As a Matter of Fact

"It isn't a case of quixotic behavior by reporters and editors. Internet sites, blogs and cable news operations all thrive on presenting fresh headlines and updated story angles as often as possible so readers think we're on top of things. The news world moves at warp speed."

All true. But Palin has touched so many cultural chords -- about women, power, motherhood, abortion, religion and on and on -- that I think this thing still has a way to go.

What about that other running-mate person? National Review's Jonah Goldberg says Biden is getting a total pass:

"I really wish the press held Obama just a bit more accountable for this 'governing pick' thing like, say, 1/100th as much as they've been grilling McCain about his pick. Just a few facts:

"· Obama justified his entire bid against Hillary Clinton on the grounds that he had shown superior judgment by opposing the Iraq war.

"· Obama said over and over that we can't have the same people in different chairs if we want real reform.

"· His ad mocking McCain makes much hay of the fact that McCain came to Washington in 1982.

"Well: Biden supported the Iraq war, he's even more of Washington insider than McCain (his heroic Amtrak commute notwithstanding) and he was well into his second six year term in the Senate when McCain was first elected to the House in 1982. Now either Obama's campaign rhetoric is a lie, or Biden isn't a good governing pick by Obama's own standards."

A small but hardy band of conservatives isn't defending Palin's experience. Here's Atlantic's Ross Douthat on the Gibson interviews:

"The most that can be said in her defense is that she kept her cool and avoided any brutal gaffes; other than that, she seemed about an inch deep on every issue outside her comfort zone. Yes, the questions were tougher than the ones that a Tim Kaine or Tim Pawlenty probably would have been handed, but they were all questions that a vice-presidential nominee needs to be able to answer. And there's no way to look at her performance as anything save supporting evidence for the non-hysterical critique of her candidacy -- that it's just too much, too soon -- and a splash of cold water for those of us with high hopes for her future on the national stage."

Speaking of Gibson and Palin, I have the greatest regard for my former colleague Steve Coll, but his New Yorker piece on the subject really missed the mark. Coll rips ABC News President David Westin and his team for an "odor of compromise" in the way the interviews were rolled out:

"The occasion of the Alaska governor's début before the national media called for a lightly edited, extended one-on-one, aired on a single night, so that American voters might assess the candidate's answers and demeanor in full. Instead, apparently to maximize ratings and branding opportunities, ABC doled out Palin sound bites on six network broadcasts over two days, as well as in supplemental ABC Radio and Web releases.

"In the end, Westin exploited the governor's moose-hunting, baby-juggling appeal as if she were a magnetic contestant on one of the network's prime-time reality shows--'Extreme Makeover: White House Edition.' "

First, Palin basically dictated the schedule and the locale (Alaska); ABC wanted to do it as soon as possible. Second, by doing three sessions, Gibson got more time for more questions than he would have in the traditional 30-minute sit-down. Third, there's only so much of an interview you can cram into the 19 or so minutes of "World News," and ABC did devote about half the broadcast to Palin last Thursday. Finally, ABC made the interviews (and transcripts, and some clips) available as soon as they were done, rather than waiting 48 hours to tie them into one pretty package.

Did ABC milk its exclusive a bit, including on a prime-time "20/20"? Sure. But I think the record shows the network treated the event as news, not entertainment. And not one question about Bristol's pregnancy!