Thanks for the examples, fishin.
I think that this is something that can maybe only be meaningfully discussed after a Pew study or something -- a really thorough survey of who was saying what when.
Because I haven't read enough to assert that nobody in the media went over the line, at all. (And I agree that while Schultz is pretty obscure, I can see the annoyance with the other two examples you mention.)
I'm saying that
by and large, in my opinion, the media did what it needed to do here. It did the vet that McCain didn't, and that's a good thing.
But none of us have the time to do the kind of survey that could prove or disprove that point.
I'm not sure a Pew survey would quite cover it either, because they tend to differentiate between positive and negative stories -- but I think there are different kinds of negative stories. One is, "She says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere but in fact was originally for it." That's negative but IMO entirely valid. Then there's "she faked the pregnancy" which is negative but over the line IMO. (Did any mainstream news organizations pick up on that one though? Or was it just DailyKos and Sullivan? And Sullivan, as I said, took the position that sure it's unlikely but could someone definitively debunk it already?)
Clark Hoyt in the NYT today:
Quote:By choosing a running mate unknown to most of the nation, and doing so just before the Republican National Convention, John McCain made it inevitable that there would be a frantic media vetting. It turns out that Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, that she sent e-mail complaining about a lack of disciplinary action against a state trooper who was going through a messy custody battle with her sister, and that she never made a decision as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, one of her qualifications cited by McCain.
The drip-drip-drip of these stories seems like partisanship to Palin’s partisans. But they fill out the picture of who she is, and they represent a free press doing its job, investigating a candidate who might one day be the leader of the Free World.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/07pubed.html