Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My colleague Dave Weigel wrote a really prescient post at the Washington Independent last week about Sarah Palin's relationship with the media. He writes:
The problem is that Palin has put the political press in a submissive position, one in which the only information it prints about her comes from prepared statements or from Q&As with friendly interviewers. This isn't something most politicians get away with, or would be allowed to get away with. But Palin has leveraged her celebrity -- her ability to get ratings, the ardor of her fans and the bitterness of her critics -- to win a truly unique relationship with the press. She is allowed to shape the public debate without actually engaging in it.
Absolutely right. Ezra Klein then follows up with an even more brilliant analysis of this phenomenon:
The Palin phenomenon is really based on exploiting a couple of vulnerabilities in the way the media does its job. For one thing, newspapers work very hard to report things that are true, but they are less concerned with whether the overall impression from their reporting is a true impression. Shark attacks, for instance, happen very rarely. But if you report excitedly on every shark attack that happens, people will think they happen quite a bit. You haven't told anyone any lies, but your stories aren't leaving your readers with a true impression of the world.Similarly, it's true that Sarah Palin said there are "death panels" in the bill, but people reading about the controversy over the death panels would not have had a true impression of the bill's contents, problems and virtues. After all, if you can actually have an argument over the existence of "death panels," this must be a pretty bad bill.
One of the jobs the media does is deciding what true things count as news and what true things do not count as news. That should be easy, but since newspapers need to sell copies and cable programs need to secure viewers, there's a tension with the fact that some news is boring, while some not-news is really interesting. Palin sneaks onto the front page because she seems to square that circle: Her utterances seem like news (former vice presidential candidate and 2012 hopeful Sarah Palin says ...) but actually aren't. The continuing irony of all this is that for all the enmity between Palin and the press, no one has a closer and more mutually beneficial relationship than Palin has with the media, and no equivalently powerless political figure receives anything near the free coverage that the media lavishes on her.
An absolutely spot-on analysis of both Palin and how the mainstream media operates.
Politics
Comments
I'm surprised the death panels nonsense hasn't bit her on the ass. How scumy do you have to be to drag your downs syndrome child into shit like that?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 31, 2009 9:29 AM
Palin's strategy, or that of her handlers, is typical when the content of the message is of dubious value. By micro managing what content does get into the popular news stream she can tailor her message to appeal to whatever lowest common denominator is presently salivating.
How successful is such a strategy? I dunno. But I did hear an ad on local radio a couple of days ago breathlessly announcing that you can snag a copy of her groundbreaking and inspiring book for $4.95.
I think I'll wait till the price drops a little more . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 31, 2009 9:34 AM
Dave Weigel states:
I would argue this is not accurate and instead should read, "The political press has established a reactionary submissive position in regards to Sarah Palin's pronouncements."
Palin's exploitation of a dysfunctional mainstream media does not argue for wiliness on her part but merely good fortune. I haven't observed Palin or her posse having the capability to dream up a strategy that has resulted in how she's now treated.
Instead the MSM's coverage of Ms. Palin is merely one of countless examples of how the media puts itself in a box by lazily doing "he said / she said" reports, succumbing to fallacy of balance articles, and not vociferously and voluminously denigrating all media figures who either lie or act in an unbecoming manner by reporting the facts that show how dishonest they are in the same article that contains their quotes. They could be writing in-depth articles and analyses titled, "Sarah Palin: The biggest liar in an industry of liars."
I do agree with Mr. Weigel's primary thesis that he lays out in his last paragraph and I think his article is a good one. I'm merely objecting to his assignment of wiliness on Palin's part rather than what I observe to be both fear of tough questions, a refusal to do hard-hitting investigative work, and her good fortune. Andrew Sullivan should not be the only nationally-known journalist aggregating many though not even close to all her lies; especially since he doesn't have the resources to put those in lies in context by comparing her dishonesty to other political figures. (If there are others I missed, please let me know; he seems to be the only one I see relentlessly bird-dogging this story.)
We saw the same problem with President Bush 41. Even years after we learned Mr. Bush and his Administration knowingly lied about Iraq's WMD capabilities, the press hadn't pushed hard enough on his lies to force someone's hand - either Congress or Mr. Bush himself. In fact I bet far too many people think Mr. Clinton was more dishonest than Mr. Bush when I would speculate that the empirical evidence is far more in Mr. Clinton's favor than Mr. Bush's. Just a year ago a social conservative was telling me that, "at least you know where you stood with Mr. Bush, he gave it you fair and square" - a truly astonishing statement that is not a rare position given Mr. Bush and his Administration's lies on major policy issues that will effect us for generations runs into the hundreds.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 31, 2009 9:48 AM
That is very similar to what David Dayen wrote at Firedoglake (December 30, 2009}:
"I’m beginning to wonder if Politico pays Dick Cheney per link generated. It seems that every couple weeks or so, they send over a dictaphone to his house which he then fills with the usual paranoid rantings and rhetorical shots at the President. Unfortunately, the dictaphone isn’t accompanied by a “reporter” who could then ask Cheney a “question” about whatever it is he’s discussing at the time."
Is Palin learning from Cheney or is Cheney learning from Palin, or did they both attend the same How To Manipulate The Media seminar?
Posted by: Rodney | December 31, 2009 9:54 AM
Rodney @ 4 - While I disagree that Ms. Palin is manipulating the media by design, at least initially; I do think your example of how Dick Cheney is doing it is perhaps the best and most illuminating example of what Mr. Weigel successfully captured in his analysis. That is if one included only those who are knowingly exploiting the media's weaknesses like Mr. Cheney.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 31, 2009 10:19 AM
Is Palin too afraid to let her arguments stand on their own?
She's a coward and an idiot.
Posted by: Katharine | December 31, 2009 10:34 AM
Ed, I'm an optimist when it comes to the Palin 2012 Presidential run. I mean, this tide is going to change when she's actually got some political opposition (instead of a Democratic Party that is more concerned with getting things done, however badly, than winning an election.
When she's running against other politicians, this will bite her on the ass. But for now, she's just a rodeo-clown that actual mainstream politicians can deal with apathetically. I think that's a large part of why she's getting away with it.
I hope she throws her hat in the Republican primary for 2012, because I think Gingrich and Romney are both going to run, and I think a debate with the three of them (plus, maybe, a hack like Tim Pawlenty) would be incredibly entertaining.
Posted by: JStein | December 31, 2009 11:46 AM
Katherine,
Palin is too stupid to be afraid. What she is, is reactionary. She knows she can't handle a hostile, searching confrontation with a real journalist so she avoids them. Tried that, failed, looked foolish, don't do that anymore. She spits out tripe and talking points in a format designed to allow the media to lap it up easily and present it as given. No questions, no give and take, no sparring, no intellectual acumen required. As she hasn't got any, this is the only way it will work for her.
The press will eventually tire of this (I hope) and start to collect the 'Palin Background' which will accompany every new fluff piece. It should include the items like:
Quitting as Governor of Alaska
I can see Russia
The Couric debacle
Death Panel lie of the year
and other ripe palinisms.
This background will be appended to every new piece as filler and eventually should sink her out of sight.
I can hope anyway.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 31, 2009 11:48 AM
You meant Bush 43.
Posted by: william e emba | December 31, 2009 12:20 PM
JStein @ 7 - I don't think Ms. Palin has a shot in hell of winning a presidential primary given she quit as governor and can't deal with the political press. My fear (not mere concern, I admit I fear her) is that she's once again picked as a VP candidate to turn out the far right and/or far worse - continues to heavily influence the status quo position of the Republican party.
While many powerful Republican leaders will not go on the record that she's qualified or not to run; her and Rush Limbaugh continue to determine these individuals' positions far more than than their own principles. In fact I'd argue her influence could help insane idiots like her to rise in prominence and therefore accelerate the GOP slide into an even deeper pit of dangerous, delusional idiocy.
I'm also concerned that about a change in approach by successful candidates that allows national winners who've never exposed themselves to tough interviews or press conferences. She could be a bellweather of things to come if someone figures out to do Palin's dishonest shtick, avoid the media as she does, and yet still win. Such a person could lie their ass off in the debates saying anything and never have those lies be forced into consideration by Republican voters.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 31, 2009 12:25 PM
I think another part of the problem is that over the years the Right has portrayed the media as being liberally biased, and I think to some degree this has been internalized. Therefore, the news media (outside of Fox News) feels like it has to treat Sarah Palin uncritically because they will be accused of being unfair to her just because she is a Christian Conservative woman.
Posted by: Tommykey | December 31, 2009 12:54 PM
I'm not scared of Palin actually making headway if she were to run (as a Republican, I don't rule out a 3rd Party attempt). She's made far too many enemies for that. What scares me is the thought of an opponent getting a 'free pass' because "At least he's not Palin." I'm particularly scared of a Huckabee, whose 'nice-guy' image seems Teflon-coated, despite his close connection to 'uber-nut' Janet Folger Porter, both in his last campaign and now.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 31, 2009 1:37 PM
"Spot-on analysis" yeah, except maybe the fact that he refers to her as a politician. Isn't she all washed up from that profession yet?
Posted by: TheDude | December 31, 2009 1:50 PM
Thank God she's completely unelectable, or I'd be worried.
Posted by: Brandon | December 31, 2009 3:39 PM
I'm not worried about Palin getting elected. The possibility is laughable. But what I am worried about is how the media fixation on her and other members of the looney right makes the slightly less absurd bloviations of more actively dangerous characters more accepted and "mainstream." It's an extension of a technique that the right-wing noise machine has been honing over the last two decades: push acceptable discourse farther and farther rightward so that the "center" position is also moved to the right.
Posted by: idlemind | December 31, 2009 5:27 PM
I'm with TheDude.
Palin's a politician? I certainly hope she has eliminated herself from that "profession."
But then, stranger things have happened.
Even things like this:
Posted by: BaldApe | December 31, 2009 5:50 PM
"a truly astonishing statement that is not a rare position given Mr. Bush and his Administration's lies on major policy issues that will effect us for generations runs into the hundreds."
NOW THAT! I can agree with. Thanks Mr. Heath!
In the pantheon of (recent) American presidents.. Bush the Lesser was certainly the liar of the lot. Oh, but there's Nixon. I guess this is harder than I thought. FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ don't measure up. Carter... ha! Reagan? question of competence and knowledge, Bush the Senior- I would say not a liar...
Clinton.. well now.. I would chose "prevaricator" more than "liar"
Bush the Lesser.. liar all the way..
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | December 31, 2009 6:44 PM
The press treatment of Palin is just an extreme example of their treatment of a huge plethora of undeservedly famous right-wing kooks. From G. Gordon Liddy to Glen Beck to George Will the American right is filled with idiots and madmen whose doings deserve no more notoriety than which tree your neighbor's dog marks. Yet most of the press goes out of its way to help them shape public discourse.
Posted by: llewelly | January 2, 2010 7:15 PM