Here's a good example of the media defending itself in its coverage of Sarah Palin. As a 20-year-plus PR professional, this has become all too familiar to me. Do you know of more examples? Send them to me and I'll update. Read this, and then read some great counter pieces:
questions raised about Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol allow those
attending the convention to attack a familiar enemy, trying to score
political points in the process.
PAUL, MINN. — Delegates to the Republican National Convention whirled
in their seats en masse and called out from the floor: "Tell the truth!
Tell the truth!"
chants and finger-wagging were directed toward the sky boxes. Their
target: the television networks and the rest of the "liberal mainstream
And here is a great piece showing the difference in coverage of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden:
that the dust has settled on both parties' vice presidential picks,
it's time to take a look at how the media treated Joe Biden and Sarah
Palin in the crucial early hours after they were announced as running
This analysis is the first of several "Quick Study"
reports we'll be running this election season to give a snapshot of
press coverage, primarily through the lens of cable television.
at the transcripts of CNN, FNC, and MSNBC during the two "primetime"
hours of the day John McCain and Barack Obama announced their running
mates, a trend becomes quite clear: The media were much more likely to
report negative information about the Alaskan Palin than the Delawarean
And then there is this great piece from Australia, bashing the liberal US media:
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
| September 04, 2008
Palin is the most brilliant, bold, risky, dynamic-changing and
consequential choice of vice-presidential running mate that John McCain
could possibly have made. The reactions, pro and con, are incredible.
Palin is now the most searched name on the internet. The Republicans
raised more money online the day Palin was announced than ever before
in this campaign.
The left-liberal media in the US
are in a panic. And their loyal Australian imitators are regurgitating
a stream of derivative anti-Americanism and cultural sneering entirely
imitative of their big brothers at The New York Times.
The US political contest is thus poised at a delicate and
fascinating moment. It's like the key seconds in a judo bout, to see
who gets the better hold and executes the throw. The liberal
establishment will try to blitzkrieg Palin into oblivion by charging
that she is an extremist, a nut and corrupt. If the liberal elites fail
in this, they risk mainstream America seeing their attacks on Palin as
attacking the American heartland. Democrats should know from bitter
experience that that kind of polarisation leads directly to Democratic
Thus we had The New York Times' Maureen Dowd, notoriously the
silliest columnist in North America, who has never shown any evidence
that a serious or worthwhile thought has ever passed through her addled
head, sneering at Palin over the Christian names of her children.
Imagine The New York Times' reaction if someone wrote a column sneering
at the name Barack. But anti-Christian prejudice is licensed in the
elite American media. The hypocrisy and cultural prejudice are obvious.
Almost as a direct counterpoint to Dowd, another liberal columnist, the
more serious Bob Herbert, wrote a cautionary piece advising fellow
liberals to be very, very careful about the terms in which they
attacked Palin. He could sense the danger.
I know there are more examples out there of the media defending itself. Let me know where they are and we'll update appropriately.