Should Palin speak to The Media? Posing the question

Beyond all need to link for proof, for weeks there has been an increasing and alarmed chorus of voices demanding that Governor Sarah Palin, GOP VP nominee, "speak to the media." In tandem, much dismay and alarm has been registered over the fact that she has not sufficiently "spoken to the media," along with concerns that this is all because she just "isn't up to speaking to the media."

Who has raised this alarm?

The media.

Of course, when sheeple hear a loud enough noise sounded often enough — particularly a howl — they start bleating in chorus. Thus, some easily-persuaded souls have begun to echo the alarm, or be moved by it. Others had already been bleating along, driven by hatred for her and what she represents to them. No great surprise there.

But let's just focus on the demand, and the demanders. Should Governor Palin "speak to the media"?

How could anyone say "No" to that? She's a public figure. Of course she should speak to the media, if you ask the question that way. We think of "the media" as the gateway between these public figures and ourselves. We cannot get within earshot of these people, so the media do it for us. They ask our questions. They get us our information. That's what we mean by "the media."

But what if we re-frame the question? What if we ask this:

"Should Sarah Palin repeatedly and regularly subject herself to public and hostile interrogation by an audience composed of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Alcee Hastings, Charles Rangel, and people to their left in ideology and temperament?"

Well, no; we'd say. I mean, she could if she wanted — but she's hardly obliged to do so.

What of this, then?

"Should Sarah Palin repeatedly and regularly subject herself to public and hostile interrogation by an audience composed of unaccountable professionals devoted singlemindedly to her humiliation, destruction, defeat, and hounding from public life; and to the victory of her opponent, Barack Obama, and the extreme leftist position he represents?"

The question is the same. Both questions are for all practical purposes what one asks today when he demands that Sarah Palin "speak to the media." (BTW, as an example: the VP debate tonight will be moderated by a hard-leftist who stands to gain financially from Obama's victory, but who sniffily dismisses concerns about her objectivity. Somehow, Jim Treacher got a peek at her questions.)

The only difference is that the first assemblage I named are accountable. They were elected. They were given their position by public vote. The second is none of those things: unelected, unappointed, unaccountable, representative only of themselves.

Ask yourself: when has a mainstream media reporter asked your question? When has he actually fulfilled that role of representing us? They do represent some of us — those on the left-to-far-left. But the rest? Hardly. Research has shown that, not only do they not represent us, they don't even know us. They don't even socialize with pro-lifers, with Biblically-faithful Christians. They don't know what we're thinking to ask what we're wondering.

A conservative (I forget which) remarked truthfully in the '70s, "It used to be that 'the loyal opposition' meant the opposing political party. Now it means the media."

If Palin's goal is to please the media — well, forget it. She'd have to renounce Christ, cheat on her husband, trash her own values, and retroactively abort Trig. (Then they'd call her a hypocrite anyway... unless maybe she took a lesbian lover.)

If her goal is to speak to America, then frankly I don't see her as obliged to ignore the wisdom of Proverbs 23:9. She should keep doing as she's doing, minus the time-wasting with the likes of Katie Couric. The press, as I predicted, isn't interested in reporting on her and the McCain campaign. We'd see a lot more even-handedness, were that true. (Robert Knight supplies a number of additional particulars.)

And BTW, I go both ways in this. The media doesn't represent my interests in its coverage of either campaign. They don't ask my questions, they don't pursue my concerns. They are actively campaigning for Obama, and that's all they're about.

Glenn Reynolds relays this email from "a reader in a major newsroom":

"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona [sic]. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama [sic] is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its [sic] working."

A Christian takeaway

This has been an exercise in examining the question. Do not respond to questions without examining their premises. Do that, and moments later you'll be at the bottom of the pit, with the spikes, with all the camouflaging branches scattered about you, wondering how you got there (cf. Proverbs 26:4).

For instance, a non-Christian says, "What proof is there for the existence of God?" We launch into teleological, cosmological, and other proofs... and wonder why we get nowhere.

Perhaps we'd do better if we responded with a question of our own: "What 'proof' would you expect?"

Or a non-Christian says, "So if a guy loves his wife, tells the truth, and gives to charity, but he doesn't become a born-again Christian, God's going to send him to Hell?" Usually Christians will accept the premise and work hard to make it okay for God to do as the questioner alleges.

It might be better to ask in response, "So what would merit Hell? How do you determine that?"