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.