Like any thinking person who subscribes to the quaint notion that a functional democracy requires an educated electorate, outrage was my initial reaction to the news that the McCain camp will be keeping Palin from talking to the press for at least another couple of weeks. Andrew Sullivan captures it as well as anyone:
But I think her record is very underwhelming when you look at it, and the record is now clear that she has lied – even being forced to admit it – in public office. I also think it is simply insane that a person who could be president next January and is a total unknown to the world should somehow require being shielded from a press conference. I mean a capable candidate would be begging for an hour alone on Meet The Press, not running to ground in Alaska and taking no questions for three weeks in September before an election.
If McCain picked her, he must believe she can be president now. If she can be president now, why the hell can’t she hold a press conference?
I’m not going nuts. They are.
Even David “Axis of Evil” Frum thinks it’s a very bad idea. Yet, when I start thinking through the actual impact of an interview, I begin to realize that it wouldn’t really matter. There is nothing – nothing – that Sarah Palin could say that wouldn’t be held up as some proof of her inherent goodness, ready ability, and persecuted status by Team GOP.  And this doesn’t even take into account the demonstrated unwillingess of the press to actually demand consistent and coherent responses from candidates. Further, even *if* you could get a decent and truthful interview out of her, Glenn Greenwald reminds us that, well, Americans aren’t influenced by facts nearly so much as by the rhetoric of the campaign:
[If] there’s one indisputable lesson from the last eight years, it’s that political propaganda works exceedingly well — not despite an aggressively adversarial press but precisely because we don’t have one. Carney’s idealistic claims about the short life-span of propaganda in American democracy are empirically false: “Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 — up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds” (Washington Times, 7/24/2006); [clipping another half dozen examples of that]
[ . . . ]
This idea that she’s some sort of fragile, know-nothing amateur who is going to quiver and collapse when subjected to the rough and tumble world of American journalism is painfully ludicrous, given that — as the Canonization of the endlessly malleable Tim Russert demonstrated — that imagery is a fantasy journalists maintain about themselves but it hardly exists. The standard journalistic model of “balance” means that the TV journalist asks a few questions, lets the interviewee answer, and then moves on without commenting on or pointing out false claims, i.e., without exposing propaganda (Carney can check his own magazine to see how that sad, propaganda-boosting process works — here, here, and here). Few things are easier than submitting to those sorts of televised rituals.
And that’s just how it will go.
Update:Â All that said, it’s still worth noting that Sarah Palin is a liar, and it’s John McCain’s judgment that a liar is what he wants on his ticket.
Update II: So maybe it’ll be more than two weeks. Maybe the entire campaign. The head of McCain’s campaign told Fox News that Sarah Palin won’t be doing any media interviews “until the point in time when she’ll be treated with respect and deference.” And that’s pretty much the McCain/McCain supporter view of the roll of the press in our democracy – subserviance to their needs. And while it just appalls me, McCain’s supporters will just point to it as proof of what a great job McCain is doing. Again, different universes.
Plin
I am itching to have this conversation with certain of my colleagues, particularly the ones who think of journalism as a priesthood, and are mildly disgusted at those of us who are teaching The Devil’s Work. We’re corrupting their precious novitiates, you know.
Alas, I’m new and have to keep in mind that these people will be voting on my tenure file, so I must keep my mouth shut. But I’m furious at what political journalism has become, and especially at how these self-described “warriors for truth” have simply let it devolve.
(Again, I see a complete blurring of the lines between entertainment coverage and the treatment of politicians and the political process in general: mostly acritical, and accused of snark and “crossing lines” when it does criticize.)
This electoral campaign is pushing me over the edge. I’d consider re-expatriating, if not for the fact that the situation isn’t all that different over there.
Okay, shutting up now.
BP
“And that’s pretty much the McCain/McCain supporter view of the roll of the press in our democracy – subserviance to their needs.”
It’s not just the role of the press. They believe that all good Americans should be subserviant to Republicant candidates and officeholders.
The Republican Party and its supporters have adopted right-wing authoritarianism as their governing philosophy. The Golden Rule of right-wing authoritarianism is that Republican candidates and officeholders are our “betters” and it is our American duty to show them proper “deference.” Proper “deference” requires that we neither highlight their horrendous failures nor mention their obvious lies.
I’m not at all surprised that a Republican Party hack like Davis would make such a statement. And, I won’t be tremendously surprised if the response from most of America is nothing more than a collective shoulder shrug, coupled with a Cheney-style, “So?”
sasha
“Deference”. My god.
MB
Plin, I wonder what it will take for those folks to realize that they’re held in even lower regard that, oh, I dunno, tow truck drivers. They may have an inkling of it, but try and brush it away by fooling themselves that it’s only an opinion held by those that don’t really understand things.
No, really, guys – your profession sucks, and it’s your fault.
(If you want to keep sliding down the rabbit hole, check out Master Yglesias and his claim that the only thing we can fairly expect of anyone with a press perch is self-advancement.)
Plin
Well, in terms of how our professions are viewed by the public at large, I suspect both you and I would be down there warring it out with the journalists. Alas. I hate to tar an entire field with the brush of those who do it badly, or who use their power for evil.
The problem is, even in today’s “everything goes, all-you-can-eat” media world, there are still only a few high-profile information brokers. And even more unfortunately, they are the ones who are failing spectacularly to play the role in democracy that journalists like to claim for themselves. That means we all lose, because the people who will be interviewing the candidates and moderating their debates are frittering away those opportunities to truly probe and challenge. People who are educated and motivated to seek out information will have access to it, but it will always be behind the scenes, and the majority of the voting public either won’t ever hear it, or can easily dismiss it as malicious rumor.
I figure we’ll see Sarah Palin’s diet, exercise and beauty tips in Redbook any day now, though.
MB
I’ll take that challenge. What are they going to do? Surprise me with some hard hitting journalism about the Beanie Baby trade in the Columbus Penny Trader?
Ever see Idiocracy? Aside from the first couple of minutes (which are absolutely brilliant), it’s kinda painful to watch. But it’s also pretty much an excellent illustration of where we’re headed. And no, I’m not kidding.
(Picking up Farhad Manjoo’s True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society soon, I think.)