Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Liz Smith | 01/09/2009 11:45 am

Liz Smith: The Media Should Take Responsibility for Palin

© AP

Some people questioned the post I ran recently on Sarah Palin and her fabulous imitator, Tina Fey, having forged a friendship of sorts. I questioned it myself, saying it was a rumor covered in grains of salt. Now we know the shaker is full of grains. Friends don’t accuse friends of “exploiting” them. 

As you know, Palin, in her latest series of defensive interviews said – among other things – that Fey and Katie Couric “are exploiting me.” (Oh, and I was so looking forward to the vacation photos of Tina and Sarah, “pal’in around.”)  

As for Katie, Palin has simply never gotten over the “what do you read?” question. But in this latest interview she proves Katie’s point – or at least the point made by Palin’s uncomfortable answer. Gov. Palin seems to be under the impression that Caroline Kennedy, seeking the New York Senate seat, is getting better treatment than she did, because of "class issues."  

See, this is where reading helps. Caroline Kennedy, the last living member of JFK’s “Camelot,” has been savaged from day one. Anybody who has bothered to pick up a newspaper – The New York Times, for instance – would have seen just how badly Caroline has been mocked and questioned and made fun of for her “you knows”!

Sarah makes many other untrue or skewered statements in this interview, but there is no point in getting all excited, trying to prove where she bends the facts, or wishing she would go away. I wrote here months ago, immediately after the Republican Convention that no matter what we thought, or who won the election, Palin had become an instant icon to her party, and a media magnet. She was a woman with a pull so powerful that the press, even all those who thought she was some hick flash-in-the-pan, couldn’t stop themselves from giving her space.

I warned that every critique of Sarah elevated her profile and endeared her even more to her worshippers. I advised everybody – especially MSNBC – to shut up, look away and stop. Nobody took my advice. And they are still covering her every utterance and public appearance. And so do I! Some of these events – like the incredible turkey incident – are followed by jokes and put-downs. But Sarah has been seen, yet again, all over the newspapers, all over cable. One who is covered so thoroughly must be pretty important, yes?

Well, thanks to all of us in the media who have relentlessly yukked it up over her, yes, you betcha, she’s important. 

The elevation of Sarah Palin by the very people who disdain her is “hoist with your own petard” to the max.

Perhaps the next time Palin gives an interview, Keith and Rachel and Chris and me, and all others who find her so absurd, will … not mention it.     
If a Palin falls on deserted Alaskan tundra, does it make a sound? Why don’t liberal media give that a thought?

Click here on this text to read my New York Post column.

135 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

DeBúrca obj
But Palin “making untrue” statements is the whole point in her attempts to blame it on the media. The GOP, Palin included, depends upon making untrue statements appear “true”… but the only way to get away with that is either 1) have a media afraid to report on those untrue statements or, failing that, 2) discredit the media in an attempt to get the under-informed citizen to question what they are reading and hearing reported by the media. It is a ploy to get people to dismiss their own ability to reason.
By DeBúrca obj on 01/09/2009 12:05 pm
gulliver fourmyle
she’s kept in our vision/ears as Reeps Own Our media—-as for American’s average ability to ‘reason’? hit their wallets, or they don’t care—-if they could reason, we would not be in this ‘military/economic’ disaster—-Blame? a rotten basic educational system—-inadequate teachers, not wishing to live as church-mice—-a 60’s HS grad now may ‘kick-butt’ on average MA-BS university grads—- ‘Sputnick’ led to a huge increase in ‘education-priority’—-and ‘kids who could think’, hence simply sprung civil-rights, anti-Nam folk—-doubt the Guv liked that—-or will look for a repeat. keep ‘em dumb—-‘Head ‘em up, move ‘em out: Rawhide’—-
By gulliver fourmyle on 01/11/2009 1:11 am
DeBúrca obj
Thus a takeover of the Republican Party by the Know-Nothing Party. A perfect storm to keep a certain group of people continually voting against their own best interests and helping the top 1% stay in power at the expense of the whole country. The middle class is dead and doesn’t even know it.
By DeBúrca obj on 01/11/2009 9:00 am
gulliver fourmyle
not quite sure what you mean—-the Republican Party was created to maintain the fiscal interest of the 1% you mention—-i feel their are enough who could compose an alternate party, as a ‘Knowing’ entity—-‘for-the-people’—-would you deny Al Frankin a victory as a ‘Know-Nothing’?
By gulliver fourmyle on 01/11/2009 3:35 pm
DeBúrca obj
I am talking about the “Know Nothing” party which has been absorbed into the GOP. The Know Nothings consider intellectualism “elitist” and would be considered “nationalist” in their ideology. Al Franklin would be the antithesis of the Know Nothings. “The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to U.S. values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts met with little success. There were few prominent leaders, and the largely middle-class and entirely Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery. Most ended up joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election.[1][2] The movement originated in New York in 1843 as the American Republican Party. It spread to other states as the Native American Party and became a national party in 1845. In 1855 it renamed itself the American Party. The origin of the “Know Nothing” term was in the semi-secret organization of the party. When a member was asked about its activities, he or she was supposed to reply, “I know nothing.”
By DeBúrca obj on 01/11/2009 5:41 pm
gulliver fourmyle
hate being repetitive—-stuff is ‘here and there’. may i remind you, the North East and North Central ‘corridors’ were in their worst depression—-while the South both prospered via exports, and was rapidly turning profits to ‘industrial rival’. that’s pure old biz, not ethics. my sister was murdered, a factory ‘blown-up-real good’ eh? there’s an interesting ‘sidebar’ here. the book ‘Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea’, this very ship was carrying huge #s of California Gold ingots—-sufficient to ‘revive those areas. but sank. this was when the GOP was born—-and i feel quickly provoked the South to war—-i am not ‘Johnny Rebb’—-but as a biz-vet i Know the extent of risk. is it obvious that The Civil War was ‘economic’—-‘military supply sales’ got them out of depression, supplied flow of cash—-and so we get 2+million dead, and then a totalitarian state—-i had a clever history teacher—-
By gulliver fourmyle on 01/11/2009 10:11 pm
T P
Gov. Palin seems to be under the impression that Caroline Kennedy, seeking the New York Senate seat, is getting better treatment than she did, because of “class issues.” I think you should ask every New Yorker what they truly think of Caroline and class issues. Gov. Palin is right by the way. There are those who work and actually do the job. There are those who never work and want things given to them. New Yorkers are one of the hardest working people in the States and they should have someone who represents that.
By T P on 01/09/2009 12:19 pm
Marjorie C.
Tanja: Gov. Palin seems to be under the impression that Caroline Kennedy, seeking the New York Senate seat, is getting better treatment than she did, because of “class issues.” Class issues, maybe. The fact that Caroline is a Democrat is absolutely all the press needs to keep touting her for senator. I don’t know why Paterson keeps dragging this thing on and on. He should just do what he’s been instructed to do and end the charade. I agree that the New Yorkers deserve better, and when elections come around they would be wise to change the scenery in the governor’s office as well as the senate. The Republicans have to get in there and offer something better… can’t be too hard in the case of CK.
By Marjorie C. on 01/09/2009 4:47 pm
James the Game
I don’t much about Caroline Kennedy, but she seems to hate being asked questions - not good for a prospective senator. I remember when Wolf Blitzer asked her about the vetting process for Obama’s running mate, and she got real crabby with him. “Oh, you know about the vetting process do you?,” she snarled at Wolfie. Then, when Blitzer asked if she would give some clue as to how that process unfolded, she retorted, “No, I’m not going to tell you anything. That was a private process, and none of your business.” Although she might’ve been right, there was no need to jump down Wolf’s throat for simply doing what reporters do: ask questions. So, this latest thing regarding her hesitation to answer reporters’ questions comes as no surprise. P.S. How ‘bout those Gators?!
By James the Game on 01/10/2009 8:51 am
beth willis
How ‘bout those gators, Jim! My husband is a huge fan, two years at Florida before transferring to UMass. Imagine the culture shock. Happy New Year. And from your Caroline Kennedy examples, maybe there’s a reason they don’t let her out too much. Peace and grace
By beth willis on 01/10/2009 10:24 am
James the Game
Likewise, Beth. Hoping to watch the NFL playoffs today and tomorrow - should be good.
By James the Game on 01/10/2009 12:11 pm
gulliver fourmyle
well James, there are ‘Real’ reporters (All The President’s Men), then those as Wolf, simply another ‘talking-head’—-considering the Kennedy’s long-term, never-ending exposure to ‘verbal-papparazi’, i find it easy to understand her impatience with one more ‘faux-reporter’, simply pursuing his master’s, ie: Fox agenda—-my question would be why she would consent to being interviewed by a Reep-owned entity under any circumstance—- to be questioned as to anything, it is hardly those questioned, save under oath in court, where any ‘disclosure-question’ requires co-operation to say a thing. hence i feel her response adequate—-it is of interest to note ‘Fox-News’ is generally considered a joke, internationally—- if you wish ‘real news’ you must watch PBS, or acquire a short-wave radio—-the ‘news’ from within ‘the belly of the beast’, via TV, is simply a futile effort—-i don’t blame her, save for not simply walking out—-cheers
By gulliver fourmyle on 01/12/2009 2:34 pm
James the Game
Wolf Blitzer’s on CNN, Gully.
By James the Game on 01/13/2009 9:50 pm
gulliver fourmyle
sorry ‘bought that chief’—-but i see no difference—-both propaganda—-:)
By gulliver fourmyle on 01/13/2009 11:21 pm
James the Game
True…although I think CNN is a little more neutral, whereas Fox where’s its conservative bias on its sleeve. And MSNBC is too openly liberal. As a reporter myself, I believe media should strive to be fair and balanced, neutral as possible. Of course, we all see things through the prism of our personal life experiences, belief systems, etcetera. But it is the striving to be fair that is what one should strive for. But when major media outlets are openly partisan - not even trying to hide it - then it’s hard to take anything they say with anything other than a grain of salt. CNN, at least, makes some effort - not much sometimes, but some - to tell both sides.
By James the Game on 01/13/2009 11:28 pm