ST. PAUL, Minn. — The image was arresting: Delegates to the Republican National Convention, fingers jabbing toward the crowd of assembled journalists as Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hurled invective at the press corps:
“I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”
Palin had been the subject of thorough media scrutiny the past week since her improbable selection as running mate of the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. Then, in her speech Wednesday night, she revved up the crowd by borrowing from the Republican playbook of the past four decades: Attack the media.
“There hasn’t been a lot of culture wars (yet this year), but yelling at the press is a way to resonate,” said Stephen Bates, a journalism professor at University of Nevada at Las Vegas and a former associate independent counsel to Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who dogged Democratic President Bill Clinton for years.
The strategy was first seen in vivid images in 1964, at the nominating convention of another Arizona senator, Barry Goldwater.
There, former President Dwight Eisenhower thundered, “Let us particularly scorn the divisive efforts of those outside our family, including sensation-seeking columnists and commentators, because I assure you that these are people who couldn’t care less about the good of our party.”
The crowd at the Cow Palace in San Francisco went wild.
Spiro Agnew, George H.W. Bush and every Republican in between and since has used the strategy to great effect.
It’s worth noting, however, that Republicans do not have the market to themselves this year. Democrats are attacking the media, too. Media Matters for America and other liberal Internet outlets harangue the mainstream press, banging away on perceived conservative bias.
For McCain, there is a rich irony. He has long enjoyed a close relationship with the press. He has jokingly referred to the media as his “base.” His 2000 campaign was propelled on the quick-burning rocket fuel of the “Straight Talk Express,” which was compared to a rolling salon. He gave reporters great access and booze. He was jocular and showed intellectual range. They wrote glowing profiles.
But however implausible as attacks from McCain might be, Palin has a slightly more reasonable case, given the bevy of tough stories, including allegations and an investigation into whether she fired the Alaska public safety commissioner because he wouldn’t fire Palin’s former brother-in-law; and despite her saying otherwise, reports showing she initially supported the “bridge to nowhere,” a federal project in remote Alaska that became synonymous with pork-barrel spending.
But why attack the people most responsible for delivering — for free — your message at the convention?
There are three principal reasons.
The first is to create an atmosphere of aggrieved outrage among the Republican faithful. Republican strategists have often successfully painted the media as part and parcel of a faraway “cultural elite” that is in league with a Democratic Party that wants to raise taxes, take away guns and so on.
For a quarter-century, Republicans suggested the media and the Democrats didn’t take the communist threat seriously. Today, it is the threat of Islamic terrorists.
As the reaction among delegates shows, this is red meat for rock-ribbed Republicans — a group that, until this week, McCain had largely failed to inspire.
Attacking the media can have a second purpose — to intimidate the press corps into letting up. Contrary to some reports, editors, producers and reporters are human, and they respond to cajolery and flattery, but also to intimidation.
There’s anecdotal evidence of cowed reporters, especially during the administration of President George W. Bush.
This tactic is known as “working the refs,” derived from the sports term for barking at the referees in hopes of a friendly call. McCain opponent Sen. Barack Obama used the phrase himself this week when discussing the coverage of Palin.
A third purpose for attacking the press is that it changes the subject. Every paragraph the media devote to Palin’s record as a small-town mayor, or whether McCain properly vetted her, or her unwed daughter’s pregnancy, is a paragraph not used to examine differences in the Democratic and Republican proposals.
McCain forces have reacted with coordinated outrage to the press inquiries. The press then reported the outrage and the cycle continued.
The campaign hopes for a public backlash against the press, which is quite possible, if not now emerging.
Can it work?
Analysts and political scientists who study voter behavior aren’t sure. There are no statistics on the subject, but Michael McDonald of George Mason University and the Brookings Institution said the strategy can consolidate McCain’s Republican base.
But Republicans are at a big disadvantage at this point, nine weeks from the election. More voters are identifying themselves as Democrats than Republicans, by a margin of 15 percentage points. Those numbers indicate McCain must do more than consolidate his base. He must reach independents and even some Democrats.
Jennifer Duffy of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report said attacking the press can work on some issues, such as driving sympathy for Palin, but is not an overall winning strategy for the fall.
And there are signs that the press corps, weary of years of attacks by the Bush administration, are themselves beginning to stomp and shout a little.
In a column that received wide airing Thursday, the usually evenhanded Politico columnist Roger Simon wrote a piece soaked in sarcasm:
“On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
“We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
“We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
