How can Sarah Palin stand up to terrorism if she can't stand up to Brokaw or Blitzer? Despite his name, I don't think Wolf bites.
It doesn't work to proclaim your fortitude in a speech; you have to prove it. So far, when it comes to the press, it seems the Barracuda's bark is bigger than her bite.
For a group that wraps itself in patriotism, the extreme Right is certainly being unpatriotic about one of the cornerstones of democracy--the free press. And their cries of bias are starting to sound more like wails of fear--fear of being found out.
Just like any societal institution, the press isn't perfect. At times, objectivity skews to the Left, to the Right, or to some other point or position. I for one, thought that press coverage was skewed toward the war in Iraq at the time of 9/11. I couldn't help thinking that the media had more passion for the Clinton Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals than uncovering the truths about going to war with Iraq in the beginning.
However, the great thing about the free press is that it's self-correcting. A reporter's lust for a new angle, the real story, or a story not yet told counters the bias. All the voices that are free to speak and blog counter the bias.
When you look at the political coverage on all the major and cable networks as a whole, what do you see? Usually, you see debate--two sides going at it, being asked tough questions and guests not afraid to give an answer. Overall, a click of the remote here and there gives you a relatively accurate picture of what's going on.
Not allowing access to Palin is a dangerous precedent. Either the Republicans are punishing the media for perceived bias, which is a 6th grade attitude or they think Palin can't stand up to the questioning.
If she can't stand up to Campbell Brown or Chris Matthews how is she going to stand up to Russia's Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB and a man set on rebuilding an empire? How is she going to sit one-on-one with the President of Iran, if she can't sit one-on-one with Katie Couric?