Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
The lead story in the section was “Target Practice: Media Bashing 101,” by Mark Leibovich. He began, “Sarah Palin’s national opening last week was judged an unqualified success by the media elite, even though much of her debut speech Wednesday night was devoted to whacking the media elite.” The very phrase “media elite” represents a serious concession to the forces of darkness. Leibovich mused: “The media-mashing game has changed considerably over the years, just as the media itself has.” Damn right — it’s let itself get mashable.
Then there was public editor Clark Hoyt’s piece of analysis, “The Scrutiny of Sarah Palin.” Was the news media “on a mission to destroy” Palin, as John McCain’s chief stategist had told the Washington Post? More to the point, had the Times advanced that mission with its story claiming McCain barely glanced at Palin’s dossier before choosing her to run with him? “An absolute work of fiction,” said the strategist. So Hoyt sorted it all out and sided with the Times, which he doesn’t always do, and I reflected that once upon a time when there were no public editors a presidential candidate’s chief strategist would have known better than to complain and if he had the Times would not have deigned to respond.
