Palin says she's been exploited by Couric and Fey

[M.Dancer]

To summarize: the Palin impersonation is the only political parody I know of that has been used to promote a program (30 Rock) that's completely unrelated to political parody. The extent to which NBC put Fey-as-Palin clips on prime time TV in advertising during the campaign is unprecidented (as far as I can recall) which gives merit to Palin's claim of having been singled out.

-k

**

To which I can only comment, so what? Why wouldn't she or NBC capitalize on her impersonation which was so bang on?

**You forgot her writting and acting in the Lohan vehicle, Mean Girls.

[jdobbin]

I'm certainly not faulting Obama for that, if that's what you're asking.

But as SNL themselves pointed out, Obama got an awfully soft ride.

Much like Reagan. It was hard to get a peg on him until he was in office and had some policies to makes jokes about.

Why did their Obama parody fail to interest anybody? Who knows. Perhaps Fred Armesin just wasn't very good. Maybe they were unable to think of anything worthwhile to say. Maybe they were already so intimidated from the criticism they received for not casting a black man in the role that they were walking on egg-shells. Really, who knows. They'll have 8 years to figure something out, I guess.

Well, it didn't interest you most certainly. You seem to think it was deliberate but as I said, Obama didn't give the people doing parodies as much to work with. I'm sure that it will get easier as time goes by.

No, Dobbins, it's not much like that at all. "Baby Mama" doesn't really stack up against the more or less continual string of movies Ferrell has had out over the past 5 years, of which at least a few were major hits.

Well Kimmys, I was just pointing out that Fey was doing quite fine even before Palin.

I think we all recognize that it wasn't "Baby Mama" that boosted 30 Rock's audience by 35%.

I think we all recognize that it wasn't "Baby Mama" that boosted 30 Rock from #94 show on TV to #44 show on TV.

I think we all recognize that it wasn't "Baby Mama" that earned Fey the title of "Entertainer of the Year".

A number 1 movie in the year, an Emmy from the year before *and* a brilliant parody helped her show.

You attribute it all to Palin but the show's rise owes just as much to not having a writer's strike mess up an entire season.

Co-starring in the #49 movie of the year didn't make Fey a star. Having the #94 show on TV didn't make didn't make Fey a star. Having the absolutely, undeniably most-talked about entertainment performance of the year DID make Fey a star and a household name in a way she had never been before, and the resulting benefit for her network and her sit-com has been immense. The effect of the Palin-related publicity on 30 Rock has been night and day. The effect on Fey's profile as an entertainer has been epic. She's a household name right now. She never was before.

She certainly has an even higher profile now. So does Palin.

As for 49 in box office, the biggeer stat to look at are profitability number. The big tent movies cost a lot more but margin is a lot thinner. Fey, like Farrell, takes small budget and brings in big bucks.

Tina Fey was on the Barbra Walters "Most Fascinating People" special a few weeks ago, and Barbra wasn't showing clips from 30 Rock, and she wasn't showing clips from Baby Mama. Can you guess what they were showing clips of? Yeewwwww Betcha!

So what?

I don't know how you could dispute any of this, unless you've suffered a concussion of some sort.

I don't know how you could say Fey owes all her success to Palin.

And even if she did, so what? Palin's profile jumped up in part because of Fey. In fact, she exploited that profile by appearing on Saturday Night Live as John McCain did.

Certainly Tina Fey is a talented and funny and likable performer. And certainly her career would have continued on without the Palin thing. But I am pretty sure that if you asked her if she'd be happier if 30 Rock remains on the air or was cancelled, she'd be much happier with it remaining on the air. I am sure that if you asked NBC whether they're happier with 30 Rock drawing 8.6 million viewers a week or 6.4 million viewers a week, they'd chose 8.6. And none of that happens without cashing in on Palin. They had Fey-as-Palin on TV 4 times an hour during primetime in the weeks leading up to the election as a means of hyping Fey and the return of 30 Rock. They knew they'd won the lottery.

They could have cancelled 30 Rock and Fey would still be writing and acting in movies that do good box office.

Anyway, let's go back to this idea of exploitation. Palin says she was exploited. I think she should ask herself who was the first to do that and the answer is John McCain.

McCain was hoping that a fresh unknown would boost his campaign in the last weeks leading up to the election. For a while, it looked like Palin was just the ticket to that. The problem was that it was evident she was being shielded from media and the Republicans didn't want to take a chance that everything would be decided by the debate. It was too big a roll of the dice. It was why an interview was set up with Couric who was thought to be a soft touch.

The interview was not all that challenging. It certainly wasn't a Tim Russert interview.

The problem wasn't Couric being exploitative and hitting her with surprise questions. Palin should explain what questions she thinks fit that category.

As for Fey, Palin should ask why she thinks her parody was more exploitative than anyone else's.

If you cry victim, better to have some details as to why you think it is true.

You certainly think that Palin was kiboshed but I still feel fail to see she think it is anyhow different than say what Bush went through? Or Clinton? Why do you think she is a special snowflake who can't stand an interview or a parody?

Edited January 12, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I was responding to Dobbins' claim that Fey didn't need Palin because she already had a low-rated sitcom and a modestly successful movie. Which is kind of like me saying that I don't need to win the lottery because I already make enough money pay my bills. Sure... but if Super 7 drops $10 million on me, I'm still taking it.

Didn't say anything about Fey not needing Palin for exposure. I just said that Fey was successful already with awards and box office success.

You seem to think that Fey's parody was somehow more unfair than any other that has happened.

To summarize: the Palin impersonation is the only political parody I know of that has been used to promote a program (30 Rock) that's completely unrelated to political parody. The extent to which NBC put Fey-as-Palin clips on prime time TV in advertising during the campaign is unprecidented (as far as I can recall) which gives merit to Palin's claim of having been singled out.

Even before Palin was announced as candidate, NBC had scheduled primetime political satire from the Saturday Night Live cast. It was to help promote their late night offering of SNL.

NBC did many commercials advertising the specials and they didn't just feature Fey.

With Fey doing double duty for NBC, it was natural for the network to promote 30 Rock. You make out like it was a conspiracy against Palin or that she was singled out.

[kimmy]

To which I can only comment, so what? Why wouldn't she or NBC capitalize on her impersonation which was so bang on?

I've never once blamed NBC or Fey for capitalizing on the situation. As I keep saying, they won the lottery. I don't blame them for making the most of it.

What I've been saying is that Palin faced a situation none of her rivals did, and her claim to having been singled out has some merit as a result. I don't think a politician has ever had to deal with a parody that took on a life of its own the way Fey's did.

**You forgot her writting and acting in the Lohan vehicle, Mean Girls.

I mentioned it earlier, but it's hardly current. Like, Mean Girls was made before Lohan had even been through rehab once. (hmmm... I wonder if Fey remembers the speech about girl-on-girl crime her character delivers in that movie?)

Didn't say anything about Fey not needing Palin for exposure. I just said that Fey was successful already with awards and box office success.

Of course Fey was successful beforehand. Success isn't a binary state, it's a spectrum. "Bones" and "CSI" are both successful television programs. "Juno" and "The Dark Knight" are both successful movies. Tyra Banks and Oprah Winfrey are both successful tv personalities. In the past couple of months, Fey's place on that spectrum has taken a big jump for the better. We'll be able to quantify this soon enough. We'll be able to look at contracts Fey signed pre-Palin and contracts that she signs post-Palin, and compare the dollar figures, and we'll be able to put a dollar figure on it.

I can't imagine why you'd dispute the extent to which Fey's career has benefited from this windfall.

You seem to think that Fey's parody was somehow more unfair than any other that has happened.

As I said early on, "fair" simply isn't relevant to any of this. I think there's certainly an argument to be made that Palin faced a situation that none of her contemporaries had to deal with, and I don't see why it's wrong of her to comment on it.

-k

[M.Dancer]

I don't think a politician has ever had to deal with a parody that took on a life of its own the way Fey's did.

Bob Dole comes to mind...mind you, both palin and Fey are easier to look at...

SNL has made it their stock and trade to parody politicians...

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Electi...amp;start=false

[stevoh]

Palin exploited saturday night live for exposure, Saturday night live exploited Palin for ratings. The same could be said of any famous person, however, Tina Feys impression was just so dead on and timely it was ratings magic.

Are poor Sarah's feelings hurt? She will have to develop a much thicker skin if she wants to stay in national politics.

[BubberMiley]

Well, Bubber, if I'm boring you, feel free to go back to Protecting The Children .

Well, watching you defend the deliberate sexual exploitation of a seven-year-old for political purposes was more interesting, I'll admit.

[Shady]

Well, watching you defend the deliberate sexual exploitation of a seven-year-old for political purposes was more interesting, I'll admit.

Referring to any of my posts as "sexually exploiting a sever-year-old" is grand hyperbole at worst.

[jdobbin]

I can't imagine why you'd dispute the extent to which Fey's career has benefited from this windfall.

I can't imagine how anyone could argue that Palin was singled out. Everyone was parodied. Bush continues to be parodied by Farrell. I don't hear him saying he has been singled out by Farrell.

As I said early on, "fair" simply isn't relevant to any of this. I think there's certainly an argument to be made that Palin faced a situation that none of her contemporaries had to deal with, and I don't see why it's wrong of her to comment on it.

Bush has Farrell parodying him. Palin isn't Bush's contemporary?

Edited January 13, 2009 by jdobbin

[BubberMiley]

Referring to any of my posts as "sexually exploiting a sever-year-old" is grand hyperbole at worst.

Do you suffer from selective short-term memory loss? You were so upset that Palin was exploited by Fey that you detailed how you plan to sexually exploit Obama's daughters.

I haven't checked, but perhaps you edited your original post so it wouldn't be so offensive and are now trying to pretend it didn't happen.

[kimmy]

I can't imagine how anyone could argue that Palin was singled out. Everyone was parodied. Bush continues to be parodied by Farrell. I don't hear him saying he has been singled out by Farrell.

Bush has Farrell parodying him. Palin isn't Bush's contemporary?

As I've said a number of times already, Palin was singled out because the caricature of her was the only one which was heavily promoted by NBC. In the hour-per-week of NBC programming that I watch, Fey-as-Palin was on during every commercial break (with reminders that "If you can't get enough of Tina Fey, check out 30 Rock!") from the airing of the first sketch to the day of the election and beyond. She was singled out by circumstances rather than by malice, but she was obviously singled out.

While all of the candidates were parodied, none achieved a fraction of the exposure that Fey's did. The impersonation of her was on TV almost as much as she herself was. Which was, yes, a unique situation for Palin compared to her adversaries.

I asked people to provide an example of another politician who has been faced with a parody that took on this sort of stature... Morris suggests perhaps Bob Dole. I wasn't following politics closely in 1996, so I can't comment on that.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

As I've said a number of times already, Palin was singled out because the caricature of her was the only one which was heavily promoted by NBC.

It was so heavily promoted because of the popularity of Fey as Palin. The audience was there because it was funny. Palin gave more material for comedians to work with than any other candidate did. In some instances, all Fey had to do was repeat what Palin herself had actually said. So if Fey as Palin was on more, it's because she was funnier. No matter how much SNL would have tried to promote any other comedians doing any other characterizations, it wouldn't have had the success that Fey as Palin had. An it's because of Palin, her inexperience, the things she said, etc., and how well Fey portrayed that.

In the hour-per-week of NBC programming that I watch, Fey-as-Palin was on during every commercial break (with reminders that "If you can't get enough of Tina Fey, check out 30 Rock!") from the airing of the first sketch to the day of the election and beyond. She was singled out by circumstances rather than by malice, but she was obviously singled out.

She was "singled out" because no other candidate compared to her in terms of material/what could be "characterized/satired/parodied" about her. It wasn't malice, it was the reality of the situation.

While all of the candidates were parodied, none achieved a fraction of the exposure that Fey's did. The impersonation of her was on TV almost as much as she herself was. Which was, yes, a unique situation for Palin compared to her adversaries.

Again, none of the other characterizations achieved a fraction of the exposure Fey's did because none were as popular and well received as hers.

I asked people to provide an example of another politician who has been faced with a parody that took on this sort of stature... Morris suggests perhaps Bob Dole. I wasn't following politics closely in 1996, so I can't comment on that.

What difference does it make whether or not there's an example of another politician who was faced with the same stature of parody that Palin was? There's never been another candidate in the actual election who was as badly suited for the position as Palin was, and the American people felt that, so if she was parodied more, there's good reason for it-- and the reason isn't that poor, picked on Palin was exploited; it's that there was way more material to work with than there's ever been before-- and a strong, positive reaction from the audience for obvious reasons. A show/movie can be promoted to high heaven, but if it's not good, if the audience doesn't like it, it won't be watched. Fey as Palin was watched, and well received, and that says a lot about how people felt about Palin.

[WIP]

Well, all of the whining by Sarah Palin is further indication that she will just not go away and is determined to be a Republican candidate for president in 2012. The other guy who has already started campaigning for the nomination has taken note, and he is trying to kneecap her early just in case her candidacy doesn't fall apart on its own:

I ask him if she was treated fairly by the media. "There were a lot of unfair things. Sexist things that would never have been asked of a male candidate." He pauses. "Now I must say I did not think that either the Charlie Gibson interview or the Katie Couric interviews were unfair. In fact, if anything, Katie Couric was extraordinarily gentle, even helpful. [Palin] just...I don't know what happened. I can't explain it. It was not a good interview. I'm being charitable."

http://www.esquire.com/features/mike-huckabee-0209-2

[jdobbin]

As I've said a number of times already, Palin was singled out because the caricature of her was the only one which was heavily promoted by NBC. In the hour-per-week of NBC programming that I watch, Fey-as-Palin was on during every commercial break (with reminders that "If you can't get enough of Tina Fey, check out 30 Rock!") from the airing of the first sketch to the day of the election and beyond. She was singled out by circumstances rather than by malice, but she was obviously singled out.

By one network in a sea of networks and print journals and Internet.

I'm sorry if I don't think that Palin was singled out.

And it certainly doesn't answer the question of why Palin thinks Couric singled her out. Perhaps of Palin had done more interviews, she would have not have had to worry about so much emphasis being placed on the one.

This victimization that Palin claims is hard to figure.

While all of the candidates were parodied, none achieved a fraction of the exposure that Fey's did. The impersonation of her was on TV almost as much as she herself was. Which was, yes, a unique situation for Palin compared to her adversaries.

This broke the back of the entire campaign? Fey and Couric brought down McCain/Palin?

I asked people to provide an example of another politician who has been faced with a parody that took on this sort of stature... Morris suggests perhaps Bob Dole. I wasn't following politics closely in 1996, so I can't comment on that.

I doubt Palin followed politics that closely back then either or she would have seen that Bush and Clinton faced some of the best in the biz parodying them.

Her complaints are sour grapes.

[kimmy]

This broke the back of the entire campaign?

At least we're all on the same page now as far as her having faced something the other candidates didn't. Whether it killed the campaign is another question entirely (and of course it didn't.)

As I've said a number of times in this thread, the concept of "fair" is completely irrelevant in this. Everything's fair. It's fair that Fey has scored a windfall from this. It's fair that NBC played the Palin caricature to saturation to promote their programs. It's fair for Couric to portray her interview with Palin as a journalistic milestone that changed the course of the election, even if it was actually just a powder-puff interview. Anything is fair as long as you can get enough people to buy in to suit your purposes.

It's also fair for Palin to try to revise peoples' perceptions of how she was treated, or try to leverage whatever sympathy might be out there for her into support for her political future. It's fair for her to try to convince people that she wasn't a fuck-up, even if she was a total fuck-up. Anything is fair as long as you can get enough people to buy in to suit your purposes.

Whether you guys have any sympathy for her doesn't matter. You guys are obviously not Palin's target audience. You guys would never vote Republican even if you were Americans. You're not the people she has to reach if she wants to have a political future.

If I were an American, I'd be her audience: somebody who might conceivably vote Republican and who might have some sympathy for how the media dealt with her. And like it or not, there are certainly lots of people who do have doubts about how the media handled her. The media itself has expressed doubts about how it handled her. A lot of the people who she needs to reach if she wants to run in 2012, meaning Republican supporters, are already sympathetic to the argument that the media was tilted against the Republican ticket... so this is not a tough pitch for her to make. The target audience is already receptive to what she's saying.

BTW, no, I don't think she'll ever convince enough people that she should get a second chance. As much as I had hoped she would be a good candidate... it became painfully obvious that she wasn't. Give her another chance in 2012, and she'll flounder again.

-k

[jdobbin]

At least we're all on the same page now as far as her having faced something the other candidates didn't. Whether it killed the campaign is another question entirely (and of course it didn't.)

I'm sorry. I'm not convinced she did. As I have stated over and over, parodies have been happening for many elections now. Even if NBC advertised Fey on their network, it wasn't singling out Pain so much as it was Fey. After last year's award-winning season, they wanted to promote her to the hilt.

Fey was already winning awards to the max and the show was appealing to some of the richest Americans which is why NBC renewed it.

As I've said a number of times in this thread, the concept of "fair" is completely irrelevant in this. Everything's fair. It's fair that Fey has scored a windfall from this. It's fair that NBC played the Palin caricature to saturation to promote their programs. It's fair for Couric to portray her interview with Palin as a journalistic milestone that changed the course of the election, even if it was actually just a powder-puff interview. Anything is fair as long as you can get enough people to buy in to suit your purposes.

So do you buy that she was really singled out when even people like Huckabee thinks the Couric interview was a softball?

Why didn't Palin agree to more interviews if she didn't like that one/ Why did she grant an exclusive if her career could be defined so easily by it?

It's also fair for Palin to try to revise peoples' perceptions of how she was treated, or try to leverage whatever sympathy might be out there for her into support for her political future. It's fair for her to try to convince people that she wasn't a fuck-up, even if she was a total fuck-up. Anything is fair as long as you can get enough people to buy in to suit your purposes.

I think you would have a tough time convincing people who were not partisan supporter of Palin that she was singled out.

Whether you guys have any sympathy for her doesn't matter. You guys are obviously not Palin's target audience. You guys would never vote Republican even if you were Americans. You're not the people she has to reach if she wants to have a political future.

So if you are not partisan, you can't judge if a politician was set up for special treatment?

If I were an American, I'd be her audience: somebody who might conceivably vote Republican and who might have some sympathy for how the media dealt with her. And like it or not, there are certainly lots of people who do have doubts about how the media handled her. The media itself has expressed doubts about how it handled her. A lot of the people who she needs to reach if she wants to run in 2012, meaning Republican supporters, are already sympathetic to the argument that the media was tilted against the Republican ticket... so this is not a tough pitch for her to make. The target audience is already receptive to what she's saying.

Which media feels doubt about how they treated her?

BTW, no, I don't think she'll ever convince enough people that she should get a second chance. As much as I had hoped she would be a good candidate... it became painfully obvious that she wasn't. Give her another chance in 2012, and she'll flounder again.

I disagree here too. Unless something major happens that reflects on her professionally or personally, I see her back. Perhaps she will be more polished.

Next time, she might be facing a Bush to get the job though.

[kimmy]

I'm sorry. I'm not convinced she did. As I have stated over and over, parodies have been happening for many elections now. Even if NBC advertised Fey on their network, it wasn't singling out Pain so much as it was Fey. After last year's award-winning season, they wanted to promote her to the hilt.

Of course. It was logical, it made good sense for them, I'm sure there was no personal malice involved. It was done at Palin's expense, however. You're once again trying to turn the question from whether it happened to whether it was "fair", which is a debate I have no interest in... as I've already agreed, everything is fair.

So do you buy that she was really singled out when even people like Huckabee thinks the Couric interview was a softball?

What do you mean "even people like Huckabee"? He's hardly a neutral observer. Not a person on earth has more vested interest in her failing than Huckabee. If she remains a darling of the God Squad wing of the party, his political future is toast.

I think Palin's complaint regarding the NBC caricature has merit; her case against Couric is weak. My only comment on Couric is that if she wanted to be above reproach, she shouldn't have got coaching for her interview from Sam Nunn, who is part of the Obama team.

Why didn't Palin agree to more interviews if she didn't like that one/ Why did she grant an exclusive if her career could be defined so easily by it?

That's a question for the Republican campaign strategists. I suspect the answer is that they realized that she was terrible, and were afraid that putting her in more interviews would just compound the damage.

I think you would have a tough time convincing people who were not partisan supporter of Palin that she was singled out.

I think you'll find that a *lot* of people on the Republican side already feel the media was tilted in the past election, and will be a lot more receptive to what she's saying than you guys are.

So if you are not partisan, you can't judge if a politician was set up for special treatment?

Of course not. Everybody can form their own opinion. But whether her comments resonate with Democrat supporters is pretty irrelevant. It's Republicans who'll decide if she's on the ticket in 2012, and that's the audience for this message.

Which media feels doubt about how they treated her?

There's been some amount of media analysis of its own conduct during the past election. Addressing claims of gender bias and discussion of how much attention to give rumors from the blogosphere have been particular topics of public self-examination by the media.

I disagree here too. Unless something major happens that reflects on her professionally or personally, I see her back. Perhaps she will be more polished.

Next time, she won't be handed a spot on the ticket like she was this time. If she wants to win the nomination in 2012, she'll have to fight a vicious year-long campaign. And based on what I saw last year, I think the primaries are more vicious than the actual election. She'll have a couple of years to ready herself for that fight, but based on what we saw in the election campaign, I think she'll get crushed.

-k

[jdobbin]

Of course. It was logical, it made good sense for them, I'm sure there was no personal malice involved. It was done at Palin's expense, however. You're once again trying to turn the question from whether it happened to whether it was "fair", which is a debate I have no interest in... as I've already agreed, everything is fair.

Parody is always done at someone's expense. Palin was not singled out in that regard.

What do you mean "even people like Huckabee"? He's hardly a neutral observer. Not a person on earth has more vested interest in her failing than Huckabee. If she remains a darling of the God Squad wing of the party, his political future is toast.

True. Palin is not a neutral observer either. In her mind, I'm sure she thought she was singled out.

Do you have a media observer who can say for sure that Palin was singled out? And if she was, was it to her detriment?

I think Palin's complaint regarding the NBC caricature has merit; her case against Couric is weak. My only comment on Couric is that if she wanted to be above reproach, she shouldn't have got coaching for her interview from Sam Nunn, who is part of the Obama team.

And what exactly is Palin's complaint? If she was singled out, as she says, is she saying there was a evaluative aspect to it? In other words, is she arguing about a fairness to it all?

You have said that you don't wish to argue that. Palin seems to want to make that argument.

That's a question for the Republican campaign strategists. I suspect the answer is that they realized that she was terrible, and were afraid that putting her in more interviews would just compound the damage.

I think the strategists wanted to play peek-a-boo till the end of the election and by limiting access to the media, were hoping her initial popularity would carry her and McCain to victory. The one problem they could not get around was the debate. If she collapsed there, they needed an out so they sought out a soft touch interview.

If Couric was coached, it was because she doesn't have the background for political interviews that many of her contemporaries do. Nunn was a poor choice for teaching her but I never heard evidence he supplied questions.

I think you'll find that a *lot* of people on the Republican side already feel the media was tilted in the past election, and will be a lot more receptive to what she's saying than you guys are.

In other words, she is appealing to the base of conservatives like yourself who believe the media singled her out.

Of course not. Everybody can form their own opinion. But whether her comments resonate with Democrat supporters is pretty irrelevant. It's Republicans who'll decide if she's on the ticket in 2012, and that's the audience for this message.

There's been some amount of media analysis of its own conduct during the past election. Addressing claims of gender bias and discussion of how much attention to give rumors from the blogosphere have been particular topics of public self-examination by the media.

I know that there has been gender bias on clothes and looks. Clinton faced it too.

I have not seen any media analysis or academic analysis of unbalanced coverage with specifics to Palin.

Next time, she won't be handed a spot on the ticket like she was this time. If she wants to win the nomination in 2012, she'll have to fight a vicious year-long campaign. And based on what I saw last year, I think the primaries are more vicious than the actual election. She'll have a couple of years to ready herself for that fight, but based on what we saw in the election campaign, I think she'll get crushed.

Next time, she will have the primaries to toughen up. Elections are getting longer and longer. I suspect that people will have to put their campaign teams together soon.

[kimmy]

Parody is always done at someone's expense. Palin was not singled out in that regard.

You keep saying "but everybody was parodied!"

And I keep responding that it's not the fact that she was parodied, but rather the media saturation that the parody of her achieved.

And you keep replying "but everybody was parodied!"

It's like you're trying to create some kind of Abbott and Costello routine.

True. Palin is not a neutral observer either. In her mind, I'm sure she thought she was singled out.

I don't think anybody suggested Palin is a neutral observer. It seems as if you were trying to negate bias by invoking a Republican as a critic of Palin, but choosing Huckabee doesn't help that argument.

There are undoubtedly plenty of Republicans who do believe Palin is an idiot and don't buy her claims that she was hard done by at all. And I do think that's ultimately the viewpoint that's going to carry the day as the 2012 nomination proceeds.

In other words, she is appealing to the base of conservatives like yourself who believe the media singled her out.

Not sure about "like myself", but yes, that's who this message is designed for.

I know that there has been gender bias on clothes and looks. Clinton faced it too.

Does the claim that Clinton faced gender bias have more merit than the claim that Palin faced gender bias?

Does the claim that Caroline Kennedy faces gender bias have more merit than the claim that Palin faced gender bias?

Not that I'm accusing you of that, but for some at least it seems as if the merits of claims of gender bias depend on the political affiliation of the woman running for office.

I have not seen any media analysis or academic analysis of unbalanced coverage with specifics to Palin.

One example I can give you right off the top of my head: the CBC ombudsman reviewed the Norm MacDonald's report on the sensationalist allegations that she wasn't Trig's mother. The ombudsman concluded that yeah, they kind of screwed the pooch on that one. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about how the mainstream media should address blogs and rumors, and the impetus for that has been the gossip about Palin that you mentioned earlier in this thread.

Next time, she will have the primaries to toughen up.

Well, as the adage goes, "that which does not kill you makes you stronger." Personally, I just think she's going to get killed, that's all.

-k

[jdobbin]

By the way, the Caroline Kennedy parodies and bright spotlight focused on her has probably succeeded in removing her contention for the Senate job. The New York newspapers have been on her every day. The front page New York Times article probably ended her chances.

Edited January 14, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

You keep saying "but everybody was parodied!"

I do. And they were.

And I keep responding that it's not the fact that she was parodied, but rather the media saturation that the parody of her achieved.

And I have not seen any evidence that her parody rose above the total mix of what was out there.

And you keep replying "but everybody was parodied!"

It's like you're trying to create some kind of Abbott and Costello routine.

You keep telling me her parody was somehow different from other people's. I haven't seen evidence of that aside from your impression.

I don't think anybody suggested Palin is a neutral observer. It seems as if you were trying to negate bias by invoking a Republican as a critic of Palin, but choosing Huckabee doesn't help that argument.

You were the one arguing Republicans see her treatment as being different. Huckabee is one of a few who don't see that aside from the obvious gender biases.

There are undoubtedly plenty of Republicans who do believe Palin is an idiot and don't buy her claims that she was hard done by at all. And I do think that's ultimately the viewpoint that's going to carry the day as the 2012 nomination proceeds.

She is likely to face a lot more scrutiny than she even got during the election when it comes to policy. She'll have a harder time claiming she is being singled out by the media if things don't do well.

Not sure about "like myself", but yes, that's who this message is designed for.

You did say people were of a conservative bent like yourself.

Does the claim that Clinton faced gender bias have more merit than the claim that Palin faced gender bias?

I don't think Palin has claimed gender bias. I can't recall Clinton mentioning it for the most part. The pantsuit jokes were a main staple of Leno. Few mention clothing with the men but both Palin and Clinton faced it.

Does the claim that Caroline Kennedy faces gender bias have more merit than the claim that Palin faced gender bias?

Don't think I said anything about gender bias or the merits of it. Don't think Palin was talking about gender bias either.

I was talking about parodies. Caroline Kennedy's parody and numerous print stories have given her a lot of publicity. Since she tipped her hand early, the focus has been on her. She has wilted under that spotlight.

Not that I'm accusing you of that, but for some at least it seems as if the merits of claims of gender bias depend on the political affiliation of the woman running for office.

I see the same things over and over again for women running for office. It didn't matter what the party.

One example I can give you right off the top of my head: the CBC ombudsman reviewed the Norm MacDonald's report on the sensationalist allegations that she wasn't Trig's mother. The ombudsman concluded that yeah, they kind of screwed the pooch on that one. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about how the mainstream media should address blogs and rumors, and the impetus for that has been the gossip about Palin that you mentioned earlier in this thread.

Those allegations started even before she was announced as VP. I don't know the CBC's source for the story but commenting on un-sourced material from blogs is poor reporting.

I don't think a reporter can ignore it but they need to investigate on their own and have legit sources for their stories.

I'd hate that the National Enquirer be the only one to break stories. Many reporters had heard rumours about John Edwards but all were too scared to ask or to look into them.

CBC blundered in its reporting on Palin on the issue of her baby.

Well, as the adage goes, "that which does not kill you makes you stronger." Personally, I just think she's going to get killed, that's all.

I think Jeb Bush will be pushed forward. I have no idea how he will do if he does.

I don't doubt Palin will consider going again too. She already seems to be campaigning.

[jdobbin]

Palin continues to battle her local paper.

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/136415

On Dec. 31, eight days ago, I received an email from Gov. Palin asking several questions about news coverage in the Daily News. I took her inquiry seriously and by the end of the day had prepared a long email addressing each of her questions in detail.

The Editor goes on to say how they assigned a reporter to put the story on Palin's son to rest.

As I mentioned here before, the rumour started long before she was named VP nominee.

I never gave the story much credence but the media ought to have been able to investigate the furious campaign on blogs just as they reported on attempts to say that Obama was not a U.S. citizen. It is a difficult balance but it is happening all the time now for claims that start on the Internet and take a life of their own. The biggest example has to September 11. Several media groups including Popular Mechanics addressed the claims of about the destruction of the towers one by one.

Palin has been making more of an issue of class affecting how she was viewed.

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/136392

On Kennedy: “I’ve been interested also to see how Caroline Kennedy will be handled and if she will be handled with kid gloves or if she will be under such a microscope also. It’s going to be interesting to see how that plays out and I think that as we watch that we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here also that was such a factor in the scrutiny of my candidacy versus, say, the scrutiny of what her candidacy may be.”

I think I mentioned that Kennedy has been under the microscope in New York and it hasn't exactly done her a lot of good. She is now looking like she will not be considered.

[GostHacked]

How is she even relevant anymore? And if she had gotten to be VP, she would find out that what she is complaining about now is nothing compared to what she would have gotten as VP.

This proves that she is a wuss, can't handle the media, so that should tell you how she would handle it as VP.....

Palin IS the joke.

[kimmy]

You were the one arguing Republicans see her treatment as being different. Huckabee is one of a few who don't see that aside from the obvious gender biases.

I don't recall claiming that there was unanimity within the party on that viewpoint, just that there are a *lot* of Republicans and Republican supporters who believe that their party got the shaft in this campaign. Huckabee might not have much time for the argument, but I think there will be a lot who will be receptive.

I don't think Palin has claimed gender bias. I can't recall Clinton mentioning it for the most part. The pantsuit jokes were a main staple of Leno. Few mention clothing with the men but both Palin and Clinton faced it.

...

Don't think I said anything about gender bias or the merits of it. Don't think Palin was talking about gender bias either.

Ok, at this point I have to ask: did you actually watching the interview, or are you relying on the summary in the article you posted?

She does talk about gender bias, particularly in questioning the extent to the gossip and rumors about her and her family were aired in the media.

Full disclosure: I myself only bothered to actually watch the interview this morning. And I feel pretty foolish for having relied on the article's summary, because she only briefly mentions Fey and Couric at all, noting the positive turn their careers have taken, shrugging her shoulders, and moving on. It hardly comes across as the bitter hurt feelings that it's been portrayed to be, and she doesn't make any claim that either of the two did her any injustice, unless you feel it's implied by her use of the term "exploited". "Exploited" has a negative connotation... you could say that Fey and Couric "seized the moment" instead, but other than that I don't actually see much to argue with.

In reference to the clip where Fey-as-Palin says "I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers," Palin says that the "Mama Grizzly rises up" in her, as she felt like her kid was being ridiculed.

And contrary to the way it's been portrayed, she doesn't make the claim that "Kennedy is getting treated with kid gloves." Palin says she'll be an interested observer in how Kennedy is portrayed in the media. Palin believes there was classism in the coverage she received (and I think she is right). Class also appears to be a factor in the Caroline Kennedy coverage, but in a way opposite to what Palin anticipated... the "silver spoon" thing is crushing Kennedy's hopes.

Those allegations started even before she was announced as VP. I don't know the CBC's source for the story but commenting on un-sourced material from blogs is poor reporting.

I believe the CBC's rationale was explained as, more or less, that the popularity of this rumor was in itself news. They were not reporting the rumor itself, per se, they were reporting that this salacious rumor was circulating around the convention like wildfire.

Which really came off looking as just an excuse to perpetuate the rumor, IMO.

-k

[jdobbin]

I don't recall claiming that there was unanimity within the party on that viewpoint, just that there are a *lot* of Republicans and Republican supporters who believe that their party got the shaft in this campaign. Huckabee might not have much time for the argument, but I think there will be a lot who will be receptive.

I imagine that Huckabee and others in the Republican party will have to be assertive about what they thought went wrong in the campaign. If they subscribe to the theory that Palin was victimized rather than blew it, they boost her chances in 2012.

Ok, at this point I have to ask: did you actually watching the interview, or are you relying on the summary in the article you posted?

I watched it all all plus saw some of the interviews afterwards.

She does talk about gender bias, particularly in questioning the extent to the gossip and rumors about her and her family were aired in the media.

Gossip about family didn't start with her.

Full disclosure: I myself only bothered to actually watch the interview this morning. And I feel pretty foolish for having relied on the article's summary, because she only briefly mentions Fey and Couric at all, noting the positive turn their careers have taken, shrugging her shoulders, and moving on. It hardly comes across as the bitter hurt feelings that it's been portrayed to be, and she doesn't make any claim that either of the two did her any injustice, unless you feel it's implied by her use of the term "exploited". "Exploited" has a negative connotation... you could say that Fey and Couric "seized the moment" instead, but other than that I don't actually see much to argue with.

There have been a few other interviews where she has mentioned exploited. It does seem to have a negative connotation.

In reference to the clip where Fey-as-Palin says "I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers," Palin says that the "Mama Grizzly rises up" in her, as she felt like her kid was being ridiculed.

And I thought the comment was directed at Palin.

And contrary to the way it's been portrayed, she doesn't make the claim that "Kennedy is getting treated with kid gloves." Palin says she'll be an interested observer in how Kennedy is portrayed in the media. Palin believes there was classism in the coverage she received (and I think she is right). Class also appears to be a factor in the Caroline Kennedy coverage, but in a way opposite to what Palin anticipated... the "silver spoon" thing is crushing Kennedy's hopes.

The reason it is in quotes is because that is what she wrote to Anchorage Daily News.

I believe the CBC's rationale was explained as, more or less, that the popularity of this rumor was in itself news. They were not reporting the rumor itself, per se, they were reporting that this salacious rumor was circulating around the convention like wildfire.

I personally thought it was poor reporting the way they did it.

Which really came off looking as just an excuse to perpetuate the rumor, IMO.

I agree.