Why is Sarah Palin dissing conservative media?

Associated Press was provided with an advance copy of Sarah Palin's new book, Going Rogue, so they get the scoop on its contents.

I attempted to get an advance copy of Palin's book. No dice. Embargoed. "Under lock and key," I was told.

So the American Spectator doesn't get the scoop. Neither does National Review, nor the Weekly Standard, Human Events, et cetera. (Hey, welcome to the New Media Age: They could have given the scoop to Right Wing News, Red State or Conservatives for Palin.)

Oh, and when it comes to the big TV interview, it's Oprah who "gets the get," not Michelle Malkin.

Being a conservative journalist means that not only do your liberal peers in the MSM treat you like crap, but Republican politicians do, too. What mystifies me is why other conservative journalists don't complain about getting second-rate treatment from GOP big shots.

Sarah Palin suffered so much last year because she was advised by the usual "media strategists," including the self-serving Nicolle Wallace, a torpedo from Team Bush. And yet she allows the P.R. geniuses at Harper Collins to pick and choose their favorites in the media roll-out.

Look, Governor: I know you're under contract, but if you're going to call your book Going Rogue, how about a little "rogue" action on the media strategy?

(Cross-posted at Right Wing News.)

UPDATE: Some of the commenters seem to believe that I'm advocating that Palin "preach to the choir," which is not at all my intention, and I think this misconception -- that only "the base" read conservative publications -- is part of the problem of the way Republicans think about media strategy.

In the New Media age, the Big Story is not determined by the top editors of the New York Times. The Big Story is whatever the main headline is at the Drudge Report. If Sarah Palin gave her first exclusive interview to Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard, and Drudge made that the top item at his site, every political reporter in the country would be forced to quote Continetti's interview.

You really need to hear Andrew Breitbart explain this. The first time I met Breitbart -- at CPAC 2007 -- I spent about three hours just listening to him explain the awesomeness of Drudge Power, which can change the narrative merely by the selection of headlines.

Think about this: Matt Drudge, a former 7-Eleven clerk, and Andrew Breitbart, a Gen X slacker with ADD, are among the two most influential figures in modern media. The Deciders didn't decide that. In fact, the Deciders very much resent the success of Drudge, Breitbart and other New Media revolutionaires -- the lean and hungry competition who've been eating the MSM's lunch for years.

Old Media still have influence, but they no longer have monopoly power as "gatekeepers." The key to an insurgent approach to public relations is to use New Media to leverage MSM coverage: Subvert the media hierarchy, so that CBS and the Washington Post are force to hustle to catch up.

In terms of Republican politicans, the tactical and strategic implications of this approach are profound. I'd love to explain the implications of this, but:

• If I explain everything on my blog, then the liberals can read it, too; and
• People pay good money for my advice nowadays, so why should I give it away?

I'm Old School in the New Media, and the big problem with these GOP punks like Tucker Bounds is they don't know from Old School. But the other problem is that too many people allow the hidebound ancient categories -- in which NBC is "mainstream," but Rush Limbaugh is not -- to dominate their thinking to such an extent that they effectively forfeit the subversive leverage of New Media.

So many people talk about "thinking outside the box," but never really do. Me? I don't even have a box. I think I may have smoked the box about 1978, but memories of that year are kind of hazy.