Sarah Palin in the Spotlight

The headline “Rehashing ’08 and Rehearsing, Perhaps, for ‘12” on page A18 caught my attention as I flipped through the pages of the New York Times. When I read the article, however, the headline that drew me in had very little to do with the contents of the story.

The main point of the story talked about Sarah Palin’s television appearances since her and John McCain’s defeat. Ever since then, Palin has been “unleashed, and not humbled.”
This article also gave Palin a chance to deny the accusations and rumors being spread about her. She denied any role in obtaining the $150,000 wardrobe she and her family acquired on the campaign trail. She also denied the rumors that she faked her pregnancy and that one of her daughters gave birth to her youngest son, Trig.

I found the organizational technique of the article to be disorderly. The headline made me believe that this article would talk a lot about the potential presidential campaign of Sarah Palin in the 2012 Presidential Election. However, the article began by talking about all the publicity Palin had been receiving since the defeat. The article then gives Palin a chance to deny all the recent accusations surrounding her and her family. The story then ended with what I thought would take up the majority of the article. It was briefly mentioned in the last two paragraphs that Palin is thinking about running for president in 2012.

“And if there is an open door in ’12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then ill plow through that door.”

I would suggest that this story should have talked more about Palin’s possible presidential campaign in 2012. The story did not communicate what I thought was going to be its central idea. The headline was very deceiving and does not accurately represent the content of the article.

When I finished the article, I was not left with any new information that I had not already heard several times since the defeat. I thought this article was very unsuccessful in bringing new information to the reader.

I believe that the lead was a weak blind lead. We were told that the disconcerting leaks about Sarah Palin turned out to be true, but were not informed what those leaks were in the lead. The lead of the article was very ineffective and should have aimed to pull the reader into the story.