Perhaps it is a result of our modern 24-hours news cycle, and therefore unsurprising, but a new trend in the relationship between politicians and the press has emerged in the last two years. Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan calls it The Palin Model, and we’ve seen it adopted more and more as the 2010 election season shifts into overdrive.
It works like this: Run for public office, stonewall the media, shun transparency, pander to the base, and dismiss criticism of your record as the work of an overzealous press corps.
Doing these things will ensure that you can say whatever you want without having to support it with facts. It means that you can propose any idea at all, no matter how sincerely dumb, and never have to actually stand for it.
It all began with Sarah Palin in 2008. When interview after interview and debate after debate showcased her incompetence for the office she was seeking, Palin decided to put a new twist on the tried and true game “Blame The Media”: control the message by falling back on talking points, refuse to answer questions, and point the finger at the liberal “gotcha” media.
This proved a solid tactic and played particularly well with a socially conservative political base that has long believed the media were out to get them.
But even Palin has been outdone in recent weeks. Nevada Republican Senate candidate and Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle has improved upon the model. Not only has she continually ducked the media and avoided tough questions about her record, but she even once walked out of her own press conference. She has even gone so far as to admit that she only wants to speak to the press when they will act as her mouthpiece.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a newfound hero in the conservative political sphere because of the immigration law she signed this spring, has provided a perfect example of The Palin Model for all aspiring politicians to see and use. After a disastrous debate performance, in which she froze up like a child caught with her hand in the cookie jar, Brewer was asked by a pool of reporters why she hadn’t and wouldn’t correct her erroneous statement that beheadings were taking place in the Arizona desert. She decided it was better to simply not answer and walk away. Brewer has also decided that she will not participate in any more debates, admitting that the only reason she took part in the first debate was in order to receive more than $1 million in public campaign funds. How respectable.
Elsewhere, Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul has been urged by GOP heavyweights to stay out of the media limelight after some of his rather distasteful positions became clear.
Admittedly, there is an element of cringing humor that accompanies The Palin Model. But, sadly, this trend is not nearly as funny as it is disturbing.
The public has a right to know and that right is never more important than when it comes to knowing where their political representatives stand on the issues. The public also has a right to question and criticize public officials, and it is the role of the press to be a voice and representative of the public in this regard.
One of the main reasons I started this blog was to initiate a forum for media criticism. There are a number of significant ways that we in the journalism profession can do our jobs better. But when politicians blame the media and dodge questions simply because they are criticized, challenged and not allowed to repeat talking points without repercussion, well, it sends a message of disrespect and disregard for an essential foundation of our democracy.
Of course, this phenomenon need not be limited to conservatives. I posted the other day on the libel suit Democrat Jeff Greene is expected to file against two Florida newspapers and the sheer fallacy of his intentions.
As the November mid-term elections approach, I will do my best to stay abreast of incidents when politicians dodge the media and report them here regardless of their political affiliation.
I couldn’t agree more. Independents can be easily duped by the Palin Model into voting for someone they might fundamentally disagree with.
Does it occur to you that the reason they can not only get away with it but are completely sympathized with when they do do it is that the media has actually become a partisan spin machine one way or the other and that headlines in particular, after research, tend to have little to do with actually furthering understanding of a politicians position?