Darned if I know. I suspect the latter. But politics is unpredictable, and there's still time for the narrative to change -- a couple of times -- before the Nov. 4 election.
In the meantime, here are a couple of straws in the wind ...
The first comes from Charles Krauthammer, a neo-conservative pundit for The Washington Post, who tracks what I'm going to call for lack of a better word the media narrative for this year's political celebrities:
... Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.Krauthammer has partisan axes to grind, as you'll see as you read the rest of his column, but he has a good point here.
On the other end of the political spectrum Michael Tomasky, writing in the center-left British newspaper The Guardian (U.K.), blames McCain's campaign for what he calls the "number and intensity of outright lies" heard lately. But he says the media are complicit in almost the exact language of Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death." He says:
McCain and Palin are engaged in serial total fabrications. And almost no one calls them on it. The New York Times, which found the space to run a puffy piece on Palin's family on its front page the other day, hasn't found similar space to run a story under a headline like, "McCain-Palin Claims Stretch Credulity, Some Say."[Boldface added.]
CBS and CNN have finally gotten around to running reports that pretty much state outright that Palin is lying about the bridge. ABC's Jake Tapper plainly called out the "truth squad" on the lipstick story. McClatchy did a strong fact-check of the McCain education ad. But for the most part, the media treats it all as entertainment, a matter of which side has seized the offensive.
Finally, media writer Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post cited this week's "lipstick-on-a-pig" kerfuffle as evidence the right-wing talk shows are driving the narrative. He said in Wednesday's column:
The lipstick imbroglio is evidence that the Drudge/Fox/New York Post axis can drive just about any story into mainstream land. Does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig? What about the fact that McCain has used "lipstick on a pig" before? What about the book by that title by former McCain aide Torie Clarke? Never mind: get the cable bookers to line up women on opposite sides of the lipstick divide and let them claw at each other!Well, he's right. It is good for ratings. Entertainment. Right?
In today's Post, Kurtz reviewed Palin's interview with "Flag-pin Charlie" Gibson of ABC News. He gives Gibson high marks. Says Kurtz:
What the ABC newsman conducted yesterday was a serious, professional interview that went right at the heart of what we want and need to know about the governor: Could she be president? Does she understand the nuances of international affairs? Does she have a world view?Kurtz' assessment of Palin:
He was all business, respectful but persistent.
Even Palin's critics should admit that, in terms of demeanor, she handled herself well for someone who three years ago was worried about the books in the Wasilla library. She projected confidence and was not openly rattled.Well, not quite: It was more like 12 years. Palin asked the librarian about banning books when she was elected mayor in 1996. But otherwise Kurtz, I think, is right on the money.
Vocabulary time. Two very good words here. "Imbroglio" is standard English. It's a $13.95 word, but has so many lovely connotations that I find it practically irresistable sometimes. "Kerfuffle" sounds Yiddish, but I just looked it up and it's Scots Gaelic.
No comments:
Post a Comment