NewsBusters won't let Palin debunk her own lies
November 16, 2009 2:58 pm ET by Simon Maloy
There exists no better example of the conservative media's culture of victimization than Sarah Palin. In the eyes of the right-wing media, she's infallible. If she stumbles in an interview, it's the fault of the overly aggressive and biased interviewer. If she gets caught in an obvious falsehood (e.g. Bridge to Nowhere), they painfully contort both facts and logic to show that she's actually right. In short, Palin can do no wrong, and it's all the vicious liberals' fault.
Armed with that worldview, NewsBuster Scott Whitlock went after Good Morning America's Kate Snow this morning for having the temerity to "repeatedly fact check" Palin's new memoir. Things quickly degenerated [emphasis in original]:
Snow began the piece on Palin and her book Going Rogue by pointing out that "the blitz has begun and so has the fact checking." She then launched into a series of supposed corrections:
KATE SNOW: In her book, Palin says top aide Steve Schmidt yelled at her over the phone. "The force of his screaming blew my hair back. How could anyone be so stupid?" But, staffers say there was no yelling, just an e-mail saying "Who set this up? Are you kidding me?" And then there's Saturday Night Live. In her book, Palin says she wanted to appear on the show. "Let's go on and neutralize some of this and have some fun." But, in an e-mail Palin writes "These folks are whack. What's the upside in giving them or any celebrity venue a ratings boost?"
The 2008 campaign is over. Why is GMA relying on anonymous e-mails from disgruntled staffers to rebuff Palin? (Secondly, is it possible there could have been both e-mails and yelling?)
"Anonymous e-mails from disgruntled staffers"? Of the two e-mails Whitlock referenced, one was written by Palin herself. He highlighted it in the transcript. ABC let Palin do the debunking for them.
But even when Palin exposes herself as a liar, the right-wing won't have any of it.
Of course, Obama has done nothing even remotely close to that, but nice bogus straw man argument.
And the left has called out Obama on various things, including his failure to lead on healthcare, his failure to bring the troops home from Iraq, and his odd stance on the legal issues with the previous administration.
Meanwhile, the right -- other than David Brooks and a few others -- covers for Sarah on almost everything, attacking anyone who would dare point out her corrupt dealings and myriad lies.
Utter tapdancing tripe.
Agreed, but like it or not (I'm in the latter camp), she's seen as an icon on the right and must be debunked. You can't just stand idly by when someone lies with as much impugnity as Sarah Palin. Plus the thought of her in any elected office scares the @#$% out of me. Bush was a bad president, but (this is for comparison purposes only, you understand) at least you knew there was some trace of competence there. I can't imagine what would happen if someone like her -- anti-intellectual, carrying vendettas against opponents, completely ignorant on so many topics -- were to attain the presidency or vice presidency. I seriously get chills just thinking about it. She'd make Bush look like Teddy Roosevelt.