After Palin's tremendous pushback, will journalists keep challenging the candidate?

What may be most frustrating about watching TV coverage of this election is the thimble-level depth it offers.

In the Democratic primaries, it was questions about flag pins and God's will. After John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, it was questions of work/life balance that men rarely face.

And now, following Palin's aggressive, almost sneering rebuke of Barack Obama during her acceptance speech Wednesday, I fear the next lapse will be journalists' failure to challenge inconsistencies. Newsweek's Howard Fineman most recently called it "working the refs" -- complaining about media coverage so much that the media gets intimidated and embarrassed out of asking tough questions.

As I watched Palin's speech, I kept marveling at the GOP's ability to offer arguments directly opposite positions they had taken weeks ago, with little pushback from members. And I wondered if the GOP had worked the refs enough to ensure that few big-name journalists challenge all the inconsistencies.

In speeches long on jingoistic attacks and short on substance, Palin and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani stirred emotion to obscure the facts, urging followers to ignore those awful journalists who keep insisting on consistency.

For example:

-- Volunteering at the PTA or a church is okay, but Obama's work as a community organizer earns a sneering insult?

-- McCain was dismissive of Mitt's Romney's experience as a governor six months ago, but now it's fine for Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat from the presidency after less than 2 years running one of the least-populated states in the union?

-- When Obama delivers a speech with few policy points, it's empty rhetoric. But Palin's speech Wednesday, mostly built around attacks on Obama, was somehow proof she's ready to be vice president?

-- According to Palin, John McCain's a courageous maverick for choosing a political unknown to serve as his vice president. But Obama's short time in Washington makes him a dangerous choice?

I expect truth to be the first casualty when politicians enter tough campaigns. But I also expect the press to challenge inconsistencies and gaps in logic -- even when it earns harsh criticism. Will we see journalists find the stamina to sort through all the BS to challenge candidates on both sides as many Americans are just beginning to pay attention?

While you think on that, check legendary former GOP speechwriter and ace columnist Peggy Noonan stepping in it by forgetting the first rule of TV: Always assume a microphone is open.

*

Comments

[DUNCAN]

PALIN: MS HUBRIS, USA
In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of knowledge combined with a lack of humility. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and nemesis in the Greek world. The proverb "pride goes before a fall" is thought to sum up the modern definition of hubris. In reference to someone being in hubrity: hubrity is a fulfillment of being hubristic or a continual behavior of being prideful. Victor in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein exudes hubris in order to become a great scientist, but is eventually regretting this previous desire. Faustus in Christopher Marlowe's play Dr. Faustus exudes hubris, all the way until his final minutes of life.

[Wenalway]

"Here's your eloquence: it's been my experience that, as soon as a diversity of candidates are seriously considered for any job, the diversity of hiring goes up noticeably."

I'd say that's more being incredibly obvious than eloquent, but it passes.

This is coming up now because you're calling for the media to challenge inconsistencies when the media have shown no ability to do so. If anything, they thrive on them. The call for quotas is a major example.

Just remember: Shun quotas. Hire and support the best people all the time, and you can't go wrong. Don't take the lazy way out.

[Oscar]

As far as Palin goes, I was wondering this; she gets a ton of mileage by telling the media to back off her family. This sounds fair, I most definatly would not want my family investigated and judged if I was in the public eye; however, she and RNC have no problem using them as props for making her look wholesome and all-american. Fair is fair, if they are going to be thrust into the spotlight, then put them in the spotlight.

Sounds like they are playing the media and get made when they miss a note.

[Eric Deggans]

Here's your eloquence: it's been my experience that, as soon as a diversity of candidates are seriously considered for any job, the diversity of hiring goes up noticeably.

That does not mean assigning specific jobs to be filled by people of specific ethnicities -- that kind of diversitfication is mostly laziness.

that does mean challenging people to constantly make sure they're open to a wide array of peopel all the time. that can't happen if you're only hiring the friends of people you know -- or, in showbiz terms, hiring actors you've worked with before or peopel who are represented by your pals from college.

Why we're talking about any of this in a post about Sarah Palin's speech, is something which mystifies me...

[Wenalway]

Calling for non-specific people of specific races/genders to be in certain positions = quotas.

Let's not go hiding now. Either defend the position eloquently or admit its flaws.

[Eric Deggans]

Mike, there are some posters on this blog who continually translate my talk about diversity issues into a call for quotas. I'm assuming that post was some kind of knock for something I've written in the past....

[Mike]

Does anybody know what the previous poster is talking about? What quotas?

[Wenalway]

Interesting. But the media, including Eric, threw logic out the window a long time ago when it took the lazy, mindless approach of calling for quotas, etc. We'll see those stories the rest of this week; they're generally written by ineffective journalists who refuse to do real work.

Also, Rudy Giuliani (note the spelling) has no credibility. The best response media could give would be to refuse to use his name or to quote him ever again. We'd all be better off.

And RIP to the proper use of "it's" and "its." We hardly knew ye.

Just remember: Shun quotas. Hire and support the best people all the time, and you can't go wrong. Don't take the lazy way out.

[Lin Young]

Good points Eric. I agree with you that the press needs to continue asking tough questions even if critisized for doing it. Gov. Sarah Palin worked as a journalist and is well aware of the fact that the press is there as a government watchdog, not to be impressed by a politician. But she was speaking to an impressionable audience that might not be aware of the fact that the press is there to keep politicians and government officials accountable to the people. She's pandering to that ignorance in trying to discredit the press.

Another wise crack I didn't appreciate from the RNC was the mistatement that Sen. Barack Obama's early career work, decades ago for a few years straight out of college, as an urban organizer was somehow work for the Democratic political party machine in Chicago. That lie was an obvious attempt to discredit Obama's work with, and on behalf of, Chicago's inner city poor and people who were losing jobs and health care, which was anything but party politics.

Your point on the RNC lauding Palin's "experience" while denigrating and marginalizing Obama's experience is a good one. And it should also be remembered that Palin's work for the PTA and her church, was also for her personal benefit because it benefitted her kids in the school system and her family and friends at church, while Obama was working on behalf of disadvantaged strangers as an urban organizer.

I hope journalists will be able to serve aggressively in their public watchdog role during this campaign and sort through all the BS to give voters credible information. But all the media budget cuts and downsizing will make doing that an even harder task.

The GOP's attacks, lies and a personality war are no substitute for the Democrat's focus on issues and substance. Journalists need to keep an apples to apples comparison in front of the readers and peel back the GOP's oranges to mangoes BS. You've done a good job of that in this blog, keep it up!

[David Jenkins]

Great post, Eric. Love the examples. Would love to see a running list of the BS.

[former tampanian]

I didn't watch much of the DNC, but I have been watching some of the RNC. The thing I find amusing over these last few days is the GOP calling Dems "the angry left." I also keep shaking my head at the question-dodging turned Obama-attacking that has been going on. Like the Campbell Brown clip you posted the other day shows, no matter how often Republicans are hammered about inconsistencies, policies and experiences, they will flip the script to bash the Dems. They are brainwashed robots with only one agenda...smear the opponent.