by Datechguy | April 20th, 2011
Last week I had two posts about how the very effective Sarah Palin speech was totally ignored on air by the MSM saying in part:
Why has there been so little on the air about this? For the same reason why you will not see the full clip of Palin’s speech embedded in MSM sites or why there was no commentary this weekend. Watching the actions of the left tend to cause people to dislike them while watching Palin in context tends to make people like her.
media Bias is mostly made up of sins of omission
Well Dave Weigel (a nice enough guy in person BTW) is now covering the question of coverage but with a twist to fit the media template:
But is it a mystery or sign of bias when an author and former vice presidential candidate gives a speech at a rally and it doesn’t get national news coverage? Mansour, Nolte et al know that conservatives have all the access they want to Palin’s speechemphasis mine, through live-streaming and other videos. It doesn’t matter whether the media covers it.
Two lines on the page give away the game:
First the Title: Pay Attention to Sarah Palin!. This is pejorative, suggesting Palin is desperate for coverage and attention and thus unworthy of it. The title allows Weigel to portray Palin as irrelevant dismissing a major speech in the Madison the central national battlefield of state budget battles.
Next the key quote: Take a look at this sentence from his piece conservatives have all the access they want to Palin’s speech. Exactly! Why would any non-conservative be interested in what Sarah Palin says? There is no need to report what she says to non-conservatives, they don’t need to know.
And lets note what the story doesn’t contain, no embed or link to his MSNBC comments that he refers to, no link or embed to the videos of the Palin speech that the discussion is about. Normally such links would be a given in such a piece, but they’re not here. Why not? Remember the quote from the top again:
watching Palin in context tends to make people like her.
Mr. Weigel is read by people on the left and independents, to include these links would defeat the purpose of the article (Mocking Palin and her supporters) rather than inform them of what she actually said or did. Thus he Mattie Fein‘s her, turning the story of an effective speech in a key battleground state into a story of her supporters as petulant children, fitting the MSM/Journolist approved template.
This is more evidence to me that Sarah Palin is not only a viable candidate, but that the media still (as Rush has suggested) fear her. People who are paying $4+ a gallon for gas and lining up to get jobs at McDonalds are looking for strong leaders. The last thing the MSM wants to do is highlight one.
Update: Weigel very politely responds, a peek:
Well, I linked the entire video of Palin’s speech earlier in the week. (He’s right the link is here dtg), It was newsy insofar as any speech by a potential 2012 candidate is newsy. But here’s a scoop: Few speeches get covered the way politicians would like them to be covered. The White House spent a good bit of time putting together a deficit reduction speech last week. What do you remember from it? You probably remember that it looked like Joe Biden was asleep for part of it. Why was Palin’s “target map” a bigger story than her speech? The shootings in Tucson overwhelmed all other news, Palin was unfairly wrenched into the story, and Palin — and Rebecca Mansour — responded in a sort of odd way to this. (Mansour, you’ll recall, told Tammy Bruce that the targets on the map were originally “surveyor’s symbols.”)
Now myself I would have included the link to the earlier post and mentioned said coverage, the lack of it made me assume (incorrectly) that it hadn’t been covered, but I stand corrected on that point.