consisted of what each side said. When lies were told, they were repeated in the media. Bush reneged on his National Guard duty, but the media focused only on the problems with the documentation - not the facts contained therein. Swiftboaters manufactured lies out of whole cloth, but the media "reported" them without making any attempt to verify their veracity or provide information on who was providing the money for the ads they made. David Gregory said (to paraphrase) that it wasn't up to the media to question what they were told, but to report it. Excuse me?

The founders included the 1st Amendment in the Constitution for this very reason. So that the journalists would question what they were told by our politicians. So that when politicians lied, they could call them on it. Thomas Jefferson said that "A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free" meaning that the press must be able to work without hindrance from the government in order to allow the people the facts necessary to make up their own minds. Particularly in times of war. It is the role of the media to question what they are told. How are we, the people, supposed to figure out the veracity of what we are told? It is the media that has access to the politicians, to the battlefield, to the documents. It is the media that attends the hearings, the meetings, the briefings. It is the media who observe who meets with whom, who talks with whom, and who benefits from which association.

Instead, it is the media that benefits. It is the media that wants to preserve this status quo and preserve their access. The media that wants to ensure their ticket to the banquets, the dinners, the parties. The media that wants to ensure that it is their phone call that gets returned, their email that gets answered. If they ask the hard questions, question the 'facts' they are told, they put at risk the access they are given and someone else might get their seat on the campaign bus, their seat in the briefing room, and their seat at the party.

Who loses? We do. Whose fault is it? Ours. We don't pay attention. We read our gossip magazines, watch our sit-coms, don't vote, and ignore politics because it's 'boring.' We buy into the Republican mantra that government bad, taxes bad, and believe that we are not our brother's keeper. But if we pick up that phone and call 911, we demand immediate action. We demand paved streets, we demand safe skies, we demand closed borders. We demand that our government protect us, we demand that our food be cheap, safe, and plentiful. We demand that our classrooms be small, and that our children have the best teachers, books, and supplies. We demand that gang members be gotten off the streets, that drugs be gotten out of our schools, and that criminals be locked up forever. We demand a lot. We have been raised to believe that among all the rights that we are entitled to in this country, that the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, includes the right to a job, education, safety, and help when we need it.

We just don't want to pay for it. We want all of this. We demand all of this. And we continue to say, government bad, taxes bad. I would bet that a majority of the people out waving teabags voted Republican in the last election. I would bet that many, many of the people who lost their homes and jobs in the past year have been staunch Republicans for most of their lives and continue to believe that they know best how to spend their own money. I would bet that most of the people who have lost their pensions, their savings, and their homes, continue to believe that the Republican Party and the ideals of small government and low taxes is the answer.

And the media continue to tell this story. The media--owned by just a few global corporations--report the stories that support the ideology of the Republican Party. The pundits continue to talk to each other on the talk shows and 24/7 news shows, and tell us what the critical issues are, even though most of America has an entirely different agenda. They think we care about the issues they discuss, and tell each other that Americans don't want to prosecute torture (we do), that we just want to move forward (we don't), that Americans don't understand the mess on Wall Street (we do), that we can't possibly understand the historical significance of the tribal structure in Afghanistan and Pakistan (we do), and that they can continue to lie to us about what things really mean and that we won't understand--and we do.

They wonder why the newspapers are failing. They blame us pajama-clad bloggers. Their world has narrowed to Washington D.C. and a 24-hour news cycle. They debate each other and party with each other. When a new administration comes to town, they court their attention and tell them the rules to the game and how it's played. Pretty soon, campaign promises are left behind and the insider dance begins again. We lose faith in our politicians, again. It isn't the bloggers at fault. It's the media hanging fast to their status quo who have forgotten what journalism really means. If the media fails, this is why.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Chattering Class and False Dichotomies

What is it with the mainstream media? They set up these false dichotomies playing off Obama and Cheney as if it were a true debate. Obama is the sitting president. What he says matters. He made an extremely important policy speech yesterday that whether we liked it or not, explored the reasons behind his recent decisions regarding Guantanamo, the continued use of military tribunals, and his intention of continuing the practice of indefinite detention of some detainees. The fact that he is now referring to them as prisoners of war, the fact that he is now suggesting the creation of a new 'legal framework' designed with the cooperation of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to ensure appropriate oversight does not change the fact that he is not only continuing the practices of the Bush Administration, but is in fact, extending them. This is important stuff.

So what does the media do? Every article and news show that discussed Obama's speech compared it to Cheney's speech right afterwards. Photos showed the two side by side. The media loves conflict and if there is none, they make some up. Cheney was on the attack, defending himself, preemptively blaming Obama for any future terrorist attacks, while Obama (rightly) explained that he was trying to clean up the messes left him by the Bush Administration. He would have been more successful if he had actually advocated a clear break and change in direction, rather than a continuation of some of its worst practices, but the media created a sense of conflict by featuring Cheney and giving him the airtime.

Cheney (and Gingrich et al) can give all the speeches they want, but the networks do not have to cater to them. Just as during the campaign they made no effort to report the veracity of what the candidates said ("...if we did not stand up and say, "This is bogus," and "You're a liar," and "Why are you doing this?" that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."--David Gregory) the media continue to simply act as stenographers to those they consider news makers by giving them airtime and print space. They repeat what was said, give time and space to what they consider to be an opposing point of view--their false dichotomy--and assume that the people watching will then be able to determine who is right. Not for them to provide data with which to consider those opposing points of view. Not for them to actually provide opposing points of view from unbiased sources.

Consider who is out their speaking in support of Cheney. Rush Limbaugh. Now there's an unbiased viewpoint. Newt Gingrich. Now Newt is demanding an investigation of Speaker Pelosi, not because of the truthfulness or not of the use of torture--or enhanced interrogation. No, he is demanding an investigation of the strawman that he has built. According to Newt, the Speaker is corrupt and incapable of leadership because she has impugned the integrity of the CIA. Integrity. Something Mr. Gingrich should know something about. After all, he paid a $300,000 fine for lying to Congress during an ethics investigation after which he resigned his position--as Speaker--and his position in Congress.

And who else is making the rounds--and being given airtime--in support of Cheney's position? Who is an expert commentator and qualified to speak to the veracity of his words and actions? Who have the networks decided is the best able to debate on his side when they create a left/right discussion? Why, (daughter) Liz Cheney of course.

Let's see. In the past 9 days, (and never mind print media), Liz has appeared on:

• Morning Joe on May 12
• Live Desk on Fox on May 12
• On the Record on Fox on May15
• Fox & Friends Saturday on Fox on May 16
• This Week with George Stephanopolous on ABC on May 17
• Your World on Fox on May 20
• News Live on MSNBC on May 21
• Hannity on Fox News on May 21
• Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN on May 21
• America Morning on CNN on May 22
• Morning Joe on MSNBC on May 22 (and this time, for the whole hour)
• Good Morning America on ABC on May 22

And we continue to listen to them? We continue to give credence to these pundits and this chattering class as our village idiots tell us what is important, and who? The Bush Administration operated from fear. They created a climate of fear and continue to cultivate a sense of fear to avoid being called to account for their actions. The Republicans in Congress have a single agenda, NO. With no other plan, they spend their time building strawmen and pointing fingers away from the real issues. They hope that if they convince people that the real issue is terrorists running free in our cities, we will forget that they are the ones that created the climate that made them terrorists in the first place. Fortunately, we are smarter than that.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

WaPo Facilitates Push Polling, Again.

Well. Can't get the American people off the subject of torture? Build a strawman. Instead of discussing whether or not Bush/Cheney were correct in their tactics, argue about who knew what, when (specifically, Speaker Pelosi). Don't like the results of the polls that say most of the American people want prosecution of those who tortured and those who approved the torture? Change the polls.

Resurgent Republic who I don't want to link to, just add the dot com yourself, has established itself as a new player in the Washington polling game. Building on the success of push polling in the 2000 election cycle, they are a group of hardcore Republicans including Hayley Barbour, Mary Matalin, and others, who seek to reframe the torture debate by returning to the use of 'enhanced interrogation' and once again providing stenography services to the mainstream media. Chris Cilliza at the Washington Post The Fix disappointingly wrote extensively of these latest poll results - claiming 53% overall felt such tactics were justified compared to 34% - without bothering to discuss the actual poll itself.

Remember, poll results are useless unless you know 1) who was polled, 2) how many were polled, and 3) the questions asked.

Consider this question.

"Congressman A says America should never use harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, because they are torture. Those techniques undermine our values, hurt our standing in the world, endanger American troops who might be taken prisoner, and yield little or no useful information that could not be obtained by other means."

"Congressman B says that, while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11."

The first part includes the word torture. The question uses inflammatory, negative terms - undermine, hurt, endanger troops, and then goes on to tell us that they 'yield little or not useful information.'

The second part does not use the word torture. It uses words that are not inflammatory but uses words meant to make us feel good - exceptional, protect, justified, innocent, and then appeals to our emotions by referencing the lives lost on 9/11.

This is called push-polling. You are presented with 2 choices - good or bad, right or wrong that appeal to your emotions. The question is framed so that there is only one possible "right" answer if you are not a monster. Neither address the issue at hand, that being: various elected officials including Dick Cheney have acknowledged that the used of torture, sometimes called enhanced interrogation to make us feel better about it, was used. Do you believe that investigations should occur into who is responsible? Or, something along those lines.

The group at Resurgent Republican are long-term Washington insiders, experienced campaigners and experienced pollsters. They know how to write a poll to get the results they want, knowing full well that people tend to follow the polls. People don't like to take a stand on their own. If they think most of the country believes in something, they are more likely to believe that as well. If they've been uncertain, a well-designed push-poll will push them write over the edge. The above question is one used in the poll Cilliza cites and is the least toxic.

A 'good' polling question is a simple statement, usually based on something in the news that the subject is likely to know about, and is written in a way that does not appeal to the subject's emotions. Loaded words are never used in a properly prepared poll unless - as in Cheney's use of enhanced interrogation - you have a pre-determined result to achieve and must design a poll to elicit the answers that you seek.

The media, again, is not doing its job when it simply reports the results of a poll like this without questioning the methodology. The only information Cilliza included in his article is that the poll included "critically independent" voters. But how many people were polled? Where were they from? How were they selected? What stratification process (if any) was used? Remember - percentages are meaningless numbers if you don't know how large a sample was used. Sixty percent of 5 people is still 3.

Once again, the mainstream media perpetuating the serial stupidity of our fellow citizens as they swallow unquestioningly what the Republican Party wants fed to them.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k