Media's "Amnesia" with Sarah Palin is Old Pattern

Let me get this straight: The news media, in its initial speculation, is treating Sarah Palin as a potentially serious candidate for President of the United States in 2012.

Huh? Excuse me?

This is the same news media that witnessed Palin's poor performance during the entire 2008 presidential campaign. Sarah Palin, in her words and actions, was revealed as one of the worst vice presidential candidates in modern history and embarrassingly unqualified to be President.

Let's refresh our memories for a second:

-Palin, when asked, on more than one occasion, could not describe the duties of vice president accurately. As late as Oct. 21, 2008, she made the erroneous claim that the VP was "in charge of" the US Senate, when, in fact, that's false. (The VP can cast the deciding vote in only a Senate tie).

- Palin, in an interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, did not know what the "Bush Doctrine" was.

-Palin, in her interview with CBS' Katie Couric, could not name a US Supreme Court decision - besides Roe vs. Wade - that she disagreed with or had any comment on.

-Palin, asked by Couric to name a newspaper she read regularly, could not name one.

-Palin suggested that because Alaska bordered Russia, this had enhanced her foreign policy credentials, but, made only vague, incoherent, (humorous) references to Vladimir Putin coming into air space over Alaska and "trade missions" between Alaska and Russia that she never described later.

- Amazingly, Palin, in one speech to soldiers headed for Iraq, repeated the false, outrageous claim that the US' invasion of Iraq was a response to 9/11 and told the soldiers they'd be defending people "from enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans..."

- Palin repeated reckless, malicious, false attacks on Obama, saying that he was " 'pal-ling' around with terrorists" in referring to his association with William Ayers and that he (Obama) was not patriotic and advocated "socialist" policies.

- Palin, in a speech at a North Carolina fundraiser, said: "We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you, hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation." After Joe Biden blasted her for this quote, Palin tried to "clarify" her remarks.

For the entire campaign, Palin displayed that she was simply not up to the job of vice president. She couldn't discuss national issues with any knowledge or command. (Instead, she seemed to recite rehearsed lines). She didn't even demonstrate a familiarity with her own running mate's record. She couldn't provide Couric with one example of when, in his entire political career, John McCain had pushed for more government regulation.

So, why the hell are some of the same political correspondents now telling us - with a straight face - that Palin is on the short list of Republican candidates in 2012?

"Keep your eye on Palin," MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the liberal host of Hardball, told his audience back in late January.

I think it's absurd for her to get any serious attention or respectability at this point. She has not earned that and reports on her future should include realities about her 2008 campaign.

I believe the main explanation for this "soft" speculation/coverage about Palin is that news coverage today - particularly television - is all about entertainment value. The content does not matter. The truth doesn't matter much. As long as the story attracts ratings, TV people will talk it up - especially in the days of non-stop cable coverage.

This has, unfortunately, become a familiar pattern for the news media in recent years. Even after a person is discredited, the subject of scandal, wrongdoing or some regrettable episode often he or she re-surfaces in the news without reporters attempting to give context to the person's re-entry. A recent example: Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is suddenly appearing on news shows and publicly considering a future run for President; yet, when Gingrich was last a steady subject in the news, as Speaker, he drew much negative controversy for his polarizing tactics, was reprimanded by the US House for ethical violations and criticized by some for how he handled divorces from his first two wives. He reportedly discussed his first divorce while his wife was in the hospital recuperating from cancer surgery. Recent media coverage is not keeping these parts of Gingrich's past in context.

Other examples of missing context:

1) Ross Perot was treated as a serious presidential candidate in 1992 without ever officially announcing his candidacy during the primary season. At the Democratic National Convention in July, Perot announced he would NOT be a candidate partly because the Democratic Party seemed "revitalized" as it prepared to nominate Bill Clinton. Then, in October, he announced his candidacy, and said nothing about the Democratic Party changing. In the waning days of the general election campaign, Perot made bizarre allegations - covered on the Oct. 25th "60 Minutes," - that the Republican campaign had had plans to sabotage his daughter's August wedding. He told reporters he'd heard about an alleged plan that would involve doctoring a photograph and giving it to a supermarket magazine, and, that Republican operatives had planned to wiretap his phone. Perot admitted he had no evidence to prove any of these charges. However, at least two prominent reporters said that Perot's charges raised serious questions about his temperment and readiness to be President. Yet, on Election Day, Perot received 19 percent of the vote - a near-historic high for an Independent candidate. It showed the importance of placing these stories in context!

I did a six-month study on media coverage of Perot's campaign, and learned that when Perot appeared on TV talk shows, the ratings would soar upward - and that was what contributed to his take-off. The content of his remarks and its accuracy mattered less to news executives.

2) Rev. Al Sharpton, who has emerged as a national leader and spokesman for African-Americans, ran for President in 2004 and continues in the limelight without anyone mentioning the controversial, highly questionable role Sharpton played in the Tawana Brawley episode in NY State during the 1980s.

3) Oliver North, initially convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal and who certainly appeared to lie to protect his superiors, went on to host a nationally-syndicated radio talk show, ran for - and, came fairly close to winning - a US Senate seat in Va., and, in general, was not really held accountable for his unethical conduct.

4) G. Gordon Liddy, of Watergete fame, not only admitted to outrageous acts as part of Watergate, but made some wildly controversial remarks. He, like North, had a talk show and seemed to gain a "second acceptance" into society while his past wrongdoing received little attention.

5) Monica Lewinsky - She was treated like another "hot" People magazine subject for months after her affair with President Clinton. But, she had little to say, and, the news media really should have stopped reporting on her completely after her saga with Clinton was over. Yet, the Monica story lived on - and on - and on because it had "entertainment value."

This pattern toward entertainment-driven news coverage has taken over the business. That's why you see Larry King and other interviewers competing to question "American Idol" participants or TV actors so often, and, why, last summer, Larry King dedicated so many shows to Sarah Palin. The mere mention of Palin - combined with her good looking appearance - probably hiked ratings.

If journalists choose to focus on content and remind voters of Sarah Palin's actual 2008 vice presidential campaign, she will not remain on any "short list" of the media's. Rather, she would fade, naturally, to the background. Her only chance at any re-emergence - and, it is a tiny one -would require her acknowledging her flaws and inexperience and spending many years of hard work to un-do the damage done in 2008. It'd involve "remaking" her political personality and I think it's impossible.

Despite my opinion, however, I predict we'll hear many, many meaningless, entertainment-driven stories about Palin before 2012.

What a waste of time!