Media bias is normally a subjective thing. In the case of The Media vs. Sarah Palin , bias is empirically observable.
Not just in the members of the media, but in the public at large, as well: Interviews of Barack Obama supporters on Election Day last year show them blindly assigning some of the campaign's most embarrassing gaffes, quite mistakenly, to Palin -- when, in fact, they came from Obama. Example: Who said he or she had visited all "57" states? Palin, of course!
Nope. That was our president.
It looked for all the world to be a case of brainwashing.
That just illustrates the tall order the erstwhile Alaska governor, who turned over the reins of the office Sunday, faces if she has any ambitions to be president: She'll not only be running against other Republicans, and most likely an incumbent president; she'll also be running against a mainstream media that has shown near-open hostility to her.
It's clear the media didn't want anything to get in Obama's way last year; even Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton, such as Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, made note of that fact. Palin's firestorm popularity was just such a threat. It was tamped down as much as possible by the major networks.
Reporters invariably describe Palin as "controversial" and "polarizing." Why? Other than the fact that the media themselves feel that way? What has she done or said that is so controversial? Other than be conservative?
Is it because she's so ardently pro-life? Maybe. You don't see any pro-choice candidates being labeled "polarizing."
Is it because her family dealt with an unexpected teen pregnancy? Maybe. It's pretty controversial stuff for a family to embrace a mistake like that and make the best of it. Would an abortion have been better? Surely, to the media.
If she takes her "controversial" conservatism, family values and Founding Fathers' distaste for big government to the presidential race, expect more fireworks from a distraught media.