Would someone please explain why this is more than just humorous? While the pardoning and then slaughtering of turkeys in the background is incongruous, it dosn't seem to have much relavence to anything.

We all know that Turkeys get killed for thanksgiving, and the clash of concepts might be even worth doing On Purpose for its effect!

So what's the big deal?

If Sarah Palin has proven anything there is indeed such a thing as bad visibility. Yet I do believe much of her visibility problems have had to do with why she is so well liked by so many. She's not preoccupied with image, but unfortunately, this comes through at the worst times. At the same time, there is no way, no matter what you think of this individual governor, that the governer herself should have to be bothered with the logistics of event staging. It is just as naive to think this as it is to think that Sarah Palin makes her kids' lunches every day and that Obama will be tucking his kids into bed at the White House every night. Yes, they are parents, but they live under extraordinary circumstances with daunting responsibilities.

That said, it is only one person's job to worry about this shot - the flack's. As Larry mentioned, Staging 101 - foreground, background, lighting and blocking. Establish entry pathways and exit pathways. Pre-determine access and when the governer will be available for questions. Todd, if this was done when you were a camera man, perhaps you thought you picked the camera angle, but in most cases the way in which you were given access already had factored in which angles you could get.

I am torn between wishing the media would "disappear" Sarah Palin (naive of me) versus offering my counsel to her for a tidy sum.

When it's important, never let tv folks set up the shot. It's okay to cooperate with something that's not boring visually, but this was, well, we've covered that ground.

Here's wishing you and your organizations WAY better coverage in 2009!

Yes, D. Martin, I suppose you're right; it could be "comedienne." Although I think there's really a shift towards gender neutral nouns. For instance, comedian and actor are both accepted to include men and women. (I wonder why women have to adopt the male version of the word.)

Meanwhile, waiter and waitress is replaced with server. Spokesman or woman is spokesperson.

However, now I'm WAY off topic.

Having grown up on a farm and butchered my share of livestock including fowl, I'm not too upset by all this. But city folks who think milk falls from Heaven into a bottle and never think about the origin of that lucious lamb chop might be upset.

As for PR value, there is no such thing as bad visibility. Celebrity is everything in this mindless age. Reason. Reflection. Taste. Class. Fuggidaboudit.

Not to be picky, but shouldn't it be "comedienne" in the title? Or is that considered old-fasioned?

Vicky hit the nail on the head. This isn't breaking news and a surprise camera in your face. This was a straight up pre-planned event and it was up to the planners (Palin and her staff) to scope the location. Palin and her staff were very much in control of the situation (or should have been). Of course the camera man physically frames the shot - no one is suggesting a Palin staffer shoot the video, but if they said, "Palin is standing over here," you don't think the camera would have followed?

This is a woman who prides herself on being able to shoot a moose and field-dress the carcass. Her sensibilities are different from many people's. Is that persona deliberately cultivated? "Perhaps so." But I sincerely doubt that this was photo op was orchestrated for satirical effect. She is a rather dim bulb and lacks the internal compass setting that would have her even flinch at the slaughter of turkeys within earshot or camera frame.
A PR gaffe? She probably wouldn't think so. Hers is a whole different mindset.

This is the same Sarah Palin who announced during a nationally televised debate that she would not honor the moderator's questions so she could answer them her way.

This was poor p.r. planning; she could have held that interview anywhere. It was a story about the governor pardoning a turkey, so it was hers to arrange.

Palin and her staff--turkeys all around.

Photographer or not, one has to 1) be aware of the surroundings/context, 2) be astute enough to recognize potential juxtapositional problems, 3) be assertive enough to tell the photographer to change said background. This one's on her and her people (who are obviously none too observant).

I'm not sure I can agree. Most savvy subjects I know would question the location, given what's going on, and wouldn't leave it up to someone else (whether PR or photographer). I'm not convinced this wasn't intentional on all parties' parts.

So, Sarah Palin has foreign relations experience because she can see Russia from Alaska, but she doesn't know what is going on 15 feet behind her? Please, please, please, let her stay in Alaska.

Tim is right on. Whoever staged this must have slept through Special Events 101 class.

It is the responsibility of the photographer to frame up the shot and this photographer did an outstanding job of taking a routine story and giving it some added dimension as it were. I like Palin and don't fault the photographer for jumping on an opportunity. She got beat up during the campaign, very unfairly, but (pun intended) this shot was fair game, literally. The blame here resides with the PR idiots who seem not able to anticipate the need to tie their shoes. Fire them, Sarah, and get some real PR people.

Lori summed it up. This is the photographer’s responsibility. When being interviewed for TV or video most people will stand where they are told to stand by the photographer, it's just that simple. I have interviewed thousands of people on camera and have never had a subject tell me where they want to stand.

The cameraman likely thought that this was an interesting to shot for the interview, or perhaps they wanted to make fun of Palin.

Either way... it is absolutely ridiculous to think that Palin is responsible for this.

I like Sarah and feel she really got the short end from the media throughout the campaign, but this time was not the media's fault, although very clearly the photographer knew what he/she was doing. I don't have a problem with the photographer, who knew that at the very least this picture would be different than the norm. The photographer saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. Kudos. The same can't be said the the PR person.

It is the responsibility of the photographer -- not the subject -- to frame up a shot. Back in TV 101 we learned that if there is something you don't want on air, don't shoot it. Interesting that the media isn't appalled by one of its own, instead it uses this as a way to "stick it to Sarah" once again.

If Sarah Palin is guilty of anything it's a patteren of being too trusting of her PR people and perhaps, not savvy enough to know a good PR person from a bad one. This is not yet another shot at "her handlers" or at the McCain campaign. Most really strong public figures know that one of the most important people on their staff is a seasoned PR vet with a very good eye for problems before they arise. Such aids are usually very loyal and have had long-standing relationships with their "celebrities." Case in point, Obama has Gibbs. Based on his work with Obama, I'm sure there were untold numbers of PR gaffes in waiting and just minutes from making news before Gibbs probably prevented them. Sarah Palin needs a personal confidant at her side, someone who has a really good sense of these things. I know any time I've had a client talk to the media, I would never let cameras or mics come close until I physically stood at the location and scoped it out before-hand. Quite frankly, I wouldn't have taken the media with her into the barn. You set something out away from the mess and stage it like theater. This is soft news and there's nothing wrong with playing it like that. Basic PR! Clearly her people are weak and not very detail oriented.

A friend just emailed me this, the unedited footage filmed by the local TV station. If you want a wee bit more, try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8

Congratulations goes out to the camera man for encompassing this background to shoot Sarah Palin

Thank you Mike McCurdy for making my case for me regarding whether or not comments need to be monitored at our company's first blog on the way in '09.

As much as I'd love to let people post anything they want, I have no doubt I'll have everyone on board with me after I pass around your comment at our meeting on this tomorrow.

I'm sure they'll agree we have some Mike McCurdys running loose around our place, too. And if they're incapable of futhering the discussion in at least a semi-intelligent, non-offensive way, then we'll shut them up in a heartbeat so they don't ruin social media for the rest of us.

It's been too long a struggle just to get where we are.

If the shoe was on the other foot and it was Hillary Clinton in that video, there'd be a doctor shoving a pair of forceps up a vagina, crushing a fetus' skull and sucking out its brains with a vacuum cleaner instead of a man killing turkeys.

Because it's all relative...