Eric Alterman of Mediamatters says that Matt Drudge’s “ALERT” concerning Oprah Winfrey and Sarah Palin was a conservative hoax meant to stir up a media frenzy:
It was 8:55 a.m. on Friday, less than 12 hours after the end of the Republican National Convention, when Ruler of the Media Universe Matt Drudge posted one of his infamous “alerts” at the top of the Drudge Report.
It read: “Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America — but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket! Oprah’s staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.” There was nothing else to the story — no other information or confirmation, should you not actually believe that Matt Drudge has sources inside the Oprah Winfrey production room. (Although Drudge did helpfully add: “It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin’s historic convention speech.”)
The storm brewed as predictably as all the others we’ve seen. Conservative blogs picked up the “story” — at the Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez huffed that “Oprah Jumps the Shark If she can’t bring herself to book Palin,” of course linking to Drudge. Oprah released a statement — explaining that the Drudge memo was “categorically untrue,” and pointing out that she has not hosted any candidate since the beginning of the campaign. Not Obama, not Michelle, not Biden, not his wife, not McCain, not Mrs. McCain. Oprah proclaimed the show candidate-free until after the election, after she appeared at some Obama rallies and endorsed him.
But that didn’t stop a full-on Drudgified media frenzy. “Is Oprah Biased? Host Won’t Interview Palin,” asked ABC News. “Obama-backer Oprah says no Sarah Palin on her TV show,” the LA Times politics blog reported. Naturally, Fox News ran with it, as did the New York Post, which put the story on the front page Saturday. This didn’t escape the notice of Tom Brokaw, who, while interviewing Joe Biden on Meet the Press, pondered thusly:
BROKAW: I want to move on in a moment, but here’s another headline that appeared in the New York Post — Oprah Winfrey decided not to have Sarah Palin on the show before the election. “No-Prah!” — that’s the New York Post headline. “TV First Lady’s Palin Insult,” as they called it. Oprah did come out for Barack Obama, did have him on the show. Do you think that some people will see that as an elitist position, that, in some ways, Democrats may be afraid of her — Sarah Palin? As Media Matters notes, Oprah never had Obama on when he was a presidential candidate. Nice elitist addition, too.)
And so it was — questions of Oprah’s “bias” were the political talk of the weekend. Of course she’s biased — she endorsed Obama. But she’s not the host of the CBS Evening News, and she made it clear months ago that her show wouldn’t have any candidates, which naturally would include Palin. There is not one iota new about this story, other than Drudge’s completely unfounded “alert.” Meanwhile, none of the above-mentioned outlets, nor the many others who wrote Oprah stories, spent that time asking if Palin would be giving any real, non-Oprah interviews.
It shouldn’t be this easy for Drudge, but it still is.
“Altercation,” written for Mediamatters by Eric Alterman
