tom

Did these UK politicians also face constant media attention like Palin has?

Well, there were a lot of them. So the attention was spread around and tended to settle on the dramatic asses like the guy with the moat repairs in his expenses.
She's unique. And, unless I miss my guess none of the UK politicians decided to tour around in a massive bus with 8 foot high graphics in order to drum up publicity. (That was the point of the tour, unloess I missed it whenm she talked about the point of her effort.) That she can create the media coverage has to be enormously galling to "serious" politiicans like what his name....
Palin craves attention but hates scrutiny. Just like Lyndsey Lohan. And Weiner for that matter.
Well, we all hate scrutiny when the results of the scrutiny may tend to hurt ones image.... With the exception of Charlie Sheen I suppose.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. You didn't source it.

Sorry, squire, I was posting from my phone (and am now) so a link was too fiddly. I didn't realise that this was wikipedia. The reports I'd seen here were about the reaction of the right wing media blowhards. I figured it was already known (and easily verified). But I don't see the Obama connection.

2. Thatcher's not part of the media.

You don't say... But clearly you can add the Baroness to your list of elitist liberal Sarah-haters. I was likening Thatcher to the media. Still, Obama?

3. We have no idea, based on your illustrative post, why she would not meet with Palin. For all we know, it could be health, schedule, or not wanting to be perceived to be involved in American politics. Thanks to you we have no idea at all.

According to a Thatcher aide, it would be 'belittling' for her to meet with Palin, who is 'nuts'. Alex Massie (right wing Brit who has been based in the US) in the Daily Beast has some choice words to say. Sorry no link but google will help.

Thatcher will, however, be at Grosvenor Sq on the Fourth at the unveiling of a memorial to St. Ronald of Reagan.

Oh my god! Reagan was President... Obama is President... You found your link!

That lady gets exactly what she wants. The more the media pound on her ignorance the more the hillybilly idiot conservatives love her, the more money and influence she gets.
Let's face it she's ignorant but hardly stupid

Nobody has said anything to show others who faced anywhere the same type of media attention Palin has. Pointing to a one-off situation or two, this woman has faced constant attention and has had tables unfairly turned on her. That's not to say I'm a supporter, far from it. I cringe at the thought of her as President, I like her as a celebrity and maybe as someone to go shooting with, but not as Prez. Still, the attention she gets is beyond fair compared to anyone else on the planet!

Pointing to a one-off situation or two, this woman has faced constant attention and has had tables unfairly turned on her.

Unfairly? You mean "gotcha questions". Like "What publications do you read?

Tom, she seeks that attention, she seems to thrive on it, and she and her fans love scrutiny and criticism most of all because they can squeal about how goshdarn unfair it is.

To an extent she is a unique phenomenon.

I also think her outdoorsy image rings a little false.

danivon wrote:Tom, she seeks that attention, she seems to thrive on it, and she and her fans love scrutiny and criticism most of all because they can squeal about how goshdarn unfair it is.

To an extent she is a unique phenomenon.

Fair enough. So, did that shrinking violet, known as Barack Obama, get this kind of scrutiny as he was actually running for President?

I also think her outdoorsy image rings a little false.

Uh-huh. My wife watched her reality show. I saw the bit where she was clubbing fish. Didn't seem fake at all. I think she shoots, guts animals, etc. Whether or not that's a good thing, I think it's who she is. Have any evidence to the contrary? Is she going to be teaching hunting or fishing on an ESPN show? I doubt it. However, there is no doubt that she is a good deal more comfortable in the country than, say, Hillary.

if you mean "a little false" in the sense that she won't be hosting a Cabela's hunting special, I agree. If you mean "a little false" as in a "fraud," I think you're, ah, barking up the wrong tree.

Yes they have. Check out Hearst publications and what they had to say about Orson Wells, or how John Adams was a hermaphrodite according to anti-federalsit rags in the 1790's.
How about Newt Gingrich in '95-'96. Or ...
Southern "news" paper coverage of Sen Preston Brooks attack on Sen Charles Sumner (they were sorry about that later when Sumner got put it in charge of reconstruction)
or look at Southern and many northern press reactions to THE GREAT AMERICAN HERO JOHN BROWN (emphasis mine)

Howabout the Rosenbergs-jews and commie spys to boot! double whammy of hate
How about male homosexuals in general and their treatment in main stream media from 1700-1985?

I could keep going, she is nothing special. Nothing at all. The yes inappropriate level of bile the lefty scum media shovel at her is gross but what do you expect from the likes of them?
and are then really that different from Fox News or Hearst Publicatoins (back when hearst ran the show)? Go my team! Boo your team!

Nope, absolutely nobody has faced the scrutiny Palin has faced. None, nobody, not even close. These people you speak of had short term "fame" and it lasted a very short time, Palin is running on four years now and her "fame" is based on nothing more than main stream media (not southern media but rather the mainstream stuff televised to every house in the nation) not the same in the least!

How about how Charlie Gibson raised his eyebrows asking her if she KNEW what the Busch doctrine was? Turns out Charles Crouthammer who coined the term said she was spot on and he was wrong ...didn't matter, the damage was done. Did anyone look over their eyeglasses and ask Obama what he meant by 57 (or whatever) states? Nope, he got a free pass for being incredibly stupid, Palin was right and got skewered. How about women's groups who complained about Palin running for VP and taking care of a baby at the same time, completely against their stated goals of equalness yet there they are trying to say just the opposite. No Palin, was and is still be persecuted unfairly and some want to pull up some "characters" from 100 years ago suggesting they were any way similar? Nope, not the same, not even close!
(nice try)

By the way, did anyone ask Obama what publications he read? Did they pose ANY questions to him in the same way they posed them to Palin? Accusing her in disbelief by their questions?
...That answer is NO

GMTom wrote:Nope, absolutely nobody has faced the scrutiny Palin has faced. None, nobody, not even close. These people you speak of had short term "fame" and it lasted a very short time, Palin is running on four years now and her "fame" is based on nothing more than main stream media (not southern media but rather the mainstream stuff televised to every house in the nation) not the same in the least!

John Adams only had 'short term fame'? Orson Welles?

Are you on crack?

"fame" in regards to the crazy media frenzy surrounding them. These examples were of very short term "noteriety" as far as a media circus surrounding them. They were famous and still are, you are purposely trying to avoid the obvious. Please point to a media crazy circus that followed them for a long period of time as the poster who had suggested these people, not a short time one that followed a particular event.

They didn't have the same kind of media circus back then, as media was a lot slower and more expensive.

There seem to be many components of her extensive and negative coverage by the media. I just don't know how you tease the various components apart. These biases include:

1. She is the antithesis of the eastern establishment, both in terms of persona and policies. For example, she is a non-elite, female, hunter/fisher, folksy, not particularly well educated, western, not well educated politician.
2. She is to the right.
3. She is female.
4. She is a cultural icon.
5. She is very pretty in a culture that is obsessed with female beauty.
6. She has said some wacky things and seeks attention.

I think there is some anti-Palin bias because of her to the right politics. But I don't know how you figure out how much of her treatment is due to that, and how much is due to her unusualness in many ways.

Ray Jay wrote:There seem to be many components of her extensive and negative coverage by the media. I just don't know how you tease the various components apart. These biases include:

1. She is the antithesis of the eastern establishment, both in terms of persona and policies. For example, she is a non-elite, female, hunter/fisher, folksy, not particularly well educated, western, not well educated politician.
2. She is to the right.
3. She is female.
4. She is a cultural icon.
5. She is very pretty in a culture that is obsessed with female beauty.
6. She has said some wacky things and seeks attention.

I think there is some anti-Palin bias because of her to the right politics. But I don't know how you figure out how much of her treatment is due to that, and how much is due to her unusualness in many ways.

While true, it is amazing how liberals are not satisfied to disagree with conservative women and minorities. They must be mocked, discredited, and, if at all possible, driven from the public arena.

Why is that?