Sarah Palin delivered a charismatic, exciting and professionally polished speech at the Republican National Convention. Out on the campaign trail she draws tens of thousands and delivers invigorating, fresh speeches with plenty of time away from the teleprompter to respond and ‘go live.’ In the live debate she held her own. She was articulate, polished, poised and confident. In her recorded television interview with Sean Hannity she came across just fine.
Yet in her recorded television interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson on CBS and ABC she came across as ill informed, inarticulate and unprepared. How could such a discrepancy exist? Well, there are several optional answers:
1. It could be that TV interviews are just not her best medium. Other politicians have their weak points too. Obama’s not real good in the town hall setting. McCain doesn’t like set speeches as much as the town hall informal cut and thrust. So maybe Palin just doesn’t do TV interviews very well. However, the good performance with Sean Hannity would give the lie to that theory.
2. It’s true that Sean Hannity was more of a friendly interviewer. Maybe Palin just got nervous about Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and flubbed.
3. Then there is another theory. Could it possibly be that both Gibson and Couric set out to trap Palin into whatever gaffe they could possibly steer her into? In addition to this, I don’t think lay people are quite aware of the power of the television or film editor.
I’ve done some television and film production work myself. I am familiar with the editing wizardry available today. No longer does a cut necessarily show. With digital editing they can take a facial expression that seems to look dumbstruck or vapid and extend it by a couple of split seconds making the ‘dumb’ moment last much longer. They can extend a stutter, cut up a phrase or a sentence to make the person seem inarticulate and stumbling. Most of all, if they want to make a person look dumb, they simply cut out anything smart they might say, leaving only the rough stuff.
Then when the interviewee sees the final cut they cry out, “But that’s dumb! I didn’t say that! They took that out of context! They didn’t include what I really said!”
Maybe that’s exactly why the press have been denied taped interviews, and why Palin said at the end of the debate, “I’m glad to have the chance to talk directly to the American people and not have all my words filtered by the media.”
It was clear from the debate that Biden has the experience and gravitas, and Palin the enthusiasm and charisma of the outsider. He seemed to master the details better than her, but she seemed to master the medium, and seemed better at the big picture stuff. They both avoided answering the question and sometimes shifted to their own ground, but that’s what they’re trained to do.
I think the ‘conspiracy theory’ aimed at Couric seems unfounded. You have no evidence that Couric is any gentler with anyone else so why level the conspiracy charge? Sorry, but that is less than charitable.I agree that she performed well in the eyes of many people. But that is not what I saw. I saw her dodge the interviewer’s questions and stick to her Rovian talking points instead. She came right out and said that she was going to talk about what she wanted to talk about instead of the question posed by the interviewer.Biden was gimped. He was obviously coached not to beat up on her.In any event, there was no implosion, no total melt down. She will remain on the ticket and perhaps McCain is back to having a fighting chance.
With all due respect ‘marcus aurelius’, Katie Couric is one of the most biased newspeople out there. Of course she was out to attack Palin. Have you seen otherwise? I noticed during speeches given at the RNC, when Fred Thompson was describing all that happened to McCain during his imprisonment–very moving stuff, Katie talked over him the whole time. It’s scary how much power she and the rest of the media hold.As to what Fr. Longenecker was talking about, here’s the unedited transcript of the Charlie Gibson/Palin interview.http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
IMHO Ms Couric was obviously hostile and asked some very stupid questions in such a way as to elicit inane responses.To ask and then press the issue of what magazines someone reads is just silly. Was Ms Couric hoping that Sarah Palin would confess to getting her news from the Inquirer or her fashion sense from Cosmopolitan? Joe Biden referred to himself in the third person last night which is at best annoying and at worst extremely arrogant. Marcus – She no more “dodged” questions than did Mr. Biden. And the truth squad rated her way higher than Biden. Biden was not gimped – he showed up thinking this was to be a slam dunk and realized too late that Sarah Palin is not the Alaskan hick he thought she was.
kathy – well said and spot on!
marcus aurelius – “Biden was gimped. He was obviously coached not to beat up on her.”Yah – right – and what about the misinformation he gave out? Was that part of his coaching, too? Having been pilloried in the print media several years ago, I do know how the press behaves and I do know that there is no way anyone would want to put themselves out there … Having also been interviewed on television for the same issue, I know that what Father Longenecker writes is true.M.A. – you will just have to keep on disliking Mrs. Palin. Perhaps you could also put the litmus test to Ms. Couric – is she really unbiased?
Father, not to sidetrack this thread, but your NCR piece on the SACRIFICE of the Mass was outstanding. Bravissimo. I would like to nail it to the front door of my parish… 🙂
I agree about the NCR piece. It was excellent! I also think Sarah Palin is energizing the base in a way Sen. McCain never could. http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-new-kind-of-politician-for.htmlLet's keep praying!
If you want evidence of how biased Couric is, just read Ann Coulter’s column this week regarding Couric’s interview with Biden. Could it be more obvious?
Um… I think Anne Coulter left planet earth a while back. I don’t think I’ll be looking to her for evidence or the lack there of regarding bias in the media!To the others; there’s really no denying that Palin screwed the pooch on the Couric interview. She’ll probably even admit it herself, win or lose, in a few years time. You can’t drop the ball like that as a professional politician in interviews. And Palin has had her share of softball interviews, eg. Hannity.Let’s face it. A few folks here have rose colored glasses when it comes to Palin. She can do no wrong, and if it looks as if she makes an error than it is just a media conspiracy, making it look like an error happened.In the real world, your enemies can an will use your mistakes against you in the court of human opinion. The name of the game is not making such blunders in the first place!
I think Palin did flub on a few things, but my question is why did Couric not pick Biden up on his incredible FDR gaffe? Why has the press not picked up on Biden’s total lack of knowledge about Hezbollah and Lebanon in the debate? What he said about USA and France kicking Hezbollah out and sending UN forces into the vacuum was totally looped, not to mention his not knowing which article of the constitution deals with the powers of the VP.MA–come now, seriously tell us that the media is not biased against Palin and for Obama. If Palin had committed even a fraction of the dumb blunders of Biden (and this is a guy who has been a senator for 35 years??) she would have been roasted.
I don’t think you can use the word left in the same sentence with Ann Coulter. The facts she stated stand unrefuted, as do most of her facts, which is why few liberals now have the courage to come on TV opposite her. You might not like her, but she is seldom wrong on the facts, and Father did a nice job recounting the Biden errors that just flew right on by Couric without so much as a raised eyebrow. Come on, if you’re going to micturate in my eye, please do me the courtesy of not telling me it’s just raining.
Fr.I agree that the wealthy liberal elite in the media do wear some rose colored glasses of their own for Obama/Biden. And for whatever reason, prominent professional journalism, pre-Fox, tended to be a little bit left leaning. I’ve always felt it is easier to be a leftist when you’re rich – they can afford green energy, don’t need to compete for jobs with immigrants or affirmative action recipients, or otherwise suffer for the multitude of other liberal stances that tend to bother folksy conservatives.So I can agree that Couric *probably* leans left and *probably* likes Obama as much as you like Palin, and is *probably* just as quick to ignore her hero’s flaws and strongly contrast her hero’s competitor’s flaws. I think you do that too. I probably do, but I can’t see it.But that really doesn’t excuse Palin’s performance with Couric as a professional politician anymore than it would excuse you, I don’t know, saying something horrifically inappropriate or offensive while administering a church sacrament.That’s just accountability to me. Palin is accountable for flubbing an interview with a Journalist. You have to work with both the Hannitys and the Courics of the world if you’re to be available to the American people. There’s a huge error on that particular play.If anything I think you’re also right that Palin’s gaffes have drawn attention away from Obama/Biden’s gaffes. Now that Palin performed in the debates without imploding, it may be possible that McCain can be judged on his own merits once again.I still think that Palin has been a drain on the campaign in a way that a Michael S. Steele or Christine Todd Whitman would not have been. They would have been assetts instead of a burden. Perhaps with them on his side, they could be enjoying the deserved flak that Biden should have been drawing, rather than Palin providing political cover for Biden with her gaffes.So that is where I tend to feel that your fondness for Palin and enthusiasm for what she represents is blinding you from seeing that she has been a liability to the bigger prize – a nomination to the supreme court. A Michael Steel or Christine Whitman may have been a much better choice to accomplish that. Michael Steele has even held his own with Bill Maher, the ultimate hostile pundit.Ahem, I would also like to point out that Michael Steele is catholic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Steele
“And for whatever reason, prominent professional journalism, pre-Fox, tended to be a little bit left leaning.”MA: A LITTLE BIT??!! How many of these “interviews” do we have to watch to understand the dynamics. When K.C. interview McCain, she never once cracked a smile; when she interview Biden, she was wreathed in huge grins. Just watch the body language as well as the words…
“I still think that Palin has been a drain on the campaign in a way that a Michael S. Steele or Christine Todd Whitman would not have been.”Marcus, I think you are wrong in this regard.There may well not have been a campaign without the Governor Palin pick. She was the only choice capable of getting Republicans to enthusiastically support the McCain ticket. Lackluster support from the base — no chance of winning the election. Moreover, Governor Palin might, just might, help win over some of those late undecided voters, many of whom are concerned about putting an empty suit into the White House.
She was not the only choice capable of unifying the party. The party is not made up solely of european-style Christian Socialists. Did you here her at the debate? Spend on this, spend on that, government is the solution for this, for that, for the other. She unified your half the the ‘base’ and alienated mine.Michael S. Steele would have shaken things up. He’s pro-life, catholic, his biggest ‘gaffe’ is to compare stem cell research to Nazi research and slavery. As I mentioned before, he has already been in the meat grinder and has faced off against the likes of Bill Maher.Christine Todd Whitman would also be a competent choice.Palin is good for one thing only, a possible pro life supreme court nominee. I don’t want her calling the shots on Iran or as my sole veto power for bad bills. She appears to have weak analytical power, and I don’t want folksy witticisms or one liners right now. I want sound analytical capability, an ability to think on one’s feet clearly and reasonably. In that context her interview with Couric is frightening. If she says things that stupid to Couric what is she going to say to Vladamir Putin? Or Kim Jong Il? You think their editors are going to be ‘friendly’? What sort of propaganda fodder will she provide our enemies?Sorry, this Palin choice was foolish and lost the McCain campaign valuable time. And as Fr. Longenecker points out, it also provided a smokescreen for the gaffes of McCain’s opponents.
The problem with Sarah Palin. The problem with Sarah Palin’s VP nomination. boils down to 3 issuesElected office requires character and competency. Sarah Palin has character combined with a congenial personality. Unfortunately she is not yet competent as demonstrated by her abysmal interviews. Her experience is not sufficient to meet the requirement for the most important political office in the world. Let’s have a little “straight talk”: Being the mayor of a soulless piece of arctic suburbia or even the governor of a pseudo State like Alaska more akin to an oil rich Gulf Emirate than to the rest of the country are good first steps in a presidential career path. They are far from sufficient to qualify for the office. The desperate attempts to put her through a crash course in Presidency would be comical if they were not tragic!The second issue comes from my deep rooted fear of populism. Most successful dictators started off as sincere likable, straight talking promoters of change who did a good job at convincing folks that things were going to be different. Not that Sarah Palin would necessarily become a female version of Willie Stark but this is a more likely scenario based on historical precedents than her becoming another Jefferson Smith.Now to the most delicate matter! This will at best get me the Neanderthal of the year award, more likely a fatwah equivalent from the femi-nazi Gestapo. I genuinely praise Sarah Palin for bringing to the world five children. I admire her demonstrated heroic prolife virtues, I am however very uneasy with a family model claiming that a mother of five young children can be engaged in a high profile professional activity without compromising her role as a mother. This is not about claiming that a woman is not capable of holding such an office. Sarah Palin, probably not willingly, is the last nail to the coffin of full-time motherhood and a pusher of the bankrupt idea that fatherhood and motherhood are interchangeable.So whom am I supposed to vote for? Well the intrinsic evil anti-life platform of Obama-Biden is out of question and I will not waste my vote on a hopeless ticket!I feel sorry for Sarah Palin. In 10 to 15 years, with most of her kids gone through college, a little more experience under her belt, may be a few more classes in geopolitics and a few trips abroad, she could have become a credible candidate. I am afraid after the lights go down comes November 5th she will be a casualty of the cynical political system she so much wants to challenge.
Marcus,I stand by my original statement, namely that after backing into the nomination, McCain had to do something dramatic to get a large Republican turnout on Nov 4. I would further suggest that selecting Michael S. Steele or Christine Todd Whitman would not have been dramatic.Like it or not, the choice of Governor Palin fired-up the Christian conservative base of the party, i.e. the constituency whose support is required for any Republican to win the White House. And whether or not we identify ourselves with that voting block, its support is critical to a Republican candidate’s success. And while her selection may have alienated other registered Republicans, their numbers are so small that the impact on the election will be inconsequential, i.e. McCain picks up more votes with Palin than he loses.Along the same line, Democratic presidential candidates cannot win without the support of their voting blocks, including NOW, NARAL, PETA, and George Clooney.Who are the “European-style Christian socialists?”
“She came right out and said that she was going to talk about what she wanted to talk about instead of the question posed by the interviewer.”Marucs Aurelius — isn’t that what candidates usually do during televised debates? They may not always come right out and say so, but they usually DO so.I thought both candidates were refreshingly direct about where they stood. Biden spoke better, but then he has a lot more experience in this kind of speaking. Both said things I liked and then would come out with a zinger that set me back thinking, “I can’t possibly vote for anyone who says that!!”I feel like a person with no party and no one I can vote for. What Biden said about social issues is completely unacceptable to me. But our health care system needs overhauled and McCain’s proposal is just plain stupid. Bush has handled the war so badly that I want a complete change — but not what Obama says. And anyway, I don’t think either healthcare proposal, tax proposal, or war plans are really workable.I don’t want to do a write-in vote or not vote at all. But I don’t like either of the viable options.
Let us apply Occam’s razor — the simplest answer is most likely to be the correct answer — to the question.The simplest answer is this:Sarah Palin is in over her head. Big time.