In the interests of fairness, such a policy would also have had to be in place with regard to Joe Biden. Given Biden's ability to talk the leg off a chair, I'm not sure that it is a situation which would have been ideal for the Obama campaign.

Good stuff. I was sick of seeing non-stop replays of the same, tired, campaign speeches from both sides, on all the networks.
Demanding actual Q&A opportunities, under threat of dumping coverage of those speeches, would have had an immediate, and positive effect. Maybe next time?

"The television press should simply refuse to broadcast the words of candidates who do not grant them legitimate access."

Thank you for stating the reason I simply didn't watch television coverage of the campaign. I quickly realized I was only hearing campaign soundbites. Television coverage amounted to the video ping-pong back and forth of rhetoric and response between campaigns.

Where was the actual reporting?

I only hope someone out there in charge is reading.

Joe Biden went on "Meet the Press" shortly after Palin's nomination and said that she was "sequestered". I always wondered why the MSM didn't pick up that torch. They should have, and I hope they do so in the future. Palin's pathetic assertion during the debate that she wouldn't answer questions the way her opponent or the moderator wanted her to because she was speaking "directly to the American people" was a shameful attempt to blame the media for her lack of communication. Let this never happen again.

ok, but as others are saying, lets also include the fact that both Biden and Obama never got close to a question and answer experience for the last few months either...
so it is a failure to get answers from all the candidates...
face it, the main news outlets are now boring, repeating over and over the same information... it is filling for the ads around it...

Now, Palin is doing countless interviews and STILL no one is asking legitimate questions. They are only giving her a platform to "clear her name" from allegations made by McCain staffers. These new interviews tell me that Palin just absolutely has no substance and likely never has. (It doesn't speak well for the media either ...)

Unfortunately, all of the people of this country can not look to the press to be their proxy anymore because the press is so obviously biased toward the left. I think that we will find that the press has been greatly damaged in this election. The people in this country will be much more cynical and skeptical toward the press.

Elvin1: I think that reporting is mostly far-right biased. If there is a church to interview, it's always an "evangelical" one, not a mainstream church. Everything that the neo-con's say is reported like it is the TRUTH, when it is just someone's opinion. No one put Rev. Wright's comments in perspective -- I have watched the rest of that sermon, but it was hard to find. MSNBC is sort of liberal. The NYTimes is not really liberal, ABC/NBC/CBS are more worried about ad revenues than news, and since most ads are from multi-national companies they supported McBush. The WSJ is turning into Fox News light. Fox News is right-wing propaganda. Palin's exorcism was oddly reported, and it should have been fully reported because it is a half-hair off from Devil worship. I fear for the country if some one like her, who has been influenced by UnChristian and anti-Christian beliefs, is elected because she is no good Christian.

It is hogwash that there is a liberal media bias.

Absolutely, right on the mark. I generally have one of the cable news networks on for background noise while I work. All I heard was one stale, uninformed and uninforming stump speech after the next--from both sides. And the current spate of Palin interviews has ridiculous. Matt Lauer's fauning "interview" with her today was truly stomach-turning.

If the media was really as left-leaning as people like to say it is, there WOULD have been more pressure on Palin to talk to the press, and it WOULD have been brought up on broadcasts that she wasn't doing so.

Items such as Palin's witch-doctor would have been reported on fully and openly, which never happened. Certainly not on the level that Wright was reported on with Obama. Same with her connection to the AIP. Reports about Obama being a Muslim or a socialist or being tied to terrorists were literally everywhere for months and months, but there were very few "real" reports about her connection with a secessionist party within the US, and they were half-hearted at best.

People want to blame a liberal, left-leaning media all the time, and it's getting tired. The reason so much of the coverage of McCain's campaign was less-than-flattering is because he ran a completely screwed up campaign.

If, for example, Obama had "suspended" his campaign for no reason, the press would have been all over him for it like they were with McCain. If Obama had been trying desperately to call McCain a terrorist or a socialist without ACTUALLY coming right out and doing so, the press would have been on it.

Well said, Douglas. I proposed the same thing on my own humble blog. The idea of tamely following the (any) candidate around and meekly publishing today's talking point, without question, as if it were the gospel is an embarassment to all of us who call ourselves journalists. If you don' t know the difference between pap and news, then you need to find work elsewhere, otherwise the next thing you'll be doing is putting VNR's on the air as real reporting.
Let 'em whine about the non-coverage. If all they want is unchallenged airtime, they can call it what it really is (an ad) and pay for it.

Let's face reality folks. Yellow journalism is alive and well in the United States. The Pulitzer Prize is named for the "creator" of yellow jounalism, Joseph Pulitzer. It was responsible for mis-reporting the attack (which was later revealed to be a simple, tragic boiler malfunction) on the battleship USS Maine which got us into the Spanish-American War. It mis-reported the attack on the Lucitania to get us into WWI. It got us into the most recent mess in Iraq.

It is responsible for many "copy cat" atrocities over time, making celebrities of the Zodiac Killer, the Oklahoma City bombers, the anthrax "letters" both past and present, and so forth.

When there is no legitimate news to report, the media makes stuff up, ala the New York Times. It has never been any different, dating back to the days when Benjamin Franklin paid boys to bring back gossip they heard in the streets so he could print it in his paper.

The goal of any news agency is to attract an audience - whether it is measured in readers, viewers, or listeners so they can sell ads and make money. To do that, the agency has to get people involved - which most often means getting them upset. This is best done by "tweeking" the news through some form of mis-reporting.

Only a fool believes the news. The media influenced this election just as they have influenced every election before it. When they get access, they don't accurately report what is said. Then they don't get access, they make stuff up to fill in the blanks. Access has nothing to do with it. It is a complete red herring thrown out to misdirect us from the real problem.

The media's total lack of integrity is the issue - but since the media "patrols" itself (like the fox guarding the hen house) there will nevr be any integrity in the news. It's a lost cause, but it has never been any different - dating back to the days of our founding fathers and before. If you want to know why - follow the money. Rupert Murdock and his cronies aren't living on food stamps!

Yet another sign that the pro-Obama media can't sleep at night knowing that Sarah Palin is out there.

Oh, she will come for you. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. A hunter in the night. A vendetta to be settled.

Four years from now, a stunned press corps will be asking itself: "How did Palin get herself elected president, even without our seal of approval (and cheerleading)?"

I have to disagree with one of your main points: I heard constant calls from the press for Gov. Palin to sit down with them or give a press conference. I'm not sure which news sources you were following during the campaign, but I recall an overwhelming amount of criticism for her silence.

I wanted to hear her too, but I can understand their reluctance to put her in front of the media, especially after seeing Gibson and Couric's condescension and their eagerness to trip her up. They were practically salivating over the opportunity to nail her on purposefully obfuscated national and international policy points. And they did that by avoiding pointed questions--which are a hallmark of good journalism--and instead asked vague questions, specifically designed to paint her as an idiot.

If she had been truly interested in Palin's answers, Couric would have asked: How do you feel about the recent Supreme Court decision reducing the damages for Exxon for the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster? Or what are your thoughts on the District of Columbia handgun ban being overturned? I assume those were the cases she wanted comment on, and I can think of no reason why Couric wouldn't have directly addressed them, other than that she had a desire to damage Gov. Palin's image and undermine the Republican ticket.

I say all of this as a liberal Dem--not a natural Palin supporter--who simply rejects this media culture of extreme personal attacks and obvious bias. And I'll laugh at anyone who claims this bias for Obama didn't exist in this campaign. The media did everything they could to destroy Hillary Clinton and then the McCain campaign via Sarah Palin. My sister is an editor at a large Midwestern newspaper. Her reporters returned from the campaign trail with many stories of large numbers of the press at Obama rallies cheering along with the crowds and abandoning any measure of journalistic impartiality. It's a sad day when this passes for journalism.

I think the terms "right" and "left" are misleading. It places the people of this country at odds intrisically. As if we have God, churches, and the rich unanimously one side, and multi-faith, community-minded poor on the opposite side. We all know that just isn't true. If we continue to view ourselves in this "right"/"wrong" paradigm, all we will truly be is Wrong.

The MSM media, cable AND FOX were all involved in promoting the McCain campaign. McCain could not afford to advertise to legitimately compete w/Obama -- so the FREE news media did it FOR HIM/her. Every time the media showed the McCain and/or Palin rallies -- gave precious screen time to ALL THE IDIOTS and ne'er do wells showing up at this HATE-obsessed "rallies." THE MSM and cable media SHOULD have held the McCain campaign to the same HIGH STANDARDS (CANDIDATE accessibility) as Obama and Biden. Palin was allowed to SKATE FREE -- without being FORCED oncamera (in a press conference setting) to STATE her case -- and present HER CREDENTIALS and depth of intellect and federal/international law acumen as well as "whatever" her understanding of the geopolitical facts as SHE believed them to be.
INSTEAD: SHE AND MCCain were allowed to parcel out her show-biz appearances to CONCEAL the unconscionable DEPTH OF her (total) IGNORANCE.
The American people were introduced to an endless stream of puff-ry and meaningless drivel meant to distract. The MSM WAS ASLEEP at the wheel -- more worried about their own ratings THAN REAL JOURNALISM.
Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and Edward R Murrow would not recognize today's media as JOURNALISTS.
Remember the OLD DAYS (Nixon era) when Ted Koppel, Dan Rather and Mike Wallace LIVED to confront the campaign facades? Without investigative reporting, Watergate would have REMAINED a third class attempted burglary.
Mccain and Palin (and their handlers) tried to perpetrate the BIGGEST HOAX on the electorate on the grandest scale imaginable. What are the headlines?Frock-gate.
The receipts for any campaign expenditures are OPEN to the public. WHY hasn't anyone produced receipts to validate what was actually spent? WHO is the "wealthy donor" who is obviously getting away with CAMPAIGN FRAUD?
Have Palin submit to an IQ TEST on general academics and US and international affairs. Let her PUT UP or SHUT UP as to what she knew -- or doesn't know. The American electorate is entitled to AT LEAST THAT.

I hope and pray that Palin is the Repug nominee for pres at any time in the future. Palin is the perfect candidate for a TraitoRove campaign. Thank God, America finally rejected the fearmongering, hate-filled tactics of Rove channelled through Palin. I was ashamed of McCain for running a Rove-Atwater campaign.

The main reason Rove's despicable tactics have worked is the media acting as a stenographer for these rightard politicians. While I agree with the basic premise that the media should have refused to broadcast Palin's hateful speeches until she held a real press conference, said press conferences would have been worthless unless the media asked followup questions and forced her to actually answer questions. We would not be in Iraq if the media had done its job and asked questions.

Make her actually answer a question or a press conference would just be like her pitiful recitation of memorized talking points at the "debate." Biden actually responded to the debate questions and Biden is not a nasty bitch.

Doug, the problem with what you have written is that it is based on a false assumption: that the media cared about this election beyond guaranteeing that Obama would win. Why else would they ignore just about every "controversial" story or overlook Biden's "gird your loins" blather. Did anyone ask him to name one scenario - he could think of at least 6 - that Obama would face? Or why would Brokaw tell Rose he doesn't know where Obama stands on China? Ignore the facts, cover the stump speeches, herald the swoonings of women at the transformational speeches - and time permitting, take Sarah Palin out at the knees.

Journalism? Reporting? I think not. Electioneering 101.

I really don't like the fact that the press gives her so many chances to cover up and muddy the waters about all her inadequacies and her lunacy.

The biggest problem with this piece is that Palin was actually the most accessible of the four major candidates, especially coming into the home stretch.

See here: If Sarah Palin Held a Press Conference and Christopher Hitchens Didn't Notice, Did It Really Happen?. The source is the Weekly Standard, but it links to CBS news items discussing Palin's availability.

A little research -- for example, how many times did Palin actually talk to the press? -- would go a long way towards boosting your credibility.

sjnrrslt's comment is right on the money. That's all there is to it. Also, cable news should be banned or renamed.

Absolutely 100% correct! Until Ms. Palin speaks to real issues, she has no credibility and remains nothing more than packaged snark and culture divider. I could care less about fashiongate, her personal family issues or internal campaign squabbling.

Sorry, I didn't realize HTML was not allowed in comments. The link to the Weekly Standard piece is:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/if_sarah_palin_held_ a_press_co.asp

It would be wonderful if the press covered the candidates with some consistency. It's fine to put Palin under a microscope, but then shouldn't Biden and Obama have been treated similarly? If it's OK for the NYT to do a 5-page expose on Cindy McCain, why didn't they write anything about Michelle Obama and the $300K-a-year job that she landed after her husband procured some fat earmarks for her employer? There were many uncovered stories in this election.

Palin never subjected herself to a real press conference at which her lies about the bridge to nowhere, etc. and her ties to a seccessionist group could be questioned.

Palin wouldn't even answer questions at the SNL press conference that ridiculed her continued refusal to hold a real press conference.

The so-called press conference, the right wing cites is transcribed here: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry4530307.s html

Seven minutes of impromptu questions is not a real press conference, especially since only hand-picked reporters that hadn't been thrown off the plane for accurate reporting were not asking questions. What a joke! All softball questions.

For a real press conference, you announce ahead of time that you're going to stand at a podium and answer all questions. By scheduling it ahead of time, members of the media who may actually ask some tough questions have an opportunity to be there.

Sarah, why were you palling around with seccessionists at the Alaskan Independence Party convention this year? Why are you palling around with Todd, a known member of the AIP? Don't you think advocacy of seccession is un-American, by definition?

Sarah Palin is a rightard whack job diva and the more she talks the more she is proven to be such. Tha's exactly why McCain hid her from the media.

And, this idea that Barack Obama got some kind of free ride with the press is absurd. 99% of media coverage consisted of the McCain campaign's talking points for the day until reality and the economy intruded. Even then cable news networks broadcast the candidates appearances live allowing Palin to spread nonsense about socialism and Ayres unchallenged.

Exactly what left me with such a bad taste in my mouth during this campaign. The media has NO power, they are led by the huge corporations that own them. It's always been like this, except there used to be true "mavericks" (please forgive the word), like Edward R.Morrow, who stood up to the people who signed his paycheck. No one does that now, a boycott would have been amazing leverage to make ALL the candidates man up. The networks would never have allowed it because of their advertisers, and affiliates, but it would have been an amazing line drawn in the sand.

I am appalled that Sarah Pallin is now on every major network...not just Fox...to let us know who she" really" is. All I see is someone who looks like she can cook. So far, I have heard from her mouth, (not through the filter of the MSM), 6 different versions of clothesgate, and more about her beliefs in God, in relation to her political career. Yes...she does most certainly terrify me on so many different levels. Hopefully before she shores up for 2012, she will have learned that people don't like to be told they are un-American and unpatriotic, for starters. Let's be truthful here, she has so very much to learn.