Ignore GOP pros; listen to readers (updated)

September 8, 2008 By

trig4634 bg2 1 We’re beginning to get into the next stage of Hurricane Sarah, where professionals in the mainstream press (and those who study them) have a chance to catch a deep breath and ask that question that must be asked: “What in the heckfire is going on here?”

The Chicago Tribune ran such a piece the other day by journalism professor Don Wycliff of Loyola University, Chicago, who used to be the newspaper’s public editor.

The headline was simple enough: “The GOP’s beef with the media.” Yes, it’s about Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain and all of those people chanting, over and over, “NBC!”

Here’s a crucial section of the essay. I’ll get to my main question in a minute:

… (To) the extent that Palin’s and the delegates’ demand is that the media simply cease and desist investigating Palin’s background, it will not happen and it should not. You can’t present the nation with a gift horse, as McCain did in naming Palin, and demand that people not look it in the mouth — at least until Wednesday, Nov. 5.

The media, as lucky full-time practitioners of the role of citizen that the 1st Amendment protects, have a duty to explore the life and activities and attitudes of a person in Palin’s position and make the results public in responsible fashion. The question is whether they did so in this instance. In the case of the Palin daughter’s pregnancy, I think they erred in several ways.

He starts with a Reuters report that allowed an anonymous McCain aide to try to tie all of those acidic baby Trig rumors to partisan Democrats — not just to the anonymous wackos in the netroots. Does it help when campaigns are allowed to play by the same rules as out-of-control bloggers? No, you’re supposed to have evidence and on-the-record sourcing.

While continuing to take shots at the GOP, wherever possible, Wycliff does make this comment:

But the larger question is whether the daughter’s pregnancy was a legitimate news story at all. Should responsible, mainstream news organizations — the free-fire zone of the blogosphere is another matter entirely — have battened onto the story and run it?

I think not.

As Obama himself said, the pregnancy story tells the American electorate nothing substantial about Palin and her fitness for the office of vice president.

This brings me to my main point (and I’ll keep reading elsewhere to see if this thesis holds up). I think some of the voices in the mainstream press are making a mistake. They are confusing the orchestrated cries of GOP spinpeople with the howls of outrage out in red zip codes from ordinary readers.

The bottom line: Press people need to sift through the noise and find out what ordinary readers and consumers are upset about (if, in fact, many of them are upset).

Don’t chalk this firestorm up to the nasty GOP professionals. Some people are mad, but not about the press vetting Palin. They want to know if the press actually needed to vet the baby.

UPDATED: I mean, honestly, why would readers be angry about some of the Palin-hate websites that are out there. Like this one. Yes, I know that this is not MSM or even netroots. But, really, this ocean of baby-hate is hard to fathom.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Academia, Evangelicals, Journalism, People, Politics, Sex, Social Issues
About TMatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • FW Ken

    Forgive me if I missed something, but at what point did someone demand is that the media simply cease and desist investigating Palin’s background?

    It would be nice if the reporting is relevant and accurate.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    That’s part of my point.

    You have to hear the howls accurately. It’s self-serving to only listen to the spinners.

  • http://www.geocities.com/hohjohn John L. Hoh, Jr.

    I look at McCain naming Palin as a VP candidate if not genius at least good chess. That man is wily!

    No doubt in the vetting process McCain knew about Bristol’s pregnancy. TrooperGate couldn’t have been off McCain’s radar. Heck I knew that much, that there was this specter with a state patrol firing. That’s why the naming of Palin surprised me. I suspect it will prove to be a non-issue else McCain wouldn’t have chosen Palin.

    So, what does McCain do? Wll, one can’t pick a pefect candidate with no issues. None exists. We’re all frail, sinful humans. So he names Palin with the following points:

    1. Mrs. Palin has a baby with Down syndrome. The candidate espouses a pro-life position not as a theoretical position but as a position she herself had to wrestle with. The pro-choicers want abortion available for such instances, when a child would be deemed to have a chance at such a fate (although medical science isn’t always all that accurate in this area, but if you want national healthcare we can’t be too choosy, right?).

    2. Bristol Palin, teen mother. Again, another “case” that is made for keeping abortion legal. While some may argue this was poor vetting, I believe it was a calculated move. Again, Ms. Palin’s response differs from Mr. Obama’s. Mr. Obama does not want his daughters saddled with “a mistake.” Mrs. Palin offers support as her child becomes a mother.

  • http://www.InklingBooks.com/ Mike Perry

    The real point is that the media’s investigations of Palin, clearly searching for dirt rather than balance, goes far beyond any they have done of Obama and Biden. After many months of campaigning we know less about Obama and his failings from them than we know about Palin after ten days. But for the Internet and talk radio, the American people would know almost nothing about Obama.

    Biden, while he may have been active in politics for decades, remains an unknown to most Americans. Even more telling, Palin is loved most by those who know her best, Alaskans, with popularity ratings as governor of over 80%. That’s a more accurate picture of her than anything you will find on NBC or in the NY Times. Biden can’t even do well as a presidential candidate in his home state of Delaware, where he’s best known.

    –Mike Perry, Seattle

  • pgcfriend

    I agree that the press is either confused or do not want to hear what regular folks are thinking about her. I for one want to know every detail about her policies. This is what I want to see. I would love to see articles that contrast her views on issues with McCain’s. Hopefully more on her positions on issues will come out in the days to come.

    Who in the world does not want her policies checked out????? That was truly made up from something.

    I know I was past livid at how quick the media was ready to suggest that she was claiming her daughter’s baby as her own. It is stuff like this that makes me distrust the vast majority of reporting. Where are the journalists???

  • FW Ken

    Well, Anderson Cooper on CNN just announced that Palin is making her religion part of her appeal (close to a direct quote). An interesting spin by the media since I haven’t heard her say anything about it. Again, did I miss something?

  • pgcfriend

    I normally do not even attempt to read vile trash like the link you referenced in the update which was added after I wrote my last response. HOWEVER I would like to include one of the responses on this despicable blog entry that appears to capture what is happening as a result of the amazing vile attacks:

    I would suggest that people DO NOT flag this blog as offensive, even though it is shameful beyond description. This blog should stand as a memorial to the unprecedented smear campaign that turned the tide of the 2008 election. When these whiny liberals crawl out of bed on November 5th and start pointing fingers at each other, this blog might serve as an example of what NEVER TO DO AGAIN.

  • Jerry

    Don’t chalk this firestorm up to the nasty GOP professionals. Some people are mad, but not about the press vetting Palin. They want to know if the press actually needed to vet the baby.

    I’m far from a fan of hers, but such behavior causes me to think more and more that journalistic ethics is an oxymoron and yellow journalism is seen as necessary for ratings success. Sadly there’s a market for such things as we’ve seen from all the attention celebrities get for their misdeeds. And in the end, ratings (profit) are driving the type of “reporting” we’re seeing.

  • Jerry

    Comment on the update – that evil pile of dog poop is matched by the racial slurs and poop coming from the other side such as the racism of even Republican Congressional Representatives.

    If people are truly disgusted by it rather than just using such manure to reinforce their biases, it’s past time to condemn it as evil no matter what side wallows in it.

    Way beyond commenting on the media, but I have to pray: May all those who love the Light, who love the Truth join together to reject darkness no matter where it is to be found. May God’s Almighty Word soon clean the world of the darkness that now envelopes it.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    I was at the Republican Convention when the crowd booed the MSM. I didn’t hear them yelling “NBC.” In my section, they were shouting, “Shame on you.”

    And in the section below me, they were simply booing and wagging their fingers at CNN’s Candy Crowley and all the other reporters seated right in front of them.

    The whole hall was full of reporters so I’m sure each reporter section got it’s own special boo.

  • EricW

    On my monitor the baby in the picture looks jaundiced.

  • Dave G.

    What I got from it all – and I’m no journalist, so forgive if it’s wrong – is that the media was caught off guard. It seems to me that the media likes to be ready. Logical. They were ready to run with a Romney, or Huckabee, or Lieberman, or some other choice. Interviews, background stories, and the lot. For some reason, they seemed to have been caught completely off guard. Just their continual ‘she’s a nobody’ chant. I knew who she was. I heard things about her. I also know she was mentioned as early as summer as a potential (long-shot, but potential nonetheless). So is it that the media itself just dismissed her and didn’t do the homework? And when she was picked, they had nowhere to go but Google “Sarah Palin” to find anything, and were reduced to making horses’ you-know-whats as they dragged everything from her daughter to the question of working moms through the mud? Certainly the Democrats are flat-footed, and still haven’t figured out how to deal with this move (that certainly, as of now, has put them in check). And the clock is ticking. But the media seemed just as blind-sided, and I think the coverage into areas that you would think media – trying to appear fair and balanced – would never have gone, is a result of their lack of being prepared. Perhaps it was less a result of actual bias (though I wonder if they were caught by as much surprise about a liberal, pro-choice Democratic candidate if they would have thrown down their guard in such a way).

  • http://knapsack.blogspot.com Jeff

    I’m fascinated that in a state where Palin has 80% approval ratings, the only people eighteen different media outlets can find to put on camera are those who don’t like her, got beat by her in elections, and her current and former pastor, carefully edited and cushioned by tendentious commentary (did you know the “End Times” is a “violent occurence”? I guess it would be from their POV.).

    Are her friends and supporters just all that shy? Live too far up rural, piney roads? Did their large dogs and larger rifles make reporters nervous about going up to their houses? Seriously, it looks as if they went all the way up to Anchorage and then still haven’t gotten more than a mile from the airport. How does this constitute “looking into her background” by only talking to opponents, AK university professors, and embittered professional office holders?

    On the other hand, watching the parade of pummelling has motivated my generally apolitical esposa something fierce. And i do mean fierce.

  • Rathje

    I’m reminded on when John Stewart took the hosts of Crossfire out to the woodshed on the air. He accused them of not having a real debate. The hosts protested that they did present both sides of the issue. Stewart replied that it wasn’t so much that they were one-sided as it was that they were “part of their campaign strategies” (“they” being the opposing political machines).

    All Crossfire was doing was uncritically accepting the soundbites and assumptions of the political campaigns as to what issues should matter and be debated. It never seemed to occur to anyone that the “issues” that the campaigns wanted to fight about were possibly not the ones that SHOULD be debated about.

    Stewart’s accusation of “partisan hackery” was exactly correct. The show went off the air, but CNN and others still conduct business exactly the same way that gave rise to Crossfire. They rely on the political campaigns for cues on what must be discussed. Rarely does the media seem interested in pursuing any investigative journalism that isn’t first suggested by Washington insiders.

    Back when I was researching Japanese government in college in the 90s, we did a section on Japanese news media. Major Japanese news organizations had a level of access to politicians that US newspeople can only dream about. There would be regular news conferences with politicians where the politicians would tell the reporters almost everything that was going on and what they thought about it. There was a level of candor from the politicians that would be very surprising from any US politician – even one like McCain.

    But this came at a price. The reporters got the total inside story, but they were not allowed to talk about it. Otherwise they risked being “cut out of the loop” and not getting to attend those vital press conferences. So it would happen that the Japanese MSM would know about a high-ranking politician hiring hookers for months and yet never report on it. It would always fall to one of the major tabloids to break the scandal story – only THEN would the MSM feel free to report on it as well.

    Ever since then, I’ve always wondered just how much the American press corp is depending on Washington for its marching orders and how much US reporters imitate their counterparts in Tokyo.

  • Oskylad

    The Baby-Hate website reminds me of the Coya Come Home letter that destroyed the political career of U.S. Rep. Coya Knutson in 1958. Coya’s husband ostensibly sent a letter pleading with her to come home from Washington to take care of him and their son. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/05/16_gundersond_coya/

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Nice grab from history, Oskylad.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    The media is blaming the McCain campaign for springing a surprise on them. However, her name had been on many lists dribbling out of McCain headquarters. It was the bigoted liberal sexist media that decided she wasn’t worth their time to “vet.” After all, McCain would never pick a woman to run with. … So now their mission seems to be to use all their resources to destroy her.

  • Dave

    Jeff (#13), if you will Google Anne Kilkenny Alaska you will be directed to a NYTimes article from 9/3, as well as a viral email from Ms Kilkenny (who is also interviewed briefly in the article).

    In the article you will find reasons why people who dislike Palin might be found simultaneously with a high approval rating.

  • Dave G.

    Deacon John,

    No. It is an example of the media believing their own stereotypes about those on the Right. Beliving that they really are the sexists, they dismissed the idea of Palin to the point they did no homework on her whatsoever. That has to be the reason, because she was a name that was mentioned on several occaisions, and was already being named an up and coming star in the Republican party. That is all the reason I can think that they were caught so flat-footed.

  • Dave G.

    Oh, and speaking of media coverage. I have had to, in recent days, check the stories to see where the stories end and the editorials begin. I just read an AP story about Palin’s refusal to be interviewed. No problem with the story topic, but it read so biased, where each and every point was a dig at Palin, while lifting Joe Biden up as a great example, that I went back to the beginning to see if it was labeled ‘viewpoint’ or ‘editorial’. Nope. It was a real live news story. I have seen the carnage of the Palin nomination, and it is the MSM’s reputation.

  • http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/SusannahCox Susannah

    “Rarely does the media seem interested in pursuing any investigative journalism that isn’t first suggested by Washington insiders.”

    Many of these folks in the press *are* Washington insiders. They are part and parcel of the political machine. I remember once hearing Rush Limbaugh (obviously not a MSM member, but still) state that he won’t work inside the beltway because the whole ethos sucks a person in, and the temptation to court the good opinion of the folks there can be too strong.

    I imagine the cyber-rolodexes of inside-the-beltway reporters haven’t changed a whole lot over time. Only the people occupying the most frequently called offices, think tanks, and universities change, over the decades. It’d be interesting to do a survey on a news program like “All Things Considered” and see which sources are tapped, and how often.

    Consider the huge Obama-campaign-assembled team that has descended on Palin’s home territory; the chance to get a purported scoop from “a little bird” must be an irresistible temptation to media people.

  • Stephen A.

    The media have a very selective, and short-term memory. Either that or they choose not to remember:

    “I have been very clear to my campaign. I do not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally,” Mr. Obama said. “If I find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired. And I have been absolutely crystal clear about this, and I have been clear about this for a very long time.”
    - Barack Obama, Dec. 15, 2007

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/obamas-vow-on-opposition-research