I saw it, she was hostile asking her what she reads over and over and over. Who gives a f*ck what she reads. Palin should have knocked couric out. Couric is a lowlife and trying to save her career by being hostile to Palin to cater to the left. Sad sad sad.
Yes, the audacity of asking someone what they read and expecting an answer, particularly when the interviewee claimed to read all kinds of periodicals! Any self-respecting journalist would have simply left it at that. The idea of journalists asking questions rather than just fawning is preposterous. What is this world coming to? Such overt hostility should be stamped out. Along with the kinds of books that Palin doesn't want in libraries.
What a person reads can describe their intellectual curiousity (or lack of it) You people don't get it. McCain's actuarial stats suggest that Palin could very well become President. The press can't just give her a pass. She is a national newcomer (euphemism for nobody) and her views on the world DO matter if she is McCain's VP. We can have president Palin in a heartbeat (pun intended)
I find it interesting that both seem to have gotten to positions which are way over their pay grade. (to paraphase Obama) Why is that? Does anyone wonder how Obama has gotten where he is without any sort of record of accomplishment. Obama is a very smart guy, I really enjoy listening to his thoughtful responses. But, he could be a commie or a radical, or wilt under pressure of having to make a series of decisions quickly. He completely failed on this financial crises. Are you not worrried he is way out of his depth. Why we he better any better than couric is at his job. Arguably couric is was far more groomed for the job than he. Couric and Palin illustrate why Obama is not ready to be president.
Some of those questions are actually pretty banal except for the way they were answered. Usually someone who reads newspapers regularly might have a favorite columnist - that was where I thought Couric was leading to with her question. From a favored columnist you can infer that the person shares some (unlikely all) of the writer's opinions. Like, if you said you really liked Wm Buckley's stuff before he died I could guess where you lined-up. Or if you said you liked Maureen Dowd, same thing. Harmless enough question I thought.
"Crises?" Is there more than one financial crisis going on right now? (Probably so, but please clue me it.) Obama failed, did he? And why is that? Because he did not suspend his campaign to get some extra media play? What, exactly, did McCain do that Obama didn't do in respect of this financial crisis? And I refer to specific contributions to the solution rather than just posing.
More left versus right yak yak. Liberal media, Hannity is a known bias. All that is no justification for an interviewee not to be able to answer what she reads. Virtually every interviewer over the millenia has asked pretty much the same thing. A simple NY Times, Alaska Daily, WSJ, would have been fine. I have no idea why she didn't our couldn't answer the question, but it did really come off very poorly. c
Can you let go of your partisanship long enough to understand that the issue is fairness? Palin gets hostile, aggressive, demeaning questions, Biden gets a total pass for the most ridiculous gaffes. Did Couric even ask Biden about his vote against the Alaska pipeline? Great judgment there. What about his plagiarizing Neill Kinnock? How's that for intellectual honesty? The mainsteam media want it both ways. They want to cheerlead their candidates and attack the opposition, but at the same time demand to be treated like professional ethical journalists. Increasingly, the public is saying they aren't terribly interested in what these pompous windbags say. The viewership numbers don't lie.
Frankly, in the absence of additional information, I think she was afraid that a follow-up question would have exposed her. If she actually did read, say, the WSJ, she should not have hesitated to say so. But if she didn't read it but said she did, she may well have been afraid that Couric would have followed up by asking which columnist(s) she liked? And that would have exposed her. And so it would be with all of the other relevant periodicals that well-read people may read (but she doesn't). I cannot think of any other reason for not citing a single example, even after being given time to consider her answer. Scary, isn't it?