Sarah Palin Joins Al Gore In Not Realizing That Everyone's A Reporter These Days

from the something-in-the-veep-sauce? dept

Fri, Nov 6th 2009 6:01pm — Mike Masnick

Last year, we wrote how odd it was that former VP Al Gore banned reporters from a speech he gave, where all audio-video equipment was also banned. These days, such "no reporters allowed" speeches make no sense -- because anyone can be a reporter. Yet, it seems that there's something in the veep sauce (or veep wannabe sauce) that leads to these sorts of positions, as former VP candidate, Sarah Palin, is trying to do the same thing, barring "reporters" along with any kind of recording devices from a talk that she is giving. You can understand, perhaps, why politicians like to do this, but it seems both out of touch and completely pointless. Every single person in that room can be a reporter in one way or another -- and it doesn't take a recording device, but a pencil and some paper (or a decent memory). Trying to block out the "official" press is just a waste of time.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: al gore, citizen journalism, reporters, sarah palin

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2009 @ 7:20pm

Deniable
But if there is no actual recording then there is deniability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 6 Nov 2009 @ 7:41pm
  
  Re: Deniable
  Not if there are multiple witnesses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 8 Nov 2009 @ 6:08pm
  
  Re: Deniable
  And THAT's when you upload the video to YouTube. Hanging morons with their own words has never been easier.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Derek Kerton (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 1:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Deniable
    No. Deniable is right. It doesn't go viral when there is no recording to put on YouTube. Multiple witnesses be damned.
    
    Witness testimonials of a gaffe or a dumb statement are simply not sensational, there is no schadenfreude, and it doesn't spread as widely.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 6 Nov 2009 @ 8:23pm

Not All Recording Devices, Only Socialist Ones
I’m sure Sarah Palin will be happy to allow patriotic recording devices that won’t twist her words into some kind of irrelevant “meaning” and meaningless “context” that has nothing to do with what she was thinking when she spoke. The trouble is, none of these gadgets are made in the good old US of A any more, so you simply cannot depend on their loyalty. I don’t think she’s blaming the reporters at all, just their use of electronic products made in atheist-socialist countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- K. O., 6 Nov 2009 @ 8:34pm
  
  Re: Not All Recording Devices, Only Socialist Ones
  Yeah, freakin' liberal media bastards.
  
  Hey where the F are my sarcasm tags?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 9 Nov 2009 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: Not All Recording Devices, Only Socialist Ones
  "...what she was thinking when she spoke."
  
  That's a good one.
  
  CBMHB
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cryptozoologist (profile), 6 Nov 2009 @ 8:53pm

nothing new here
sarah palin has never been adept at managing the media. after she was nominated for vp, it was several days before she gave any interviews at all. the result was complete abdication of her message to the media feedback chaotic amplification loop. when she finally did give interviews, the scrutiny was so intense that her actual message was lost.

sarah, if you've got something to say, get out and say it. if you make a foolish remark from time to time, that is ok as long as it is a small percentage of what you've said. jesse jackson, joe biden, and a whole pantheon of public figures have said something difficult to explain, but since it is a small percentage of their total verbal output people are willing to cut them a little slack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails, 6 Nov 2009 @ 9:03pm
  
  Re: nothing new here
  Not sure I agree. She came out swinging, she had huge momentum after the debate. What really killed her was the interview with Katie Couric.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2009 @ 9:21pm
    
    Re: Re: nothing new here
    Actually, what killed her was that she had to spend all her time reading newspapers. You know, all of them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - revolted voter, 7 Nov 2009 @ 7:02am
    
    Re: Re: nothing new here
    Gotja journalism, asking questions about the Bush Doctrine ... a real patriot would've been throwing softballs. /s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - interval, 7 Nov 2009 @ 5:16pm
    
    Re: Re: nothing new here
    "What really killed her was the interview with Katie Couric."
    
    Not being able to name a news paper she reads looked pretty bad, even though fewer and fewer people are reading the damn things. The interview with Charlie Gibson though, that made her look like an infant. The way he looked at her down his nose and throgh his glasses at her after asking her about the Bush Doctrine... brutal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 9 Nov 2009 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: nothing new here
    Um...
    
    There's a big difference between swinging and connecting.
    
    Gotta do both; otherwise you look like a retard. Which she did spectacularly.
    
    CBMHB
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Big Mook, 7 Nov 2009 @ 9:20am
  
  Re: nothing new here
  Can't agree with you on the Biden comment. Joe Biden says something nonsensical and/or stupid virtually every time he opens his mouth. He actually makes Sarah Palin look really smart in comparison, and she's about as intelligent as a bag of hammers.
  
  Hail Xenu (and Seth) !!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Triatomic Tortoise, 7 Nov 2009 @ 6:29pm
    
    Re: Re: nothing new here
    Ha ha, finally a Hot-Palin fan :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - err, 8 Nov 2009 @ 8:30am
    
    Re: Re: nothing new here
    Do not confuse foolishness with ignorance
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Big Mook, 9 Nov 2009 @ 4:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: nothing new here
      So you're saying Biden's actually intelligent, but also a fool? The man is a walking gaffe machine, and has been a source of embarassment to this country for decades. At least Obama has the good sense to keep him pretty much under wraps most of the time, although that's probably the only good thing Obama has done to this point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - err, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: nothing new here
        "So you're saying Biden's actually intelligent,"
        
        Where, exactly, was that stated?
        You compared two people, one foolish and the other ignorant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
S P, 6 Nov 2009 @ 8:57pm

Aww Not Again
I can see Russia from my house
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2009 @ 9:00pm
  
  Re: Aww Not Again
  I said "thanks but no thanks" to my sanity after listening to her interview(s).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2009 @ 1:28am

So, she might have been being dumb. But might she have also been trying to get publicity? Secrecy is seductive. People might pay more attention to her words if they came from a "no reporters allowed" event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blatant Coward (profile), 7 Nov 2009 @ 5:37am

If a tree falls in Russia, can she see it?
Anyone can be a reporter, but who would want to care what she says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Triatomic Tortoise, 7 Nov 2009 @ 6:31pm
  
  Re: If a tree falls in Russia, can she see it?
  Good point, amazing that people still are talking about this clown.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AlleyTrotter, 7 Nov 2009 @ 5:49am

It josu thrills me how everyone fears Sarah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not a TeaBagger, 7 Nov 2009 @ 7:07am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, especialy when people in the crowd shout things about killing candidates and the speaker does nothing about it.
  
  That sort of thing is really thrilling, isn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mobilemike (profile), 7 Nov 2009 @ 9:39am

It comes down to trust...
We recently ran a customer, partner and prospect event and while we know that some of the content we presented might be regurgitated, even misquoted... we know it would be more so if journalists were present...and eager to get a "controversial" story that sells more pages!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2009 @ 10:40am

Is there a ban on cell phones too? Wouldn't be hard to record the speech on a cell phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2009 @ 11:04am

Please stop mentioning her name. She needs to fade into history, forgotten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlie Potatoes, 7 Nov 2009 @ 1:28pm

That time of the month ...
I can see the moon from my house ... wheeee ... I guess that makes me an Astronaut. Ummm ... mention whose name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 7 Nov 2009 @ 3:30pm

With no recording devices allowed, people can mis-quote her all they want and there's no proof that she didn't say it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2009 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Palin's problem is if a quote sounds stupid enough there is no way that some people could ever believe that she couldn't have said it.
  
  She probably just wants to be able to give the same speech over and over again. If a tape gets out she is like the comic who just did the HBO special and needs all new material.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kraig, 7 Nov 2009 @ 3:40pm

Sarah Palin is an idiot
Sarah Palin is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 7 Nov 2009 @ 5:19pm
  
  Re: Sarah Palin is an idiot
  @Kraig: "Sarah Palin is an idiot"
  
  You, by comparison, however... whew. Pure genius.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dictionary, 7 Nov 2009 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re: Sarah Palin is an idiot
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot?jss=0
  
  Umm, ok
  This may be more applicable
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignoramus?jss=0
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Triatomic Tortoise, 7 Nov 2009 @ 6:34pm
  
  Re: Sarah Palin is an idiot
  Nice! I like candid comments :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEO, 8 Nov 2009 @ 9:17am

Fabio as running mate
Yeah, well, Scarah is pretty much a waste of time....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
some other guy, 8 Nov 2009 @ 4:15pm

Banning reporters
The only reason a politician would want to ban reporters is to get all the free publicity that goes along with a ban on reporters. Reporters just love to report that stuff. And it's the only way Palin can get anybody to listen to her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KulganVaslor, 8 Nov 2009 @ 4:21pm

Its not about secrecy or privacy its about freedom of speech
It is her right to make that request. I see no difference between this event and event where a small group of people sit around the dinner table, in her home, having a conversation over a good meal. Denial ability or not, she is allowed her privacy.

Just because other people in the group can report on it doesn't mean they have too or even would want to, nor does it imply that what she is saying is private, confidencial or even secret. She has a right to ask its her condition for participation. Compliance to that request is the freedom to participate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lonzo5, 8 Nov 2009 @ 8:29pm
  
  Re: Its not about secrecy or privacy its about freedom of speech
  I think that any citizen should be able to record anything that anyone says at any time for any reason, in the medium of their choice with or without permission from the party concerned. As president or vice president, Palin (along with our great nation of laws) would consider herself justified in recording any of her subjects at any time, for any reason, in the medium of her choice, so I believe that if she prefers not to be recorded, she should refrain from speaking. Wiretap laws and the like should be abolished. I am anti-patriot act, but if it must exist, it should be a two-way street.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gregory, 8 Nov 2009 @ 8:59pm

Oh, please
There is a difference between what is essentially a public servant hosting townhalls and whatnot (and hence should have 1st Amendment rights to have stuff on public record) and private citizens giving commercial speeches.

Al Gore and Sarah Palin both have the right to restrict whatever they want in terms of recordings, because they are private citizens. Despite Al Gore being a blowhard spewing forth mass ignorance and nonsense every time he speaks on so-called AGW using crap data, I will defend to the death his right to restrict his speeches to those who paid to hear him speak. Similarly for Sarah Palin and her $100,000 per speech.

This is no different from people banning a/v capture equipment to circus shows or plays or concerts or whatever.

Now, what's up with all the hatin' Palin stuff? What does that have to do with anything? I happen to think that President Palin would have been a 100x better choice than President BHOmbastic, but so what? Neither my opinion nor anyone else's on this matter has anything to do with whether or not Palin or Gore are acting within reason in banning such a/v capture devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- technomage (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 3:30am
  
  Re: Oh, please
  Except she is not a private citizen, she is former VP candidate and actively lobbying for supporters for a later bid. She is lobbying for people, she is using her notoriety to boost people. That makes her a "public servant". So, as she is doing this for a public lobbying group "Right for Life". This stops it from being a "private" meeting. If she wants privacy then she need to drop out of ANY governmental or public speaking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:20am

Oh leave poor sarah alone .....
She is like the only politician I would do ..... what a GILF ... Big Ole Icky GRIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
james, 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:46am

Yeah, Sarah never had a chance, with her extinct running mate, that really screwed it for the GOP. http://bit.ly/39oJo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]