The Los Angeles Times columnist Robin Abcarian Posted a column "Um, Could Sarah Palin please run for president" a classic example of anti-Palin elitism. She looks to the 2016 presidential elections "with anticipation and dread." Dread because apparently the process is tres tres "exhausting." Reading her sardonic screed the question rises what on earth does any of what she writes have to do with serious journalism"?
Perhaps that is the wrong question to ask, perhaps, it's "Is political "journalism" utterly dead in the print media having committed hara-kari with grossly biased coverage of the McCain-Palin campaign in 2008?"
Even though ethical, unbiased journalism died with the liberal media not even making a halfhearted attempt at any sort of even handed reporting of the Obama/McCain presidential race, and especially the Palin candidacy for vice-president, the obvious bias was reported in a straightforward manner. That the Obama presidency has dashed the, frankly idiotic, unicorn ridden dreams of the mostly youthful media contingent, has produced an odd overlay of weltschmertz which, badly, hides the disappointment and blocks the criticism which any honest person would present in their mea culpa.
Abcarian incidentally has made a career choice of being the red meat tosser of Palin hate to Los Angeles Dem's (e.g. such previous condescension as;"Liberals: She can't hurt you anymore. It's time to get over her."Her career is about self-enrichment now, not politics." )
Which snideness epitomizes the absolute nadir of the journalistic descent into irrelevance by a deft, to give her her only due, combination of Palin "snark" with an utterly cynical overview of the upcoming 2016 campaign-a bravura performance of 'sound and fury signifying nothing' to quote a real writer.
Abcarian firstly ruminates sarcastically on past GOP candidates e.g. Herman Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann for their, to her, "colorful distraction" value. Then, looking to 2016 gives the potential candidates of the Establishment a pass, (of course) before finding fault with current "swimming underdog" (sic) Rand Paul who, whilst apparently having "indefensible ideas" is not as much of a "crackpot" as his father.
Having, for forms sake possibly, to introduce some sort of balance she dredges up Bernie Sanders on the"Democratic" side. That Sanders is an Independent still doesn't seem to matter, but he will do as the supposed "Dem" for her exercise.
Now, it is fair to advise that some dispassionate observers might consider Sanders eccentric, but not so Abcarian. She kindly describes the old gentleman whom nobody except on the wilder shores of "DailyKos" readers takes seriously as a candidate as "a very seasoned political operator, and I see nothing in his history that hints at campaign trail loopiness." Talk about rose colored glasses.
That candidates review would be considered "balanced" if one is a blinkered leftist. Having disposed of the Republicans, except for Jeb of course, she then launches into her bete noir in extremis Governor Palin (that she would ever use the honorific would be a miracle of selflessness and journalistic ethics) and there follows four paragraphs dripping with utter sarcasm.
It is interesting that on the same day Time ran a deeply sincere and honest portrait of Palin as a caring human being which article was totally stripped of the usual leftist cant that Abcarian so clearly relishes.
Writing like a teenager (you can just hear the giggling) Abcarian flexes her journalistic muscle and surveys Palin for 2016:"I could not help but get a teensy bit excited over the weekend when she sparked a war of words with animal rights activists after praising her 6-year-old son for stepping on the back of his dog to reach the kitchen counter."
And the denouement. With all intellectual muscles stretched to breaking point-after all millions support Governor Palin so Abcarain's comment should be expected to be well measured and insightful-but instead we are served up this tripe.
But Palin’s response to PETA’s criticism shows that she would be a formidable contender in 2016, simply for entertainment value:
Seriously, how do we get this woman to run?"
Clearly the media of integrity and seriousness is dead and what remains views the political process as a source of utter partisanship, titivation, and personal amusement.