Obviously there is no media outlet that views itself as being part of ‘the media.’ This is problematic, especially when media outlets write pieces about how Sarah Palin is juicing the media cycle by hopping on issues at the height of their short-lived, American attention span induced popularity (remember when Dave Letterman had an affair, or something? me neither).
Every editorial news outlet seem to conveniently omit themselves from the ‘media’ that is irresponsibly perpetuating her nonsense, thus creating the impression, even in the eyes of her most ardent skeptics, that Sarah Palin is important enough to counter. The cycle for responding to Palin seems to have taken a concrete form:
1. Read the new Palin op-ed/tweet/facebook note/book/etc.
2. Find the sections of the piece where her logical thought process and factual accuracy are at their worst (this is probably the easiest part)
3. Bitch and whine about how her points are factually wrong (obviously), while explaining these fallicies to a group of elite literary folks, deemed such by their willingness to sit through an entire article, paragraph, or sentence. Clearly this is not the demographic that needs converting.
After coming out with her new op-ed this morning, Gawker, the Atlantic, Media Matters, and a host of others have spit out this same formulaic, predictable retort to her inane Bachman-esque psycho-babble.
The weird part is that these pieces tend to take on tones as petty and childlike as Palin’s original argument. It’s sort of like if a little kid calls you a phooey-head. Your two options are to either explain that they are the one that is a phooey-head, or walk away and ignore them, because they are a little kid. And while it should be shame on Marcus Broccoli and the Washington Post for publishing this in the first place, blame should also be thrown on all these media outlets for making people think that what Sarah Palin says is serious enough to be refuted.
Hey everyone! Let’s all deconstruct a Sarah Palin Op-ed!
Every editorial news outlet seem to conveniently omit themselves from the ‘media’ that is irresponsibly perpetuating her nonsense, thus creating the impression, even in the eyes of her most ardent skeptics, that Sarah Palin is important enough to counter. The cycle for responding to Palin seems to have taken a concrete form:
1. Read the new Palin op-ed/tweet/facebook note/book/etc.
2. Find the sections of the piece where her logical thought process and factual accuracy are at their worst (this is probably the easiest part)
3. Bitch and whine about how her points are factually wrong (obviously), while explaining these fallicies to a group of elite literary folks, deemed such by their willingness to sit through an entire article, paragraph, or sentence. Clearly this is not the demographic that needs converting.
After coming out with her new op-ed this morning, Gawker, the Atlantic, Media Matters, and a host of others have spit out this same formulaic, predictable retort to her inane Bachman-esque psycho-babble.
The weird part is that these pieces tend to take on tones as petty and childlike as Palin’s original argument. It’s sort of like if a little kid calls you a phooey-head. Your two options are to either explain that they are the one that is a phooey-head, or walk away and ignore them, because they are a little kid. And while it should be shame on Marcus Broccoli and the Washington Post for publishing this in the first place, blame should also be thrown on all these media outlets for making people think that what Sarah Palin says is serious enough to be refuted.