It’s not very often that you get to see a political smackdown like the feud between Palin and Nicolle Wallace. It’s interesting to watch, particularly when it involves the strategy behind the infamous Katie Couric interview.
Sadly, I haven’t been able to “go rogue” since Amazon is holding my pre-ordered copy hostage, but I’ve relished watching this debate unfold. Wallace may have worked for Republicans, but her choices of media outlets is puzzling. Last year it was Katie Couric and last night she chose Rachel Maddow to defend herself? Seriously? Rachel Maddow? That fair and open-minded reporter who is possibly only less partisan than Keith Olbermann?
As a communications professional, Wallace’s strategies have baffled me. Sometimes, the choice of media outlet is more important than what is actually said in the interview. If you are concerned with the opinions of your peers, why talk to such a far-left show? A Maddow interview signals that Wallace is just as much as a sell-out as Brooks or Frum. She almost appears as if she had to go on a format that would push her to attack Palin in order to feed the hate-Sarah media monster.
Mary Matalin has valid points in her CNN piece, but I still question the McCain media strategy:
That Palin recalls her experience with them so negatively and ugly incidents so vividly does not make her a liar, as people with neither her nor the party’s best interests in mind have charged. The operating principle of campaigns, perception is reality, works inside as well as outside.
Once her perception of reality locked in negatively, particularly on Schmidt and Wallace, there was only one prism through which all their actions flowed. And it wasn’t pretty. I have seen this phenomenon on countless campaigns and in the White House. It is unavoidable in any operation that is always under stress, where clearing-the-air sessions aren’t possible given time or physical constraints. That campaign people tend to be uncommonly focused, which can come off as insensitive, might exaggerate the perception, but it is just an occupational hazard.
Think back to last August. McCain was in serious trouble with the base. He won the nomination through process of elimination rather than victory, and no one was excited. He nearly went bankrupt during primary season, and everyone thought he was finished. McCain appealed more to moderate and independent voters than conservatives, and I believe that Palin was correctly brought on to excite conservatives. (Until Palin, I had planned on writing in a vote rather than cast a ballot for McCain). Why did Wallace throw her to the wolves?
Even last year, I remember questioning why Katie Couric? That makes no sense. Couric is a well-known liberal. She was in a ratings free-fall, and the journalism community was questioning if she had what it took to be a nightly news anchor. She wasn’t going to be able to give a “girlfriend” type interview. It was in her personal and professional interests to make sure that Palin tanked. A successful interview for Palin was a failure for Couric.
Why not start with conservative media to seed the news and give the pundits something favorable to discuss? After you’ve nailed down the strategy and the message, go for the more difficult interviews and hostile environments. People were clamoring to interview her, and pundits would have taken any sound bite to dissect ad naseum. Why not make sure the repeated sound bites that will help the campaign, like an interview with Rush or Hannity? Early on, those on the left made it clear that they were out for Palin. She would have been attacked with whatever strategy the campaign picked. Why not ensure that you have good footage out there first?
12 Comments
Come on! If she goes into O’Reilly it will surely be a bias interview.. atleast Couric proved that she’s tough both on democrats and conservatives.. remember the Hillary Clinton inteview wherein Couric persitently asked her if she had thoughts of possibly losing the presidential slate
Wallace’s strategy didn’t take into account that her vice presidential candidate would not be able to answer even the most basic of questions.
freewheel–Palin has admitted that she did poorly in the inteview, but she was capable of answering the questions. Editing did a large part to make Palin look bad. I wish CBS would release the interview unedited or at least the first segment.
It’s still strange that the campaign would start with Couric. Palin was a relatively unknown entity and should have been introduced to the base first.
Miles-Couric was tough on both Hillary and Palin because she was in the tank for Obama. Watch John Ziegler’s Media Malpractice. It’s eyeopening.
It’s a sad state of news that there’s no one who is not “biased.” That’s the worst part of this story.
I can’t take anyone seriously who thinks Couric gives a tough interview. She’s so softball it’s embarrassing.
Dana, if you let one blog post determine if you “take someone seriously” that’s poor judgement. Even among my favorite blogs, I sometimes disagree with what the author has written. That doesn’t derail me from reading them.
Nor did I ever say that Couric gave a tough interview. I merely said that she was the wrong outlet to start with.
This post wasn’t about defending Palin or Katie Couric’s journalism ability, it was written to question Wallace’s strategy. Thus far, only one comment has understood that point.
I don’t believe Couric is a particularly good journalist. In fact, I hated her on morning news for many, many years. She knew her Palin interview was ‘do or die.’
Ah, I just realized that DC Blogs picked up this post and wrongly attributes it to my old blog, Girl from the South.
Welcome DC establishment, Sarah haters. This is what a real conservative looks like. It’s hard to take, I know. Not many of you are exposed to dissenting views from the Obama-worship in this area. In fact, I’m willing to bet that this is the first conservative blog that most have stumbled upon or deign to read. Prepare for your head to do the “exorcist” turn.
“In fact, I’m willing to bet that his is the first conservative blog that most have stumbled upon or deign to read.”
That sort of sums it all up right there…
Oh dear. Wasn’t talking about you…
Sorry if I made it seem that way. I’m talking about most of the people, including Sarah Palin herself, who blamed the interview on Couric unfairly attacking her.
I thought your post was interesting and I’m not a Palin supporter.
I’ve also been repeatedly “exposed” to dissenting views as I’m the daughter of a Birther and the wife of a conservative.
So, um, nope. Not the first conservative blog I’ve stumbled upon or deigned to read.
It’s funny you think that.
Anyway, thanks again for your post. I enjoyed reading it. I actually thought about it later this morning and wondered what you thought of Palin’s decision to do Oprah.
Dana,
The DC Blogs comment wasn’t just directed at you. I’ve been listed there for a number of years. I’ve rarely had a positive experience when my blog is highlighted. Most people in DC are alarmingly liberal and hateful towards me.
As far as Oprah goes, I think it was a good move for both of them. Oprah’s ratings have been tanking since she had Obama on her show in December 2007. Until Palin, her highest-rated show in recent history featured the Osmond family in November 2007. Oprah’s taken a lot of heat for her Obama love, and she came off as snarky with her refusal to have Pain on the show last fall.
Palin’s appearance helped rebuild that bridge to right-of-center voters, especially in a period when Obama’s ratings are below 50%. Oprah is so closely linked to him, and many view her as the “kingmaker.”
Palin was smart by going to Oprah. Oprah has wide appeal, and it at least gave the appearance that she was reaching across the aisle to heal some bad blood from the election.
There aren’t that many general interest outlets, and Oprah is the most prominent one. You want exposure, go on Oprah.
The difference this time is that Palin can control her message and strategy. Previously, she was on McCain’s turf and had to do his bidding. The campaign never found a good strategy for her, which caused most of the issues. When the media questions her, she doesn’t have to stop and think, “what is the campaign’s position,” but can freely give her own opinion.
I applaud you for presenting a different point of view, especially in Obama-land. It gets a little thick around here, and whether I agree with you or not isn’t the point so much as you making sure you’re represented. Kudos. Phee
I don’t agree with you at all politically, and Sarah Palin always struck me as a lightweight famewhore. That said, I check here often. I’m interested in your point of view precisely because it’s so different from my own.
That said, the “welcome DC blogs” comment was less than civil…if the point is to offer a different point of view, wouldn’t it be better to be welcoming and gracious, vs. harsh and sarcastic? Aren’t we supposed to shoot for civility in public discourse so everyone gets a chance to speak?
Shannon, I’m sorry that you feel that way.
My blog has never been short of sarcasm. You are right, and it was “less than civil,” but it was written in response to multiple years of experience with DC Bloggers. I’ve rarely been treated graciously. When I moved away, I even got hateful comments for expressing my desire to move back to Tennessee and daring to question the superiority of living in an urban environment.
You can shoot for civility, but it’s a misnomer that it has ever existed in our society. It’s a hopeless quest.
I’m sorry that you were offended. However, in my position, how would you have reacted? Imagine living in an environment where you opinions are reviled and every single media outlet goes out of its way to attack your beliefs. From that perspective, writing a sarcastic comment doesn’t seem that bad, does it?
Leave a Reply