Punching Bag

Journalists tell us stories. In their stories there are characters that have certain roles to play. Because journalists, like teachers and novelists, are mostly liberal in their views it is unsurprising that certain types of people are given certain roles. Right-leaning buffoon is a popular character. Recently there have been two examples of this in two elections on opposite sides of the world: Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for the office of Vice President in the American elections, and Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First in the New Zealand elections. While I would never vote for either, I have also thought that many in the media have covered them complacently.

Winston is generally now portrayed in the New Zealand media as a smug, blustering man who has probably done some dodgy things but prefers antagonising journalists to giving answers. Sarah Palin is generally portrayed as an idiot. An idiot with some idiotic views, some of which might have been potentially dangerous should she have become Vice President.

Sarah Palin. Man. There are moments in her interviews with Katie Couric where you just can feel yourself die inside. It's very much like watching that genre of comedy perfected by Gervais where you feel as if you're watching a car crash in slow motion. Tina Fey realised this. Parts of her parody of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live are actually just word for word what Palin actually said. What's the problem with Palin? What’s the fundamental thing that led to her performing so disastrously in media interviews? She was unprepared. That's about it I reckon.
You can't, if you believe in democracy at all, discount her from the political debate because she has views you don't agree with - after all she represents the views of many in America. So if she was unprepared why didn't she just admit it instead of trying to bluff? Firstly let me say that I think it was encouraging that she wasn't good at bluffing. Secondly, how could she admit she was unprepared if she was running as Vice President? She was in a nasty situation. Unused to bluffing, talking on subjects she didn't know much about (and hadn't needed to know about in her previous roles), but not able to admit to not knowing the answers. Which makes me think that the people who put her name in the ring and ultimately chose her are really the ones to blame.
Some commentators in America were noting that the media were making a lot less of Joe Biden's gaffs, and he made a few. If Sarah Palin had said that FDR in 1929 jumped on the TV to reassure Americans about the depression (he wasn't President, and there was no such thing as TV) it would have been all over Saturday Night Live and the blogs, but Joe Biden hadn’t been given that role to play in the story of the election in the USA.

Winston Peters. His own assessment of the whole donations scandal is pretty accurate: cleared by the three investigations that counted, and censured by a kangaroo court. I think that any court where a figure as antagonising as Winston Peters is tried by his peers shortly before an election seems likely to be fairly biased. Who the hell is Owen Glenn? John Campbell's research on this was a comment to a reporter who went to Glenn's press conference: "You heard him speak? He seems credible doesn't he?" By any standard this is pretty poor. Constantly we heard the statement: "What possible motive could Glenn have to do this?" I can think of plenty. How about he is a man who likes to feel he has influence? How about he is a petty man who has a grudge about not getting what he thinks he paid for?

I also think Helen Clark's assessment of Peters was fairly accurate: his relationship with the media "is not the best" and he does himself no favours. True. His dealings with the media are infantile, and Guyon Espiner was right to call Peters' behaviour pathetic when Peters stormed off because journalists were standing on the wrong step. Pathetic. On the other hand, if he actually didn’t do anything really wrong then it seems a disservice to the democratic process that his political career is finished, as is his political party, the careers of the members of parliament who were in it, and the representation of the people who loyally voted for that party.

Still, it’s more satisfying sticking the journalistic boot into a man who has enjoyed sticking his own nicely shined business shoes into your gut for the last few years, than it is to be a little dispassionate and not call the result (wrongly) before various investigations are concluded.

Right wing whinging about the conspiracy of the left-wing media is usually wrong, but it is also sometimes right. Sarah Palin is not a bimbo. She has had a fairly successful political career in Alaska and raised a family of five. She holds views on social issues that are right wing, but she doesn’t seem to be fanatical about believing everyone should adopt her views. Winston Peters is antagonised by journalists in New Zealand. His other biggest flaw is probably self-delusion, but he has had a long career, represents a section of our population, has great charisma, and actually didn’t do too badly as minister of foreign affairs.

I suppose it is one of the perils of entering the public world that you have very little control over the role you are given in the national story.