Question: Why do Disasters get lots of media exposure?
Answer: Ratings. People will watch.
Sarah Palin is a walking taslking natural disaster. She is Jerry Springer on Steroids. She’s entertaining, that’s all.
Mrs Palin is politically cunning, as are many sports commentators at local television affiliates. She has never, to my knowledge, said anything interesting or intelligent regarding a policy issue. Indeed, she makes news most reliably by saying things that are ignorant, untruthful, or grammatically incomprehensible. Up to a point, one can allow that she might be playing dumb as a deliberate strategy, but ultimately Occam's Razor must slice. Last week on "Meet the Press", David Brooks called Mrs Palin "a joke". It is important for the press to remind ourselves periodically that it is possible for people to be powerful, famous, entertaining, and not very bright. We recently elected someone like that to two terms as president of the
, and it was not a pleasant experience. United States
~ Democracy in America, The Economist.
A double slam of George W Bush and his Dan Quayle-light protégé, Sarah Palin.
As long as Sarah grubs the limelight, she’ll be in the news. The reason of course is not to report on any wisdom she may offer, but the opposite – to show that there is nothing of substance there. We can’t have another re-run of the Disaster that was the Bush Administration, can we?
I still think McCain would have been better served by choosing Tina Fey to be his running mate instead of side-show Sarah.