in context of national conversation on civil discourse, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank’s declaration of February as a Palin-free month suggests he believes himself only capable of talking about the charismatic conservative in derogatory terms or that he believes the only news she makes is worth of mockery. In either case, in making this declaration, he acknowledges his bias, his inability to cover the former Alaska Governor fairly.
If I had access to Lexis-Nexis (or someone was willing to pay for my use of this resource), I would search Milbank’s writings about Sarah Palin to see if he ever reported her many accomplishments in her brief tenure as chief exec of the Last Frontier.
Indeed, it would be interesting to review the writings of Mrs. Palin’s various critics to see if they ever considered her record in office and wondered why, when John McCain tapped her as his running mate in Augusts 2008, she had a 75% approval rating . . . among Alaska Democrats.
UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin echoes my point and builds upon it:
Moreover, the pledge, whether made in jest or not, only reinforces the perception that the media methodically distorts (Let’s have politics with no Palin! Or a Congress with no John Boehner!) and cherry picks the news rather than cover what is there.
Understandably, after making such a fuss over Palin and throwing all manner of criticism at her, warranted or not, the left blogosphere and liberals in traditional media are tuckered out. But this is a problem of their own making, and it should serve as a cautionary tale about inappropriately vilifying and magnifying a public figure, who for a time served their political ends. Substituting one failure of perspective for another hardly seems a wise course.
Milbank may want to not write about Governor Palin, but she moves copy. I give the so-called boycott half of one week.
According to the WashPo’s only search engine, Milbank has 4 articles on Governor Palin. Dan Balz has 10. Milbank has access to other media and mediums, but he output at the Post appears limited. What it doesn’t say, of course, is how many of his works got disappeared.’
Without Bush 43, MSNBC, if they were non Palin zones, couldn’t fill 2 hours a day.
btw hasta la vista to Olderbermann hehe. Back to doing soccer and curling.
Who cares about her approval rating two years ago? She’s terribly unpopular now, so if her historical poll numbers are relevant, than her current numbers are even more so.
She’s a cartoon character, another rush limbaugh or Ann counter in an already crowded field of absurd, republican comedian figures.
(And she is far more influential and successful than Levi will ever be.)
levi, the reason I bring up her approval rating is to show that she was popular in Alaska in 2008. You’d think the columnists might have wanted to investigate why she was so popular. And I’m asking if they did.
That was the point of the post. You might realize that if you read our posts in order to understand our arguments instead of chiming in quickly in order to criticize.
to levi….
Dude, the real problem is with people like yourself who blindly espouse to a political mantra without much thought and at a cost of your own personal freedoms… Unlike the collectivist ideology your champions promote, Sarah Palin understands being an American is no guarantee of living in a rose garden, however if your life leads you in that direction, Palin would defend your right to cultivate the possibilities.
Mostly they don’t like the extremist things she says, and they don’t examine her half-term in office. She hasn’t been in office for two years, so they are only looking at recent things she does.
True, Milbank is a liberal, and as such he has bias, but opinion columnists all have an agenda.
Soooooo……why do you lemmings still shit your britches with regard to her?
Mitch: Please post a list of “the extremist things she says.”
Actually, I would settle for just one, but if you can drag it out all the way to two, that would be even better. (Three and I will need smelling salts.)
I have started the clock. No pressure, just interested in how much man-made global warming will occur until you return.
Dana Millbank looks like a perfect candidate for CNN or MSNBC given his Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Spartann, Dan…
Levi’s real problem with Sarah Palin is she represents a threat to his worldview and self validation.
She’s smarter, more educated and more successful than him. Levi’s said before that in his worldview, the more intelligent have the obligation to drag the less inteligent ‘kicking and screaming’ into the future.
For Levi to admit that Sarah Palin (or our own Dr. Dan) truely is more intelligent than him, is to conceed that he needs to be taken ‘kicking and screaming’ into their future.
It would be like my waking up and discovering that I’m not really left handed, or that Darth Vader was my father.
Governor Palin’s popularity with Alaskan Democrats is directly attributable to her fights against an entrenched, wholly-dependedent-on-pork Republican Party.
Alaska survives on the largesse of the lower 48, such largesse being confiscatory taxes. Alaska itself pays its citizens a fair sum of money from the excess each year.
Since statehood, the focus of Alaska’s politicos of either party was to keep federal money pouring in. Alaska, for all its pristine wilderness, was (and is) as corrupt as Chicago, but without Chicago’s capability of funding itself.
Governor Palin changed that dynamic – initially as the outsider to the Republican Party. Her defeat of the elder Murkowski and failure to protect Stevens put her square against the old Country Club Republicans. So, of course she was loved by Alaskan Democrats – she was doing their job for them!
That all changed as soon as she was nominated. And, seeing the Miller-Murkowski senate race as a proxy fight, Alaskans don’t really want to be rugged individualists like Governor Palin – they want to return to a complete dependency on the Lower 48.
DaveO, nice summary of dynamic which propelled Palin to power. Do hope you’re wrong about what Alaskans really want!