Sarah Palin, Paper Grizzly

Sarah Palin, Paper Grizzly

Even after all the "lamestream media" coverage, new data shows Sarah Palin’s "Mama Grizzlies" video was largely ignored by her supporters and watched mostly by consumers of traditional media.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Sarah Palin’s new "Mama Grizzlies" video drew strong reactions from many reporters, politicos and critics. An analysis of viewer data, however, shows that Palin’s video actually failed to reach or excite her base.

In the week since it was first posted on Palin’s Facebook page, which boasts over 1.8 million backers, the video has drawn 368,000 views.  Yet despite her large following, only 33,000 people watched the video via Facebook, according to YouTube statistics. That means only one out of ten viewers found "Mama Grizzlies" through Palin’s social network—and under 2 percent of her Facebook community watched the video. So who did watch "Mama Grizzlies"?

Mostly traditional news readers and Palin detractors.

Almost a third of all views came through an article on Yahoo! News, for example, while ratings for the video ran almost two-to-one for "dislike" over "like." "The bulk of the views seem to come after it had been covered in the mainstream media," observes Pete Warden, a social media analyst who has studied Palin’s Facebook strategy. "She is still reaching a lot more people indirectly through the media than through Facebook and Twitter and the other direct channels," added Warden, a former engineer at Apple.

It’s quite a feat. Palin blasts the "lamestream" media while claiming to commune directly with her base, which draws extensive media coverage for an effort that actually reaches a tiny number of people. Without the media assist, though, Palin would just be sitting on a Facebook page with 2 percent participation and a YouTube video with niche numbers. (As is, "Mama Grizzlies" is not exactly Double-Rainbow material; it would place below this week’s top ten political videos for overall views.)  Some reporters are catching on. "I hope we don’t hear from Sarah Palin about media bias anymore," Chuck Todd recently said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, "because it is amazing the ability this woman has to get media attention with as little as she does, whether it’s a Twitter or a Facebook update."

For tangible political impact, the distinction between symbiotic media coverage and direct mobilization is crucial. New research by political scientist Kevin Wallsten, for example, found that viral campaign hits like the "Yes We Can" Obama video, which topped 5 million views in one month, are driven by political organizing and citizen blogs, not traditional media coverage.

I raised this dynamic with an experienced political web operative—who did not want to go on record antagonizing Palin—and this pol argued that while Palin can drive magazine covers and book sales, her core political support remains vastly overstated. "More of the viewers were people critical of her rather than fans, although the lazy implication is for people to say, ‘Look at all her fans, she has 300k views on YouTube,’ " said the operative, adding, "She doesn’t have real support among actual people, even Republican primary voters. She is a self-perpetuating phenomenon of, by and for the media."

While Palin is undoubtedly a media force, when it comes to activating even her own core supporters, she looks more like a paper grizzly.

An official for SarahPAC, which produced the "Mama Grizzlies" video, did not dispute any of the statistics when contacted for fact-checking, or provide any specific comment to questions about Palin’s online outreach. The official did include this closing in an email reply: "We kindly direct you to her Facebook page where she most frequently comments. Thank you for your inquiry."

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x