First, I'm sorry that I'm writing another post about politics. This was too good to pass up.
Second, I've been wondering about something lately. I am fairly certain that you, Gentle Reader, are aware that Sarah Palin gave a pretty bad interview to CBS's Katie Couric back in September. There were a lot of parts that didn't make Sarah Palin look that great, but one part in particular has been criticized more than the rest. When Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what the Governor reads, and that the Governor declined to give what many have considered an acceptable answer, saying that she reads, "everything."
Out of all of the questions asked in the interview, even when Sarah Palin declined to give Katie Couric an example of when Senator John McCain acted as a reformer, this answer is the one that has been rehashed over and over to the point where I personally stopped watching whenever a news commentator mentioned it. I mean, is it really that big of a deal that she didn't give a list of every single magazine and newspaper she subscribes to? Did Couric expect her to start quoting Shakespeare? Sure, the governor could have given a better answer, but do we really need to scrutinize this small moment so closely? Do we have to keep asking her again and again, each time incredulous of her answers? And why does MSNBC, which didn't even conduct the interview, be the top attack dog?Thinking about this, I realized why MSNBC was so enraged: it was, essentially, a question about how much Governor Palin cared about the media, and her answer made it at least appear that she was indifferent, at best.
Of course, MSNBC isn't doing very well right now, financially speaking. It wasn't doing well ratings-wise for a very long time, especially when you consider that until 2006, their main rivals, FOX News and CNN, got three to four times the ratings they did. To their credit, they have increased their ratings in the past two years, but now they have another problem: MSNBC's parent companies and affiliates are the ones who aren't doing that great, with even the mighty GE feeling the pinch of the financial crisis. The New York Times is hurting even more, not to mention Newsweek. Since all of these corporations are tied together, it would seem to me that MSNBC would have needed to find out a way to get GE, The New York Times, and Newsweek to be more profitable back whenever they found out that this was a problem.
And then came along the Governor Sarah Palin/Katie Couric interview.
If I were an executive of one of those underperforming companies, I would think that the one Sarah Palin quote would be an excellent opportunity to make media, especially print media, look pretty good. If Sarah Palin could be branded as a non-consumer of my product, and if the public was made to believe that being a non-consumer was stupid, irresponsible, or perhaps even dangerous, than maybe I could push a few more subscriptions. And since most people aren't the governor of a state, if her actual experience and record could be downplayed enough, it would work even better to my company's advantage.
Given that logic, the real turn of events seems awfully convenient. Remember, Sarah Palin isn't a part of the social class that your average national level politician is, in fact, she was the only person on either ticket that wasn't a millionaire. That, combined with Governor Palin's lifestyle makes her a perfect symbol for middle-class America--the target audience.
In the end, it seems to me that MSNBC isn't discussing Sarah Palin's qualifications or character as much as it is exploiting this one instant to promote themselves enough to keep their heads above the water. The question is: if they're exploiting this, what else are they exploiting for their own benefit?
Regards, best wishes, and integrity in journalism,
-Cecily Jane
4 comments:
Well done...I like your though process.
Sarah Palin read everything. Maybe I ought to send her a B of M.
Yes, it was a giant coup when Couric landed the interview. So?
I sincerely doubt Couric or anyone would have imagined that her softball questions to Palin would have been flubbed so badly. Palin´s deer in the headlight look after her answer, and the way her eyses kept sort of glazing over is what struck many Americans as a red flag. It is painful to watch. Thank goodness, Tina Fey and Jon Stewart have eased us through! They are the true patriots.
Deo,
I know that it was a bad interview. I'm not arguing that it was good. I'm not even trying to defend Governor Palin on that point. That's why I said, "Sarah Palin gave a pretty bad interview to CBS's Katie Couric . . . ." It was the fourth sentance in the post, so I'm sorry that you missed it.
What I was trying to point out was that it seems awfully strange that the "what do you read" question has been attacked more than any other part of the interview. As I wrote in the post, she also couldn't tell Katie Couric why John McCain was a reformer, which I think is a bigger deal.
Do you know what was even a bigger deal? When Sarah Palin couldn't answer as to whether or not her running mate was a Marxist. Don't you remember? You probably don't, because it in fact wasn't Sarah Palin who gave that awful interview, it was Vice President-Elect Joe Biden. It's too bad that the media doesn't care about that.
Not knowing whether or not Sarah Palin reads The New York Times: minor deal.
Not knowing whether or not John McCain actually has a record of reform: bigger deal.
Not knowing whether or not a president and vice president-to-be ascribe to a philosophy that lead to the deaths of thousands upon thousands: BIG, BIG deal.
Post a Comment