Don't equate dailykos with the media. I didn't see anybody in the mainstream media criticizing her daughter or Palin. Maybe they also pointed out that Palin does not support sex ed, which has been shown to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies. If they did I do not see it as an attack but rather they were just pointing out her stance on an issue that was hitting close to home for her. If you really think they attacked her you gotta show me some proof.
website lists some instances. Maybe some of those were genuine mistakes. But their track record, when it is the truth versus sensationalism, is not encouraging. I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
This has some interesting points that I never would have thought of.
^From Sbane: I don't remember any outlet covering the sex-ed thing either.
Attacking the media only works when they are attacking you. If they are just normal reporterstrying to get information to write some stories, attacking them is stupid.
Like it or not the sensationalist media determines a large amount of public perception and the public likes those sensationalist stories (why the public doesn't watch C-SPAN). Not holding a single press conference, Q&A sesh, or more the one real interview until tomorrow is being protective, not sticking it to anyone, and that's how it's going to be seen.
Maybe the hope is that by stopping Palin from getting interviewed, she can remain aloft and maintain her star-power? If she gets pulled down to what her position on the mortgage crisis is, what her old church just did, and so on, she might become more of what Obama has become: a generic politician.
But the media has been getting really rankled. The reporters who sit idly, carted around on the press plane but denied access to events, and can't write a single story for two weeks are less than pleased and are starting to become suspicious.
They'll forget it all, McCain hopes, after the debates when Palin has been fully briefed on all the issues and finally grants a few Q&A's, but I've written a bunch about their recent attacks on the media too, and this has gotten ridiculous. Attacking the NYT (calling it no longer a journalism, and falsely citing things its failed to cover), and then accusing one of Politico's top reporters and doers of being "in the tank" for Obama is absurd. Denying CNN their mild and solid-reporting editorialist to cover Karzai, a fairly mild change overall, is absurd. Punishing CBS for their reporter asking Palin a question is absurd.
Obama's been treated FAR worse than McCain/Palin has in the last week or two by FOX/Drudge/etc. but he's not going to war with the outlets. It's not about the candidate vs. the media except when the media oversteps its boundaries, then you call foul, the rest of the media gangs up on the offending outlet, and everyone backs off, giving you some breathing room. Calling an extreme foul when there is none is bad, bad, bad.
The mass media really gets on my nerves a lot. They spout celebrity gossip, cry loudly when something bad happens to a white female, ect. That's why it makes me happy when someone tells those clowns off. It makes me think, "Yay, someone's just as pissed off as me."
But I know that NBC's coverage of Sarah Palin has been so horrible, that the McCain hasn't granted them any interviews in a long while. If doing that gets them to refocus themselves even a little, I think it serves a purpose. If it doesn't, oh well. There have got to be some honest journalists out there who deserve an interview with a high profile politician.
I know, I know. I'm extremely cynical towards the media. But I like it that way.
