[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's role in the Palin selection

[Sheldon Rampton]

With all due respect, after reading the New Yorker article that  
occasioned this thread, I don't think Wikipedia played all that great  
a role in Palin's selection as McCain's running mate. It may be true  
that someone noticed her through her Wikipedia article, but other  
factors played at least as significant a role. The New Yorker article  
article describes a visit to Alaska by a number of conservative  
political figures and pundits such as William Kristol and Fred Barnes  
and says they were personally impressed by her, with several  
apparently agog because they found her physically attractive, and  
others taken by what they perceived as her charisma. The article also  
notes that a PR firm was employed to promote Palin and that she  
actively worked on "developing relationships with Washington insiders,  
who later championed the idea of putting her on the 2008 ticket."

Finally, of course, the question of where someone first HEARD of Palin  
is (or should be) only a small part of the process by which she got  
chosen as a vice presidential nominee. Presidential campaigns form  
exploratory teams for the purpose of combing through possible choices,  
conducting background and opposition research, and vetting possible  
nominees before making their selection. The McCain campaign had ample  
time and resources with which to evaluate Sarah Palin. They certainly  
didn't rely on her Wikipedia article as their sole source of  
information. It has been claimed by some journalists and commentators  
that McCain didn't vet Palin adequately before making his decision. If  
so, that's entirely his decision and his responsibility. The fact that  
a Wikipedia article existed certainly didn't PREVENT him from doing  
thorough vetting.

Personally, I think McCain was in something of a "damned if you do,  
damned if you don't" situation. He didn't have any other good options  
when he went looking for a running mate. Even before the stock market  
meltdown, 2008 was shaping up to be a difficult year for Republicans,  
and with the exception of a brief period just prior to the Democratic  
convention, he trailed Obama in the polling, as well as in fundraising  
and other key predictors. When someone is trying to play catchup, they  
are more likely to make risky choices in hopes of a big turnaround  
than they would be if they were in the lead. It's the same as in  
sports. It's very common in football to see a quarterback who is  
behind (especially late in the fourth quarter) go for long passes,  
throw into double coverage, and try other plays that present a greater- 
than-normal risk of the ball being intercepted. He does this because  
he knows that by that point in the game, he'll lose for certain if he  
sticks with careful, low-risk strategies. A high-risk approach becomes  
the only strategy that offers any chance of victory, even if it's a  
small chance. By contrast, the team that is ahead becomes  
strategically conservative, preferring to run the ball, take time off  
the clock, and avoid anything that might lead to a turnover.

Some of McCain's actions during this election have been the equivalent  
of a football team trying a "hail Mary" pass or an onside kick, and I  
think his decision to select Palin was one example of this. If it had  
paid off (as appeared possible shortly after she was selected),  
everyone would be hailing McCain as a brilliant improviser and a come- 
from-behind genius. If it doesn't pay off (as now appears likely),  
he'll be criticized for having done something stupid. In reality, it's  
neither genius nor stupidity. It's desperation.

-------------------------------------------

SHELDON RAMPTON
Research director, Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703
phone: 608-260-9713

Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email:
<http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html>

Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts:
<http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed>

Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the
public agenda:
<http://www.sourcewatch.org>

Support independent, public interest reporting:
<http://www.prwatch.org/donate>