As if she's an authority on something, which is always dangerous.
The article is about Charlie Gibson and the reviews he received for his interviews with Sarah Palin. The Times reported that conservative were angry and noted that Malkins on her blog, "posted the headline "ABC News Blows It" on michellemalkin.com minutes after the first of Mr. Gibson's interviews had been shown on "World News" on Thursday. Specifically, "The concerns she tallied about Mr. Gibson included: "Taking quotes out of context," "Getting basic facts wrong," and "engaging in distortionary hype.""
That's all well and good. But this being Michell Malkin, whose track record for truth telling is thin, the Times should have tried to determine whether her allegations carried any weight. The Times did not, giving readers the impression that Malkin was dealing with facts. (Not smart.)
Had the Times bothered to investigate, it would have discovered that, for instance, for her claim that Gibson got "basic facts wrong," Malkin, to prove her point, linked to an item at National Reviews Online which criticized the wording of an ABC News press release touting the Palin interview. That's the proof that Gibson got "basic facts wrong." Oy.
Like we said, whenever the Times feels the temptation to take Malkin seriously, it ought to resist.
This is just sad.
Embracing the GOP spin from the right-wing press, the Post on Saturday runs a front page piece actually suggesting it wasn't such big a deal that Sarah Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was when quizzed by ABC's Charlie Gibson this week. The Post, acting confused, claims there have been so many so-called Bush Doctrines that Palin might have just not known which one Gibson was referring to.
Ugh. Let's just say we agree with WaPo reader "toohool" who posted this comment: "This is dumb. Do a Google News search for "Bush Doctrine" for any span of time prior to yesterday. There is no ambiguity."
But look, the Post even got a serious person to back up the laughably thin premise of the article. Which independent source did the paper tap? The Post got a former staff member of Bush's National Security Council.
It makes sense that Charles Krauthammer would float the same Bush Doctrine spin on the WaPo opinion page on Saturday. It's his job to stand up for the GOP ticket. But in the Post's news pages?
The media finally seem to be showing interest in the refusal on the part of the town of Wasilla, Alaska, while Sarah Palin was mayor, to pay for rape kits for the victims of sexual assault. The Associated Press has a fairly informative article on the subject, but we can only assume that its last paragraph was inadvertently lopped off. Here's how one version of the AP story currently ends:
Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the campaign of Palin and John McCain, said that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."
The AP gave no indication that it asked Comella the obvious follow-up: Why, if Palin does not believe that rape victims should have to pay for their own evidence-gathering test, did this practice continue for four years while Palin was mayor, with the practice ending only after the state legislature stepped in and outlawed it?
Blogger Bruce Wilson specializes in researching the religious right and it was his viral video earlier this year, "God Sent Hitler," that forced McCain to walk away from Pastor John Hagee. More recently, Wilson posted a very important clip about Sarah Palin's church and the often radical brand of faith it practices. The clip was picked up all over the blogosphere and as of Thursday had been seen more than 160,000 at YouTube. (Watch the video here.)
But then the clip was yanked. When Wilson tried to find out why he was told by YouTube it was because of "inappropriate content," which strikes us as very odd. Here's hoping YouTube rethinks the ban.
Meanwhile, we hear the video has sparked a growing online debate within the religious right itself, as more and more followers raise questions about Palin's church and the faith practiced there.
That's what Howard Kurtz recently claimed at washgintonpost.com, suggesting reporters and pundits are furious at the McCain campaign: "Whether it's the latest back-and-forth over attack ads, the silly lipstick flap or the continuing debate over Sarah and sexism, you can just feel the tension level rising several notches."
We had to chuckle since, as County Fair has repeatedly stressed, the press chose to cover the lipstick charade. But now, according to Kurtz, it was as if the press had to pretend the hoax represented news.
We're all for journalists feeling like the McCain camp has insulted their intelligence in recent weeks, because we think it's true. But spare us the notion that the press hasn't allowed itself to be played and insulted.
Does its best to defend the "Bush Doctrine" blunder. We think it's going to have to try harder, though.
In his critique of today's WaPo, says Booman Tribune.
Here are some of the ways news orgs spent their cash.
See Glenn Greenwald.
David Perel is at it again today in the opinion pages of the WSJ. We mean, the tabloid gets one political scandal story right (i.e. John Edwards) and now we're supposed to listen him Perel preach about how courageous his checkbook-writing reporters are? We'll pass.
Worse, Perel re-tells the Palin fake pregnancy story and claims that after the rumor was posted on Daily Kos, the "mainstream media instantly joined the fray, questioning Mr. McCain's people about the report and triggering Mrs. Palin to announce that her teenage daughter was pregnant."
Where's the proof? We haven't seen the name of one reporter who pressured the McCain campaign about Palin's pregnancy. We understand that McCain aides claim the jackals in the press were demanding (off the record, of course) answers about the pregnancy rumor. But to date, they have not been able to name a single mainstream reporter who went there.
So it's ironic that in an essay that lectures the press on how do conduct itself, Perel simply passes along gossip as fact.