Fox Palin Show Off to Embarrassing Start

toby-keith-sarah-palinFox News has been heavily promoting its new show with former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.   It’s no accident, apparently, that the show debuts on April Fool’s Day.

Like LL Cool J, Toby Keith is slated to appear on “Real American Stories,” a Fox News show hosted by Sarah Palin. Unlike LL Cool J, Keith is still slated to be on the program, but his inclusion was news to him.

We just talked to Toby Keith’s representative. Keith, who says he’s a registered Democrat, was not told about the usage of a past interview for Palin’s program. “We were never contacted by Fox,” his rep tells Hitfix.” I have no idea what interview it’s taken from.They’re promoting this like it’s a brand new interview. He never sat down with Sarah Palin.”

As HitFix already reported here, LL Cool J questioned the usage of an old Fox interview in the Palin show via Twitter. Fox responded by yanking the LL Cool segment from the show, which airs April 1. Keith’s segment is still in.

This is bizarre on so many levels that it hurts.  First, why would Fox promote a show based on interviews that weren’t conducted for that show?  Second, why would Fox debut a show for its new rock star host using stale interviews?  Third, while I’ve chided Palin for becoming a pop culture celebrity rather than a serious politico, why in the world would they juxtapose her with LL Cool J and Toby Keith rather than, say, military heroes or hockey moms or someone else that’s more representative of her base appeal?

FILED UNDER: Media, Politicians, Popular Culture, , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. John Burgess says:

    Well, I haven’t seen the show, so this may be completely wrong, but the situation as described does not exclude the possibility of the taped interviews being used as bad examples of something. Something like, ‘Do you believe what these Xs think!?’

    I sort of doubt that either of the two mentioned are among the cultural conservatives that would more naturally align with Palin’s views. Her using them as counter-examples actually makes more sense.

    I guess those who watch the show will find out tonight; others will read about it tomorrow.

  2. just me says:

    I readily admit I don’t watch any news programming-not Fox, CNN or other shows.

    This sounds like the producers are idiots and reflects more on them than on Palin. I am not even sure what the point of her show is supposed to be about-but once again that seems more like a producer problem.

  3. steve says:

    Be nice to see her do an interview with someone like Mohamed El-Erian on the bond market and what we see re: the inflation/deflation outlook, or maybe General Jones on Israel and the Palestinians. 🙂

    Steve

  4. Brian Knapp says:

    I agree with just me, but presumably Palin has some input. To be sure, she probably has more pull than any other novice TV personality, and these shenanigans reflect quite poorly on her. But still, given how new she is to the business, I am willing to cut some slack and assume that she is trusting Fox a little more than she should to put out a quality product.

  5. muffler says:

    Palin is quite possibly the first person ever to be unable to handle either an interview or be interviewed. Amazing.

  6. There’s relinquishing message control, then there’s this. I read Going Rogue and I’ll take her word over those who called her a liar after the book came out. Everytime Mme. Palin relinquishes message control it’s always to someone inept.

    She should’ve learned this lesson the first time. I am not as patient for her this time around.

  7. Janis Gore says:
  8. Triumph says:

    Second, why would Fox debut a show for its new rock star host using stale interviews?

    Because she is a dimwitted moron.

  9. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by BrkingPolitics: Fox Palin Show Off to Embarrassing Start http://bit.ly/9S2eQr via http://topicfire.com/US-Politics

  10. steve says:

    Get back in character Triumph.

    Steve

  11. anjin-san says:

    reflects more on them than on Palin.

    Yes folks, these conservatives are all about personal responsibility.

    I am sure Katie Couric is somehow at fault…

  12. Michael Reynolds says:

    I doubt Fox is dumb enough to have created this particular mess. They’re right-wing apparatchiks, but they aren’t incompetent. Has to be Palin at work.

  13. john personna says:

    Seems an odd show. I have higher hopes for the outdoors one that’s been talked about. You may recall that I went bear-killin’ with some people who know Sarah. Alaska is a place where you can eat what you kill and fill the freezer each summer. I think that’s interesting to any non-veg. There are even signs that some of the liberal elite are starting to see hunting and fishing as less cruel than factory farms or feed-lots. Nonetheless, I’d expect a ‘how to gill-net with Sarah’ show would face a pretty large outcry.

    (They didn’t eat bear though. They skinned them, but the main purpose was a somewhat more controversial idea that too many black bears meant too few moose.)

  14. grampagravy says:

    As long as they are slicing and dicing old film, Fox can protect their airhead from encountering any unscripted situations that might illustrate Ms. Teabag’s lack of depth.

  15. Janis Gore says:
  16. kth says:

    Even without these issues, the show seems like pretty weak sauce even if–especially if–you’re a Sarah Palin fan. You don’t get much of Sarah, just her “hosting” segments that were produced years ago with hardly any input from her.

    The short-lived Dr. Laura TV show had a similar problem: the red meat she serves up on her radio show is not really appropriate for TV, so they went for a Reader’s Digest combination of heartwarming tales and consumer/medical journalism. But it was really bland, and no one watched it.

  17. Janis Gore says:

    True, kth. When you can flip over to see “Ax Men,” and “Dirtiest Jobs,” or “Deadliest Catch,” this is thin gruel.

  18. An Interested Party says:

    Be nice to see her do an interview with someone like Mohamed El-Erian on the bond market and what we see re: the inflation/deflation outlook, or maybe General Jones on Israel and the Palestinians.

    It would also be nice if we were visited by the Vulcans who then shared with us the secrets of warp engines, but we’re dealing with reality, not fantasy…

  19. Dustin says:

    Fox’s response to the LL mess yesterday was not to be missed either;

    A Fox News spokesperson tells TVNewser, “Real American Stories features uplifting tales about overcoming adversity and we believe Mr. Smith’s interview fit that criteria. However, as it appears that Mr. Smith does not want to be associated with a program that could serve as an inspiration to others, we are cutting his interview from the special and wish him the best with his fledgling acting career.”

    The whole ordeal is amazing in its vapidness.

  20. Franklin says:

    and wish him the best with his fledgling acting career

    LL Cool J has been acting for quite awhile now on some sitcom, so I assume that’s some sort of backhanded compliment that Fox News is well known for.

    These are interviews with other people from 2007 and 2008 that are supposed to be inspirational. Indeed, this is an odd start to the show.

  21. If you’re expecting someone as non-serious as Sarah Palin to be a serious politician or analyst, you’re going to be heartbroken an awful lot.

    She’s a celebrity because that’s what she can handle and that’s what will get her the most attention and most money. That’s what she thrives on.

    Roger is going for ratings. Those that love her will watch…the rest of us will move on

  22. raff says:

    I find it instructive that both LL Cool J & Keith expressed surprise at the use of their respective clips (but not demanding that their respective clips be cut from the show) but Fox retained Keith’s clip while axing Cool J’s clip (& made a few snide remarks along the way).

    I don’t think Fox’s actions are necessarily racist. I get it… Keith appeals to a very large segment of Fox’s (& Palin’s) base, but Fox’s reaction to LLCJ’s one sentence tweet seems a bit over the top – not to mention swift & semi-nasty. Has Fox issued a statement regarding Keith’s (much wordier & detailed) disclaimer? I’d be very interested to read it if/when they do.

  23. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Predictably, the thinking posters here base opinions on what? Since it has not aired yet, seems those who call this an embarrassment may be guilty of prejudging. Who would have thought that possible given the deep thinking available here? Not. I just wonder where Joyner gets off chiding anyone of Palins caliber. Those of you who can match her accomplishment, speak. The rest of you STFU. (Anjin exercise your right to remain silent). Sorry if Sarah Palin scares the shit out of you, but if you think she is stupid, vote for your communist Obama.

  24. Michael Reynolds says:

    Most likely this comes down to hard work and her refusal to do same. Putting on a real show is hard. Broadcasters work for a living. Even some douche like O’Reilly knows his business, knows his show, puts long hours into it and I would suspect wakes up falls asleep thinking about it.

    Palin doesn’t work: she winks and twinkles.

  25. Hmmm, Sarah Palin’s accomplishments, let’s see.

    Mayor of Wasilla. Yes, major metropolitan area with a huge population. Took a long time for that city to get to know her. She cultivated a very serious image. No….wait…Small town, everyone knew her already, she won by not that great a margin and it is one of the largest producers of crack cocaine the country. She’s such an attentive mother that her daughter got hooked up with the son of a crack addict and seller and then got pregnant by said son.

    Governor of Alaska, painted herself as a reformer. That’s so hard to do running against a Murkowski in Alaska. There was selling a plane on Ebay…no…wait…that actually never happened. She placed an ad…the sale occurred by other means.

    Oh, she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere…ummm, no she didn’t. Congress stopped that, THEN she realized how unpopular it was and was against it after she was for it.

    Then, when she couldn’t be Vice President, she quit being Governor in a rambling and lame speech and proceeded to bilk suckers like that genius Zelsdorf for all she can.

    I hear her next daughter is running with a bad crowd too now. Yeah…major accomplishments. I’m just ashamed of myself when I think about it.

  26. Have a nice G.A. says:

    Looks like a great show. Thanks for the clip Janis.

  27. Gustopher says:

    Isn’t it time for “Celebrity Deadliest Catch”?

    Sarah Palin, a few Baldwins, a couple of washed up has-beens, off the coast of Alaska, in treacherous waters, trying to catch crabs.

    Ahem, mind out of the gutters!

  28. anjin-san says:

    Those of you who can match her accomplishment

    Accomplishments indeed. Was elected Governor of Alaska. Shafted the people who trusted her with their votes by resigning so she could cash in on her celebrity status. I think she also chased Putin out of Alaskan airspace at some point…

  29. TangoMan says:

    Oh, she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere…ummm, no she didn’t. Congress stopped that, THEN she realized how unpopular it was and was against it after she was for it.

    No, Congress didn’t stop. In fact, both Biden and Obama voted for it, twice. The last time was after the controversy broke.

    Palin cut engineering funding for the bridge about 2 months into her term, long before Democrats started their agitprop on the issue.

    The rest of your rant is similarly based on Leftist agitprop, in other words, worthless mindrot.

  30. wr says:

    I’ve never been mayor of Wasila, and I’ve never been a governor. But then, she doesn’t get credit for that one, since she quit when she saw a pile of cash glitter in the distance. I did, however, get my degrees from the schools where I started them, and I’ve actually written all five of my books> I guess I’d put my accomplishments against hers. Except I lack the skill and the grifter’s instinct for fleecing the suckers. And of course I lack the fleet of sycophants desperate to hurl their minimum wages at me…

  31. Franklin says:

    Palin cut engineering funding for the bridge about 2 months into her term, long before Democrats started their agitprop on the issue.

    False. Quit lying about it TangoMan.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/01/sarah-palin/as-candidate-yes-as-governor-no/

  32. I was about to correct your fantasy Tangoman, but Franklin beat me to it.

    You’re a classic example of the contemporary fake conservative penchant for “making stuff up” and then accusing others of doing it.

    But thanks for playing.

  33. TangoMan says:

    TangoMan: Palin cut engineering funding for the bridge about 2 months into her term, long before Democrats started their agitprop on the issue.

    Franklin: False. Quit lying about it TangoMan.

    From Franklin’s own source:

    Palin took over as governor in December 2006 and in February 2007 her proposed state budget didn’t include state funding for the Ketchikan bridge.

    Another point from your source:

    In the transportation spending bill that included money for the Ketchikan bridge, Congress deleted the wording that would have directed money for the project, though it left the money in place so Alaska officials could decide which transportation projects to spend it on.

    Congress didn’t kill the bridge. That decision was made in Alaska. Even before Congress removed the linkage between funding and the bridge, Palin had killed Alaska’s funding contribution for the bridge.

    Look, liberals, there’s a huge difference between wanting something to be true and it actually being true. Your agitprop worked, for a while, and deceived a nation, but the truth does eventually surface. The records are all there, even the records for WHO VOTED FOR the bill, you know, both Biden and Obama, who are on record for voting for spending the money, twice. Palin put a stop to that bridge, also twice, once for State spending and then, later, on not directing the Federal contribution towards the bridge.

    Bzzt. You lose. Facts are against you.

  34. Nice try TangoMan…but you ignore how former Senator Ted Stevens had to scream at the top of his lungs to the rest of the Senate about not taking the money out for the Bridge to Nowhere.

    Technically Congress changed the language, but the acts were clear. The Bridge was an embarrassment and Congress gave the State and it’s Governor an easy out..which she took, seeing the writing on the wall and feeling the embarrassment.

    She lied when she declared saying “Thanks but no thanks” because in fact, the language had been changed. The money wasn’t given for the bridge.

    You’re right TM…there’s a difference between what you wish to be true and what IS true. And the truth will out.

  35. TangoMan says:

    Nice try TangoMan…

    What’s really funny here is the turning of the tables between the Bush-era inner circle and the broad-based liberal community who think of themselves as the “reality-based community.” The Bush folks thought that they could shape a new reality, and that’s now the mindset of liberals who think that they can bend their lies about Palin into a reality.

    Someone had the ultimate decision to not build that bridge. Congress didn’t make that decision. In fact, they appropriated the money and sent it to Alaska. Palin made the decision to cut state funding within months of taking office and then, despite Obama and Biden voting to spend the money, she decided to definitively halt the bridge initiative.

    You can’t spin this as her not being responsible for shutting down the project. You can’t bend reality to such a degree, no matter how desperately you want that reality to be true.

    Congress: Here’s the money for the bridge.
    Congress: Oops. Forget that last commitment. Here’s the money. We’re not telling you to build the bridge. What you do with the money is not our concern.
    Palin: I won’t authorize that money to be spent on the bridge.

    How in tarnation can this be construed as Palin not stopping the bridge and Congress being responsible for stopping the bridge?

    You liberals really do drink deep of the kool-aid. It’s warping your sense of reality.

  36. See, what I find amusing is that modern day fake conservatives harp on a distraction to avoid the truth.

    You can accuse me of oversimplification in saying that it was Congress that stopped the bridge. Here’s something a little more complex for you to wrap your head around. What Congress, or more specifically the Senate got Ted Stevens to do was to back off on the bridge. They did that by pointing out that it had become a national joke, partially because of his temper tantrum on the Senate floor.

    Palin was perfectly happy to funnel that money to the unnecessary project until she herself was aware of how ridiculous she would look by appropriating money for it.

    Congress also shed itself (superficially) of the responsibility. But it was the actions of the Senate (with help from the press) that made it an issue. Simplified, Congress stopped the bridge, it wasn’t Palin who turned it away.

    Alaska, as a state, cannot survive without Federal money, at all. It is the most subsidized of the 50 and former half governor palin was happy to be the recipient of a “socialist” program. So long as she got the money.

    I notice that this is the only aspect you harp on Tango, btw. And you keep trying to run circles around it. Again, facts are facts. She accomplished next to nothing in her half term as governor, she accomplished even less as Mayor of Wasilla.

    She dragged the McCain team down, making the Hail Mary pass of that campaign less than merry.

    And now her show has been panned, though less for her doing than it was for the general lameness of the show itself. Interesting that Fox, so excited about their new political analyst couldn’t come up with something better for her ‘talents’.

  37. Franklin says:

    TangoMan-

    You said that Congress didn’t do anything until after she killed it. That is clearly false. You are a liar and you know it.

    Sorry, you lose this time. Keep trying, though.

    /BTW, I’m not a liberal (nor a conservative), sorry again to bust your bubble of “thought”.

  38. Franklin says:

    Just to be specific, here is where you are lying:

    Palin cut engineering funding for the bridge about 2 months into her term, long before Democrats started their agitprop on the issue.

    I’m specifically objecting to where you said, “long before” when it the Politifact source clearly states the funding cut was long AFTER Congress cut the specific earmark.

    Pants on fire, sir.

    /Not to mention she was for the bridge before she was against it.
    //Also not to mention that she only cut the rest of the funding because she was forced to.
    ///Sorry, I’m just making sure history isn’t rewritten here like it is on the Texas school board.

  39. Have a nice G.A. says:

    /BTW, I’m not a liberal (nor a conservative), sorry again to bust your bubble of “thought”.

    lol Your not a liberal, how do you figure?

  40. Eric Florack says:

    Shafted the people who trusted her with their votes by resigning so she could cash in on her celebrity status.

    So, let’s see… Did Obama shaft the people when he resigned his senate seat after only 144 days of a six year term?

    Or did he do that after he was elected?

  41. Eric,

    Look up false comparison.

    I’d say the people of Illinois who voted for him are happy that he’s accomplished what he has and happy to have voted for him for President. I won’t list them because I’d bet good money it would only inspire a moronic diatribe on what you understand to be socialism and/fascism.

    Palin…not so much. She’s not that popular in Alaska anymore. And it looks like not even conservatives liked her new show in which she did pretty much nothing.

  42. TangoMan says:

    Eric,

    Look up false comparison.

    I’d say the people of Illinois who voted for him are happy that he’s accomplished what he has and happy to have voted for him for President. I won’t list them because I’d bet good money it would only inspire a moronic diatribe on what you understand to be socialism and/fascism.

    Hint: Don’t try your hand at critiques of logic until you master logical thinking.

    1st Error: Refutation by appealing to your own scenario, viz. I’d say the people of Illinois who voted for him are happy. . . “

    Your happy scenario may convince you, but your fantasy does nothing to convince a skeptic.

    2nd Error, part A: Invoking a false comparison fallacy when it doesn’t apply. When you compare two actions and you criticize one action on the basis of a commitment which wasn’t carried through to completion, then it is entirely appropriate, indeed, logically necessary, to judge the contrasting action by the same standard.

    2nd Error, part B: Claiming a logical fallacy was invoked, false comparison, and then justifying one action by appealing to after-the-fact justifications (he can, or has, accomplished more as President than Senator) but denying the same standard to the counterpart action.

    2nd Error, part C: Making the charge that a logical fallacy was invoked and then justifying the charge by pointing to “reasoning” which doesn’t even pertain to the claim of false comparison. Pointing out Obama’s accomplishments after he abandoned his Senate commitment in no way buttresses your argument that a false comparison took place.

  43. Your mind is clouded grasshopper.

    Abandoning what you were elected for to sell books is not the same as moving up from Senate to run for President in order to increase your influence or ability to make the accomplishments you wish to make.

    Now, we may or may not like when a politician does that, but since the people of Illinios who voted for Obama also voted him into the White House by a rather large margin, it hardly seems like abandonment. They were quite happy to send him there(though I suspect they’re not that thrilled with Roland Burris).

    The people of Alaska didn’t get to vote for Sister Sarah to leave so she could focus on having someone else write her book for her. She just left. That would be abandonment.

    It IS a false comparison because the context is completely different. You just don’t like the context.

    Nice try though.

    I’m not here to convince you. I doubt you are a skeptic. Like me you have a point of view. The difference is when Obama is wrong (and he is wrong about a great many things) I am perfectly willing to criticize him on it.

    But the sainted Sarah…no…you have to find some way to compare her actions in a silly and ridiculous way, and then try to justify it.

    Good luck with that.

  44. Eric Florack says:

    Abandoning what you were elected for to sell books is not the same as moving up from Senate to run for President in order to increase your influence or ability to make the accomplishments you wish to make.

    Your spin is amusing, but unavailing to the idea that Obama didn’t abandon his post to attain greater personal power. And what do you know… so did she.

  45. Eric, your statement is patently ridiculous and merits no more response than this…

    Happy Easter.