Palin, the press, and her pregnancy
Sarah Palin emerged as a media critic last week when she sat down with a conservative filmmaker to critique the press coverage she received during the fall campaign. As somebody who withstood the unique scrutiny that general elections generate, Palin certainly deserves to air her complaints. And if they're legitimate ones, the press ought to give them a serious hearing. But Palin needs to be more accurate in her appraisals, because regarding one key media controversy from the campaign, she did more media revising last week than media critiquing.
In the interview segment posted at YouTube, Palin was quite critical of the nasty conspiracy theory that was floated online right after she was tapped as Sen. John McCain's running mate. The rumor claimed that Palin was not really the mother of her newborn son Trig, but that her high school daughter, Bristol, was actually the mother and that Sarah Palin had "faked" the pregnancy to cover for Bristol. Palin claims the media picked up the rumor from liberal bloggers and then ran with it.
That Palin's still steaming about the episode is not surprising. Lots of people both online and off, and from the right and the left, considered the fake pregnancy story to be one of the low points in the campaign. Unfortunately, in her role as press critic, Palin misremembers the media's role. Or she's consciously trying to rewrite history.
Because the simple fact is the mainstream media did not spread the pregnancy story. Nor, contrary to Palin's accusation, were liberal bloggers responsible for it. Most A-list bloggers actively avoided the story, and some online writers even publicly decried the rumor when it first surfaced. It was actually some over-eager diarists (i.e. blog readers who are free to write pretty much whatever they want online) who helped hatch and amplify the story. And it was one high-profile mainstream blogger, from outside the liberal netroots community, who stepped forward to promote it.
Still, Palin claims the mainstream media picked up on the faked pregnancy story from "anonymous bloggers" and then helped spread it:
When did we start accepting as hard news sources bloggers, anonymous bloggers especially? It's a sad state of affairs in the world of the media today, the mainstream media especially, if they're going to rely on anonymous bloggers for their hard news information.
She also asked why reporters "believe[d] the lie." And she demanded to know why, instead of accepting the pregnancy story, journalists didn't take the extra time to report the facts.
In truth, if you go back and look at the how the press treated the story in real time (as opposed to the mythmaking that conservatives have done since), the press behaved precisely how Palin says it should have -- and exactly unlike how Palin claims it did. Meaning, reporters did not immediately embrace, believe, or publicize the pregnancy rumor. Instead, they acted responsibly: They asked questions and searched for facts from the McCain campaign before even thinking about giving the rumor any publicity. They did not push the Trig conspiracy story.
Were McCain aides furious when they had to answer reporters' awkward and intrusive question about Trig over Labor Day weekend? No doubt. Then again, I'm sure press aides for the Clintons in the 1990s were angry when they had to field intrusive press questions that sprang from right-wing conspiracy theories about whether Bill or Hillary were drug runners or had ever killed anybody. That stuff happens behind the scenes.
But again, Palin falsely accused the press of a) failing to ask questions about the pregnancy rumor and b) disregarding the facts and helping to spreading it. Neither assertion is accurate.
It's obvious the press was well aware of the left-field gossip that burned up the Internet on the last weekend of August. "Campaign officials were deluged with questions from reputable news outlets" about the pregnancy, The Washington Post reported on September 2. And Fortune's Nina Easton later told a panel discussion audience, "I don't know a reporter who did not get that [rumor] emailed to them."
The question, though, is what did reporters do with the story? How did they treat the online rumor? Palin suggests journalists ran wild with it. That's false. As the Post noted in September, "Mainstream outlets have not given such rumors any credence." Indeed, after searching Nexis and Google, I cannot find a single traditional, American news outlet that reported on the pregnancy rumors within the 48 hours after it appeared online. Nothing in The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the Chicago Tribune. Nothing in Newsweek or Time. And Nothing on MSNBC or CBS. Nothing anywhere. The press simply did not touch the story.
Actually, that's not true. I found an item posted on the Anchorage Daily News' political blog, dated August 31, which addressed the white-hot Palin rumor. The newspaper's blog was clearly skeptical of the rumor ("We haven't seen anything resembling proof"), noted a similar plot had floated around Alaska months earlier, and got a quote from Palin's spokesman that denied the allegation.
In other words, the newspaper did exactly what Palin now says she wished the media had done last summer.
Contrary to Palin's telling, most media outlets only addressed that story after the McCain campaign called attention to it on September 1, when it revealed that Palin's unwed 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant. The campaign insisted it had to go public with the news in order to deflect the "disturbing, nasty smears" being spread online. (Of course, the campaign was always going to have to acknowledge the pregnancy at some point -- with or without the online rumors -- since Bristol would be eight months pregnant by Election Day.)
Only after Republicans threw a spotlight onto the online conspiracy theory did the press make references to it. And once the McCain campaign claimed liberal bloggers had spread the rumor, the press dutifully repeated the claim [emphasis added]:
- "[Bristol] is pregnant -- a revelation the Alaska governor made public yesterday to refute rumors spread by liberal bloggers that she'd faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her daughter's earlier one. (New York Post)
- "The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child. (Reuters)
- The announcement came after a swirl of rumors by liberal bloggers that the governor's fifth child, who was born in April, was in fact her daughter's." (The New York Times)
So now we have the Beltway press and Palin claiming "liberal bloggers" were behind the fake pregnancy story. Indeed, bloggers today collectively, and routinely, get dumped on for disseminating the pregnancy story. But it's not true. There wasn't a single A-list liberal blogger who backed the story at the time. Despite being inundated with emails from readers asking about the pregnancy rumor and wondering why they weren't linking to it and hyping it, high-profile liberal bloggers -- the people who founded and ran the sites -- refused to go with the story.
"We didn't want to touch the Sarah Palin pregnancy story with a 10-foot pole and the overwhelming consensus [among bloggers] was to strongly discourage anyone that was running with the rumors," wrote Martin Longman at his blog, Booman Tribune, on September 1. "We stifled the story as much as we could without deleting people's diaries."
And here was the response John Aravosis at AmericaBlog wrote to a reader who emailed him over Labor Day weekend with a link to the firecracker rumor: "I've seen the story, but I'd like to see more facts before even considering writing about it. I just don't like publishing this kind of thing without firm evidence that something is awry."
What did occur was that some readers and diarists on the blogs inflamed the fake pregnancy story -- but not the bloggers themselves. I realize that may be a minor distinction for the press and Palin to make, but if they're going to take the blogosphere seriously -- and if they're going to assign blame -- they ought to distinguish between the two entities. (It would be like blaming talk-show hosts for a conspiracy theory that listeners kept bringing up on the air, even though hosts refused to discuss it.)
I also realize that over the years the liberal blogosphere has benefited enormously from the creative, bottom-up input from activist readers (or "the people formerly known as the audience," as journalism professor Jay Rosen once put it). And that means the community also has to share the collective blame when the readers go astray. But the fact remains, "liberal bloggers" did not spread the Palin pregnancy story.
For the record, here's how that rumor unfolded online.
Headlined, "Palin's faked 'pregnancy'? Covering for teen daughter?," the Daily Kos post, written by reader and diarist "inky99," was posted on the evening Palin was introduced as the GOP VP pick, August 29. The item claimed that "Palin's last child, a baby with Down's syndrome, may not be hers."
Among other bits of information included in the post, inky99 erroneously reported that syndicated columnist Dave Sirota had appeared on Thom Hartmann's liberal radio talk show on August 29 and discussed the faked pregnancy story. Not true: The conversation Hartmann engaged in on the radio that day did not revolve around Trig's birth. It was about whether or not Bristol, at the time of Palin's VP announcement in August, was pregnant. That rumor had been widely discussed in Alaska during the previous weeks and months -- a rumor that was confirmed on September 1. (Also, Sirota did not take part in any pregnancy discussion on Hartmann's show that day; that on-air conversation was between Hartmann and Alaska talk-show host Kerry Kerrigan.)
Despite some early holes in the story, inky99 attached an interactive poll to the first Daily Kos pregnancy diary, asking readers to vote on the rumor's worthiness. Over time, more than 20,000 readers responded, and a robust 63 percent stressed that the fake pregnancy story was a legitimate one worth chasing. (Just 23 percent deemed it to be off limits.)
Inky99's post from Friday created some buzz online, but it was the follow-up post on August 30 at Daily Kos (since deleted) by the pseudonymous "ArcXIX" that created the firestorm as the entry raced up the site's recommended list, thanks to so many Daily Kos readers who gave the post an electronic thumbs-up. Much more detailed in terms of photographic and video evidence in support of the claim that Palin faked her pregnancy (i.e. Palin didn't look pregnant in the weeks leading up to Trig's birth), the new diary, "Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother," was also much nastier:
Now, I've known liars in my life. Their single core problem is not with themselves, but those around them. If they're never called out on their twisting of truths and fabrications, they simply continue to make larger lies.
Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.
The following evening, high-profile Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan embraced the fake pregnancy claim, suggesting the Daily Kos diaries posed intriguing questions that needed to be addressed by the McCain campaign. With a loyal following among Beltway journalists, Sullivan's post signaled to the press (incorrectly) that the fake pregnancy story represented a serious matter of inquiry among liberal bloggers. That same night, the Drudge Report tagged the story with the headline: "Lefty Bloggers Go After Palin's 16 year old [sic] Daughter."
A self-described conservative who voted for Bush in 2000, warned after 9-11 that "decadent left enclaves on the coasts may well mount a fifth column," and stood out as a loud cheerleader for the Iraq war in 2003, Sullivan was never considered to be part of the liberal blogosphere. But his political reversal, which soon included relentless attacks on the Bush administration, as well as his vocal cheerleading for Barack Obama's candidacy, had won Sullivan a legion of progressive fans online in 2008. And during the final weekend of August, Sullivan became the highest-profile Obama supporter online to link to the fake pregnancy story and suggest it required serious attention, that it was a legitimate line of inquiry for traditional reporters to pursue. (The post marked something of an obsession for Sullivan, who continued to push the Palin pregnancy story even after Election Day.)
Sullivan immediately felt pushback from the blogosphere. "I strongly believe Sullivan should have laid off this. I could have linked to it yesterday, but didn't, since at that point it was only fodder for a pseudonymous diarist at the Daily Kos," wrote Dan Kennedy at his site, Media Nation, just hours after Sullivan posted. "This is the sort of hurtful story that reputable news organizations should check out thoroughly before injecting into the debate. I mean, come on. Does anyone think Josh Marshall hasn't been following this? Or dozens of other liberal political blogs and Web sites, including Media Nation? None of us went there, and Sullivan shouldn't have, either. This is the definition of a story that shouldn't be hashed out publicly."
Kennedy wasn't alone in airing his reservations. That Sunday at The Huffington Post, blogger Lee Stranahan posted an essay that ridiculed the story: "It's the wackiest rumor about Sarah Palin or any other politician so far this election. It's making its way all through the internet. And of course it came from DailyKos."
That same day, Huffington Post writer Bart Motes also begged everyone to back off: "Guys, it's a loser. Can we not do this?"
Up in Alaska, liberal blogger Linda Kellen Biegel urged readers to ignore the Trig story: "I don't believe that the 'Trig is her grandson' story is true and I think it could end up decimating the credibility of those folks who continue to push it."
And right before midnight on August 31, the Daily Kos diarist known as "The Red Pen" posted a photo taken on the final day of Alaska's legislative session, on April 13, 2008, and just days before Trig's premature birth, in which a clearly pregnant-looking Palin was interviewed by a local television reporter. The Red Pen posted it at Daily Kos, announced the pregnancy baby story had officially been debunked, and chastised the community: "We can drop this crap now. ... [W]e look stupid pushing this rumor."
In retrospect, there's no denying that the rumor did get pushed on the liberal blogosphere. Sullivan was right when he wrote the buzz surrounding it was (temporarily) "deafening." And I suspect some A-list bloggers wish they had done more, in real time, to denounce the rumor when it sprang to life among progressive readers. But contrary to Palin's claim, it wasn't liberal bloggers themselves who pushed the fake pregnancy story. And it wasn't the mainstream media either.
Palin is using the usual overly broad definition of media in order to be the victim. Its much like Bill O does in decrying Dailykos as being as hateful as Hitler. Being a victim of "liberal media" is a usefull distraction when Repubs could use one. Then there is the hipocrisy of indignation coming from the right after a couple of decades of "Hillary is a Lesbian" stories.
But don't forget:
Actually, there was a core element of truth to the rumor-- it turns out that at least one of the suspicions was accurate: Bristol Palin was indeed pregnant. That was at the heart of the "rumor."
So don't rule that out-- it wasn't completely phony.
And so what? You people here will take the fact that someone mispronounces a word on Fox and call it misinformation. You all still seem to defend the flagrant LIE that was told abotu Palin. the day she appeared on the scene, the left wing crap flingers went into full alert. And I find it funny how you all will suddenly call stuff like the KOS "not media"- is it because it's a kissing cousin to MMFA?
The hypocrisy from the left never stops. Face it- you all hate the fact that she "walks her talk"- She decided to keep a baby that she knew would have a handicap. You'd have all stood and applauded if Hillary got pregnant and aborted it because it was inconvenient, let along potentially challeneged. Single motherhod is endorsed - as long as you're a liberal. Palin's daughter is marrying the father of her child. You people here are like a dog.. you always have to go back and sniff the droppings you made, even months later.
You're 100% right, MissDee. Especially the dog-droppings part. The left can't fathom what 'family life' is like and seek to ruin all those that don't fall inside their particularily eary parameters.
Eery parameters perhaps?
Thanks, ewes. Now, go and recheck ALL of my spelling and verify and correct any mistakes I make. It's good to know that there are friendly liberals out there who actually look out for one another. I'm glad you're not like all the rest who are simply rude and un-appreciative.
Please tell us what YOU think "family life" really means.
Well, I can tell you it isn't offing the unborn because they may be an inconvieniance. I can tell you it isn't offing the grandparents because they are an inconvieniance.
but apparently it includes having your grandparents committed and placed in an old folks home so you can posess their wealth.
What IS it?
The left can't fathom what 'family life' is like and seek to ruin all those that don't fall inside their particularily eary parameters.
Yes, because none of us in the left come from families and none of us from the left establish families of our own. We are all single, hedonistic abortionists.
A Republican being a victim???
That can't be. Why, that goes against everything the lovely Ann Coulter wrote about in her ingenious book. That Ann is as pretty as she is honest, by George!
How funny. The right still holds her up as a shining beacon of right wing christianity yet all she's done is made sure her daughter carried an illigitimate baby to term. No matter that the father has a mom who sells illegal drugs, or that Palin routinely lies, and abuses power, etc. etc. etc...
I ALSO read that the paternal grandmother's arrest warrant for her illegal drug trade was held off (or "lost") until after the election, even though the Alaskan authorities had the evidence to go after her well before...
I request some supporting evidence for that accusation. You are asking us to believe that dozens of DA, and police type officials pulled off a conspiracy. That is a very serious charge to make without really good multi source evidence. Ok?
She didn't have any trouble claiming Obama was pallin' around wiuth terrorrists whipping up her servants into mass hysteria. And now the moose hunter is portrayed as a victim ??? Ridiculous.
"Because the simple fact is the mainstream media did not spread the pregnancy story. Nor, contrary to Palin's accusation, were liberal bloggers responsible for it. Most A-list bloggers actively avoided the story, and some online writers even publicly decried the rumor when it first surfaced."
That is a quote from boelert. Obviously, he means that mmfa is NOT an A-list bloging arena. The many, here, ran with that story and still seem to support it. It's especially funny that posters (here) still think Palin lied or even abused her power, when NO factual evidence can be brought forth to prove either. It's good to know where the lies actually come from and who supports them.
The many, here, ran with that story and still seem to support it. (Philib)
I don't remember seeing MMFA going with this story. Can you dig up a quote or a link?
Of course he can't. I don't even remember anyone who comments here giving this any credence.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810070020?f=s_search , http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200810070020
It's expected you don't remember. Isn't that your usual excuse? Are you related to Reagan?
MMfA doesn't say anything about Bristol being Trig's mother. I see two comments that mention or support that theory.
Phil,
That is is your example of MMFA "going with the story?" Quoting two radio jocks who criticized Gloria's position on Palin?!
Ann Coulter taught him well.
Thank you for a well-written history of how that rumor got started.
I take a slight disagreement with your position regarding Daily Kos. I realize that posts by readers can't be scrutinized in real time and 99% of them just appear and disappear with minimal effect.
But when the original post that started the rumor became prominently displayed on the site because of the voting system the site has, then the moderator did (IMO) have a responsibility to act quickly. By leaving the post on the site for as long as they did, Daily Kos was implicitly forwarding the unfounded rumor. Obviously they knew the reaction the rumor was getting on the net.
BTW, thank you for verifying that at least 63% of the people who responded to that poll on Kos are complete idiots.
Mea culpa, as one of those people who ran with the story, I can assure you it only lasted a week or two, and the MSM never covered it.
But look at the evidence, much of it peculiar-- like getting on an airplane when you're 9 months pregnant and flying back to Alaska, and not mentioning it to many people that you're expecting in the first place. And you're the governor? That's wierd-- it makes no sense.
Combine that with Palin being a complete unknown who would not do interviews at all, and the rumor was understandable. As for a low point, she could have cleared it up immediately.
No, the low point in the campaign was calling Bill and Hillary Clinton racists...
A week or two? LOL.. that's what? 30 news cycles in an election year? yeah, right. Did you ever retract it? And if so, I'm sure that didn't run for a "week or two", right?
I agree, but someone should also point out that Sullivan has revsited this issue with some very interesting facts and questions about exactly how Sarah Palin handled her pregnancy and her delivery, taking some very big and probably unwise risks.
I find it laughable that MMFA somehow thinks Palin's criticism of the media pushing an absolutely false and politically damaging story during the campaign, is in fact misinformation.
Somebody somewhere in another thread mentioned "Alice in the Looking Glass". It reminds me of criticizing a rape victim for being raped.
To finish the Alice comment...
"You couldn't deny that, even if you tried with both hands."
"I don't deny things with my hands," Alice objected.
"Nobody said you did," said the Red Queen. "I said you couldn't if you tried."
Classic!
Did you get any on you??
Class act as always you two.
Snark off.
"Classless" is the first word that comes to mind when I see the words:
"eweston" "snoopy" "Col. Harlan Sanders"
Thanks, Blagoboy. I do try to transcend the restraints of class.
If you're interested "asshat" is the first word I think of when I read your posts.
Add "classless" to the list, you lucky devil. And from such a charmer.
Palin's criticism of the media pushing an absolutely false and politically damaging story during the campaign...
Oh, Barney, does this stuff just go straight to your fluttery little wingnut heart without even bouncing off of whatever remains of your brain cells? Which media outlet do you consider the most irresponsible in promoting this story that you equate to the rape of Palin?
"It reminds me of criticizing a rape victim for being raped."
That analogy is only valid if the Rape victim identifies the wrong suspect.
So, your point is? That mmfa never promotes false rumors or that mmfa members are promoting ill will for (again) being shown they are hypocritical?
Go ahead, pick any one story MMFA reported and try to prove that claim. I dare you to try and find just one.
I find it laughable that MMFA somehow thinks Palin's criticism of the media pushing an absolutely false and politically damaging story during the campaign, is in fact misinformation.
Sorry, right wing dude, the "media" never pushed it-- they barely mentioned it. It's a canard designed to pity Palin, the poor thing.
As for false stories-- what was that about Obama being a Muslim who was born elsewhere? With the Palin story there was at least some circumstantial evidence.
Oh the outrage! A scurilous story about a Republican spread by anon posters to liberal blogs. Face reality. If this same story was about a Democrats daughter, it would be published on Drudge, picked up by the talk network, and openly discussed as an important isssue about character of the candidate. Complaints about such talk would defended under freedom of speech.
Correct.
What if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant? That's all they would STILL be talking about. It'd be Lockdown Stanford, day and night on MSNBC.
Gotta disagree with you on that one. Shortly after Mr. Clinton was elected, a morning show featuring Curtis Sliwa had this quote from slimebag Sliwa: "Chelsea looks like she just got hit with a bag of nickels". Soon after, it was hands off any stories about Chelsea, and rightfully so. I know the comment doesn't rank right up there with the Palin pregnancy story but quite frankly this whole thread reeks.
And for the next 7 years not one prominent right wing spokesperson, talk show host or future presidential candidate ever said a single bad thing about Chelsea ever again. Ahhh what civilized and friendly times the 90s were......
I don't remember much gossip about Chelsea during those years but if they did, shame on 'em. I don't support that nonsense. I'm always chastised for unsupported claims so I'll have to ask you for some evidence, moonbat. You always seem to back up your arguments 'bout other stuff.
Most famous is Limbaugh on his TV show in 93 with his "White House dog" comment accompanied by a picture of Chelsea. Rush claims that the producers just put up the wrong picture and he didn't mean anything like that at all. A completely rational excuse if you choose to pretend that his show was aired live and he would somehow set up a joke that would make no sense and have no punchline without the dog picture. Tons of sources on this one, it's easier to Google it yourself, but MMfA covered it a few times:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=limbaugh+chelsea+dog
McCain on Chelsea in 1998: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." I'm sleepy and lazy tonight so we'll stick with MMfA again:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070007
February 25, 1999 on Hannity and Colmes: Regular contributor Ann Coulter on Chelsea's view of one of Bill Clinton's "victims": "She's probably taken heart by his claim to Juanita Broaddrick that he's sterile. Those rumors about her looking nothing like him seem to be resurfacing again." So, just to make this clear: Coulter said that Chelsea would be happy if Bill wasn't her father. Like so many of her batshit crazy statements, it went virtually unchallenged, and Coulter neither apologized nor was banned from appearances.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-much-for-night-with-chelsea-in-just.html
That's the easy stuff. Industrious types could probably dig up a lot more than that. It isn't exactly hard to find any number of right wingers mouthing off about the Clintons in those years. I think it might be harder to find some with rational and reasonable objections, not that they didn't exist, they were just drowned out by the idiots.
.........and can you imagine the outrage, rightfully so, from MMFA if these kinds of unsubstantiated stories cropped up about Amy Carter or Chelsea or the Obama girls.
Actually, the story about Palin wasn't unsubstantiated. This blog-inspired rumor about Sarah Palin turned out to be half-true-- the bloggers were on to something.
The rumor had two parts:
1) Bristol Palin had gotten pregnant, and
2) the family was trying to cover it up by masquerading the child as Sarah's
The second part turned out to be false, but the first part was certainly the case. And don't forget, news of this didn't come out until well after the nomination, which immediately quelled the story. So the core element of the rumor was accurate-- that's what the story revolved around.
As to Chelsea-- if she'd gotten pregnant, the media would have been all over it. What they refrained from doing was ad hominem attacks on her.
Got it. I honostly had never heard the latter part of the story but don't much care for that stuff. As for Chelsea, being the Prez's daughter carried a lot more weight than a dis-qualified v.p.'s daughter so in that regard I believe you would be correct.
Also, consider some other rumors that turned out to be true around the same time:
that pastor in Colorado Springs that was getting "it" and drugs from a male prostitute.
A US Senator arrested for soliciting gay sex in a public restroom.
Is a US Govenor any less likely to mess up on the same scale?
Sarah Palin invited speculation about her pregnancy when she concealed it until its last few weeks...combined with the fact that she had a sexually-active teenage daughter who dropped out of school for a semester. What did Palin expect from internet rumor mongers? But, hey, at least no one accused her of being the Antichrist.
But hey, there actually was something to the "rumor." It was at least half true-- because Bristol Palin did turn out to be pregnant! Later knowledge of that quelled the story.
Remember, the basis of the rumor was that Bristol Palin was pregnant and that they were hiding it. The details were wrong, but the original claim was TRUE!
...invited speculation? I guess Hillary invited speculation about her sexuality with that butch hair-do.
-- Most A-list bloggers...There wasn't a single A-list liberal blogger -- Boehlert
What's an A-list blogger? Who are the A-list bloggers? How do you get to be an A-list blogger? Who determines the roster of A-list bloggers? Is Boehlert an A-list blogger?
Wesley, if you need to ahhhsk...
** sneering and glancing dismissively through monocle at Wesley**
That's kinda what I thought...Boehlert giving a courtesy flush for his inside the beltway buddies...
The flush didn't work. You're still posting.
You don't hear Obama decrying the literally daily rumors that he is Muslim. You see him rising above it, because the truth speaks louder than rumors. Palin is showing an extreme hypersensitivity and a defensiveness that doesn't belong in the media's court. She came into her spotlight with a lot of baggage and her lack of transparency was what caused the beginning of the end of her credibility.
Obama had his defenders in the media: NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC....Couric, Olberfraud, Maddcow, Matthews, Cooper, Colmes, Gibson, Williams, Gregory, Todd, Mitchell running interference for him.
Not once was the media as dismissive of the Palin rumors as they were with Obama. Plus we are talking about the woman's TEENAGE daughter.
Yes, we're talking about the teenaged, unwed, then-pregnant, high school dropout daughter, with the high school dropout boyfriend whose mother sells drugs. She really was pregnant--that was true. Sarah's youngest child really was hers; the rumors to the contrary were false. Chelsea has been attacked by the Right wingnuts since BEFORE she was a teenager; that doesn't seem to bother you. The media WAS dismissive of this rumor, which you would know if you actually followed what they said rather than what Palin CLAIMS they said.
PLUS, Chelsea was attacked for being an awkward, gawky teenager, not for having loose morals while her mother was preachy-preaching about being good Christian folk.
Fox News stated that Michelle Obama is the unmarried mother of Barack's illegitimite children.
There's a facinating Editor's letter in the Anchorage Daily News from yesterday. He reprints a rather accusatory email from Palin and calmly rebuts her, point by point.
He emphasizes that the paper had always treated the Trig rumors as baseless speculation, but that the Palins absolutely ignored any invitation to make their case and clear it up once and for all. It's pretty interesting, an illustration of the hostility with which Palin treats the press in her home state:
[community.adn.com]
none of the stories citing rumors spread by liberal bloggers actually identified one liberal blogger at all. it makes "reporting" so much easier, when you don't have to cite real facts.
in my english classes, that was referred to as "fiction".
Poor little Governor Palin. The only reason she looked dumb in the media, is because she was dumb. I mean, she had softball easy questions from Couric over the course of a couple of interviews. What news sources do you read? Couldn't even come up with a single one? Hello? Stupid is as stupid does. And what are her feelings about the Bush Doctrine? Again, softball. And during the VP debate where she flat out told the moderator that she wasn't going to answer questions that were asked but was going to talk directly to the American people...
She's an idiot, and pretty much deserves the ridicule that she got.
I never believed the stupid rumors about her youngest son being her daughter's first born. Nope. Not once.
She's an idiot, and pretty much deserves the ridicule that she got.
Can't wait till she visits the ol' turkey farm again. "Are there any programs on the chopping block?" was about the wittiest question by a reporter that I can remember.
One more comment, and then I'm stopping.
If Palin wants the "media" to be "nice" to her, then maybe her, and her cohorts ought to stop attacking the media every chance they get, and blaming the media for, you know, all of their issues and or problems, or in the case of McCain-Palin, their electoral loss.
I remember a few posts on this. Speculation that needed some hard facts before being bought, was my thought.
Still her journey from texas to alaska after breaking water was strange.
Lest we forget, one of the claims turned out to be true: the daughter had indeed gotten pregnant. So the "rumor" wasn't as half-cocked as it's being presented today.
I have been a negotiator of mega scale projects around the world. One skill I have honed to near brilliance to take any broad set of data, then parse it so that it tells the story I want to convey. I can use the data, for example, to prove to an ill informed audience that up is down and down is up- or vice versa. The real challenge is to lay out all the facts and then draw conclusions.
I suggest that MEdia Matters take one day in the campaign, at least two weeks post both conventions and review all the interviews done that day. Make a list of the questions asked and views given to both the dems and reps. Only then can you truly say something was fact or fiction. This "in isolation" reporting things as falsehood only serves to lower the quality of this site and its usefullness. Give us answers beyond the shadow of doubt - not contrived conclusions.
Let me give you an example of how easy it is to draw false conclusions (I'll use Ms Culture) single parent households represent 25% of al lhouseholds; 75% of all incarcirated individuals come from single parent households; therefore, the child of a single parent household is 12 times more likely to be a convicted criminal than a child from a two parent household.........(that 3 times the inmate popultion from 1/4th the families - thus 3x4 = 12!!))
Note I did not say single parents were incapable as compared to two parent families I just said the results of their labor produce 12 times as many criminals.
I'd hate to see the skills you haven't honed to near brilliance.
I've never seen you in awe of anyone, Col. I see you and MR picking out china patterns soon!
I am a 16 year old nymphomanic ninja and Federal agent, I only mention this to display the fact that personal claims of expertise from nearly anonymous people on the internet are worth slightly less than the paper they are printed on.
Now, as to your statistical game, it makes absolute and perfect sense if one pays no attention to the little shenanigans you play with data sets. To find a statistical likelihood that single parent household will produce criminals with more probability than traditional households you do not compare those households to the percentage of criminals from those households to the total population incarcerated as both you and Coulter erroneously have. You compare the percentages within households to each other. What we need to make a proper comparison is the percentage of single parent children who become criminals compared to the percentage that don't, not compared to the number that are incarcerated, and then put that up against the same set of numbers from two parent homes. That will give you a far more accurate picture than your junk math. The percentages within the incarecerated population is irrelevent to the data set. If you really are what you say you are, you know exactly what kind of con you are playing with these numbers.
Moon - "it makes absolute and perfect sense if one pays no attention to the little shenanigans you play with data sets"
That was exactly my point - all sides, Media Matters especially, can make any point they wish if they play with the data. Most readers/viewers/listeners are lemmings that can't think for themselves. My fear is that all these sites purporting to be protecting the masses from "falsehoods" and "misinformation" are actually hypocritical in that they are the greatest purveyors of "falsehoods" and misleading information.
Now let's play again with the data--2 million incarcerated individuals. According to the statistics 1.4 million or 70% are from single parent upbringing with 30% or ).6 million from two parent upbringing. Now we are a country of 300 million with roughly 25% from/in single parent families and 75% from/in two parent families. So we have 1.4 million criminals from 75 million in single parent settings giving us a criminal rate of 1 criminal out of every 54 people in/from single parent families. On the other hand we have 0.6 million criminals from 225 million remaining population which is 1 criminal out of every 375 people in two parent families.
How's the math??
You are the bomb, WorldlyMr. Did I leave an r off. Sorry.
Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan, and very funny:
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png
Challenge to anyone who believes this idea that the mainstream media was all over the crazy pregnancy conspiracy story: Name 2 major news outlets that either printed or broadcasted the story as true.
I read the news on a daily basis and as I posted above, am totally ignorant of the latter part of the story.
..........so ya gotta be correct.
Oh the rumours were out there and tiny blogs were buzzing with them. But no major news organization covered this story except to report it as a rumour when Palin had the press conference about Ridiculously Named Teen Pregnancy. I always thought it was pretty bizarre that they went so far to quiet down a rumour before it got anywhere further than DKos, but it makes perfect sense in retrospect as it set up the whole "The MSM hates me" trip that she uses as her only real weapon not involving winking.
The media went absolutely nuts with the real story about Bristol, but that has far more to do with it being exactly the kind of scandal that they love to cover than any political machinations. She may as well have been Jamie Lynn Spears for all that it mattered who the story was about, pregnant celebriteens are hot gossip.
Thanks, moon. I didn't think that kinda stuff was actually googleable(?). Tiger Beat? :)
Hey, I have a subscription!! For the articles of course. (Ewwwwwww!)
Major outlets, Moonbat? The only poster here that's thick enough to be pushing Palin's lies is Anotheramerican, and he folded like a lawn chair when asked to name any media that went with it.
Sarah Palin is probably not mentally fit to run a day care center, let alone serve as next in line to the presidency. Glad the voters came to their sense on that one.
There you go with that elitist liberal nonsense again and such as you know in what sense just because in Alaska we do things different and such and also um in Iraq, so in closing, in what respect Charlie? Winkwink you betchya!
I think Palin could put rumors to rest if she supplied the birth certificate for Trig, I guess though she as Governor could have someone alter iDuring the campaign she said she would release her medical records and she never did, she had her MD write a letter outlining he medical history, being a medical professional I know MD's will fudge the truth in letters but probably would not be willing to change medical records.
I find it interesting that she is still out there complaining about this issue when she seems to be the only person discussing it.
I also find it interesting that she gets her news from USA Today, WOW! That is what I want from the leader of the free world, she also claims to read the NYT, if she did she would realize Kennedy is not getting treated with kid gloves. From a world leader I would expect them to read The Economist, FT, WSJ, all the major newspapers and my God at least Google!
When are her 15 minutes up?
Palin seems to be one of the most pathetic--but sane--individuals to have ever faced mass media. Had she been insane, this would not have been so bad. But the sad thing about it is that, despite all her attempts at lunacy, she still comes across as sane... but completely inept.
Palin's problems notwithstanding, the "bloggers did it" mentality prevails on both sides. In fact, Boehlert is guilty of it himself. The most recent episode involved the CNN video of a bunch of doctors supposedly attempting to revive an Palestinian teenager injured by a "rocket". The effort is futile and the doctors appear to have known this. A random commenter on Little Green Footballs, supposedly a doctor, had claimed that the video appeared to have been staged. This theory was given a further boost by others who pointed out that 1) the cameraman, the dead teen's brother, was a Hamas operative responsible for a number of Hamas videoblogs and 2) it appears highly unlikely that the kind of minor damage, showing mostly shrapnel pockmarks on the roof, could have come from a drone-fired rocket. CNN first took the video down, but later re-posted it with slight editing. One bit of editing added that the cameraman was a "Hamas webmaster". The review of the roof remained uncritical, although at no point did CNN allege that the hit had come from drone-fired rocket. This claim came from the family of the victim. So the entire sequence gave CNN plausible deniability. It is no surprise that CNN decided to "stand by the story"--there is nothing really to stand by. CNN's own commentary might have been uncritical, but it was not CNN people who were making claims. So, CNN is in the clear.
Boehlert's conclusion? It's all the right-wing-lunatic fringe's fault! They are so crazy, they just make stuff up! Well, not quite. Ed Morrissey, whom Boehlert quotes in his commentary as referring to "obviously fake" story is not the original critic on the item. By the time Morrissey got the item, it has gone through several hands and it's easy to loose accuracy when that happens. The original claim was much milder than Morrissey's "obviously fake"--the discussion focused on the doctors appearing to "go through the motions" in resusitating the teen. In fact, there is precious little shown of the attempt to revive the kid. CNN, in fact, acknowledged the accuracy of the second line of criticism by modifying the video.
But it's worse. Boehlert makes it sound like these critics work in a vacuum. In fact, they do not. There is the infamous piece of newsreel showing a supposed Hamas funeral. For some reason, the procession gets bumped and the corpse is spilled on the ground. Suddenly, the "dead man" rises up and runs away making a mockery of the whole bit. During the Lebanon war several photo stringers in Lebanon have been caught Photoshopping photos to enhance the damage, some photos had been backdated to show supposedly recent carnage that was actually shot much earlier, dead children were posed for cameras when it was not even clear where these cospses came from, ambulances were brought in from junk yards to stage a supposed Israeli bombardment (there is absolutely no doubt that the alleged bombing of ambulances in Lebanon was completely faked). But that was just in Lebanon. Have the wire services learned from the experience? Well, the wire services apparently have. AP and Reuters photos, especially done by local stringers go through far more scutiny than they used to. Stories are vetted far better, although there is still the absurd attempt to incorporate citation of marginal viewpoints.
But the same cannot be said about other media. CNN debacle with the video mentioned above is just one of several--in their rush to show the "human side" of the story, CNN failed to identify the videographer, whose obvious potential bias should have raised the level of scrutiny. But all this pales in comparison with the French TV releasing a video of supposedly devastating bombardment in Gaza. In fact, a number of bloggers and other observers pointed out that the video appeared remarkably familiar. In fact, only days later TV channel acknowledged their "error" in releasing a 2005 video of an Hamas explosives accident as war footage. This did not stop Glenn Greenwald from suggesting that the video was still useful in showing the "kind" of devastation brought by the IDF. Say what? How stupid is that?? Nothing appears to be forthcoming from Boehlert criticizing Greenwald--it's just not his job.
Most of the time, Boehlert is a doggedly consciencious reviewer. But, here, his senses fail him. We simply got a case of pot calling the kettle black.
We now return to your originally scheduled programming.
I don't think I've ever seen such a long post in which every inference and statement were completely illogical and incorrect.
Congratulations for reminding us that some people in the world still celebrate "backeards Tuesday."
And keep a close watch upon your precious bodily fluids, General.
backwards, not backeards.
If it's so easy to refute, why don't you attempt to do that? Perhaps because you are a mental midget? Incapable of arguing?
I'm still waiting for your answers below BB. Will you do so?
EFW possibly appreciates that the time spent would be time lost forever with little to no effect on you. He has time and again proved your petty uniformed insults have no basis to back them up.
I believe you are underestimating the real source of these rumors: the fact that they had been simmering, unresolved, in Alaska since before Trig Palin was born on April 18th. While it is convenient now to date this issue only to the beginning of the campaign, this is simpy not so.
Consider the following:
1. Sarah Palin's own spokesperson confirmed to the Anchorage Daily News that she discussed (and dismissed) the rumor that Bristol was pregnant with him PRIOR to her own pregnancy announcement on March 5th.
2. A post to the Internet "rumor" site, reddit, reported the possibility that Bristol WAS pregnant and Sarah was NOT in early April, two weeks before Trig was born.
3. The Anchorage Daily News, on August 31st, confirmed that they had asked the governor's office about these specific rumors "numerous times" prior to August 31st.
4. Bristol Palin was removed from Wasilla High School in Anchorage at Christmas and sent to live with her aunt, Heather Bruce, in Anchorage, where she attended West High School only until mid February or so. Although it has been widely reported that she was out for "months" with mono, these rumors appear to be untrue. However, she definitely was out of school from mid February on.
It is important to look at point number 1 again. Sarah Palin discussed with Bill McAllister (who is now her press secretary but was, at the time, a reporter for KTUU) rumors that Bristol was pregnant before she announced her own "pregnancy" on March 5th. She was clearly concerned enough about these rumors to bring them to the attention of a reporter. But did she appear in public one time with her daughter after mid Feburary? If she did there is absolutely no record of it. It is surprising, given that she was concerned about the rumors, that she did not arrange some event in which the "unpregnant" Bristol would be seen casually with her mother.
THIS is the source of the rumors. Allegations that Sarah is Trig's grandmother appears in comments in the Anchorage Daily News within hours of their posting that he had been born. These rumors have not died because many many people in Alaska - who saw Sarah looking very UNpregnant right up until the last weeks of her "pregnancy" - believe it to be true. No one in the lower 48 would ever have caught a breath of this had it not been unresolved in Alaska for months.
And that simple fact makes Palin's whole spin on this suspect at best.
Thank you, Audrey for bringing these undeniable facts to the front. The information that SP was the grandmother has been circulating in Wasilla and Anchorage since before SP's announcement of her pregnancy. This information is not some recent creation or election ploy.
Well-researched piece! I'd forgotten about that post!
I have come to believe that Palin has purposely maintained a shroud of mystery around the birth of her son, Trig and now her grandson, Tripp. I believe she wants to encourage these rumors so she can continue to club bloggers (especially those of us who are Alaska bloggers) and the MSM with them.
And it's been my contention from the beginning:
1) The actual story of her membrane rupturing in Texas and her subsequent refusal to seek treatment in Texas, insistence on giving the speech to the Republican Governors, flight to Anchorage and then 1 hour drive to the Mat Su Valley hospital before seeing a doctor (when she knew she was having a Downs child) is much more horrific than the idea the child might not be hers.
2) Even if ALL the rumors were absolutely true, I don't believe it would have had any effect one way or another on her VP chances, nor would it help or hurt her chances in 2012.
Linda "Celtic Diva"
http://divasblueoasis.com
Eric Boehlert puts Bristol's conception about March 4; Bristol gave birth Sunday Dec 28th which is 300 days later. Human gestation is 266 days !
Now you've done it!
You've brought science and hard facts into the debate!
Yep that showed him. No I don't think it did. Sloppy perhaps on the one item, take it up with him.
I can't speak about how he got that date, but I fail to see its relivence to the overall issue. He didn't bite on it and decries those who did as being wrong, at great lenth.
Eric Boehlert puts Bristol's conception about March 4; Bristol gave birth Sunday Dec 28th which is 300 days later. Human gestation is 266 days ! - bud guy
Right. Cause everyone gives birth at the exact point in their pregnancy. 266 days not one day more or less. I've seen where there is a range between 259 - 294 dyas.
I'm not sure what 259-294 dyas means but certainly will not be found in medical journals. Palin announced 9/1/2008 Bristol 5 mos pregnant to terminate the blogosphere rumor of Trig being Bristol's baby. What being suggested here is that pregnancies don't all go full-term so you are undermining Palin's proof.
My point is that there is a RANGE of days over which a child can be born at the end of gestation. Not every child is born at the 266 day point. It could be less OR IT COULD BE MORE! It's really not hard to understand - Boehlert's date would would mean a gestation period of 300 days. The gestation period for humans is a rang of 37 - 42 weeks. 42 weeks = 294 days which is pretty close to 300 days used in his calculation and not unheard of. But I don't think you really want to know.
Although pregnancy is said to last nine months, healthcare providers track pregnancy by weeks and days. The normal duration of pregnancy is approximately 37 to 42 weeks, with the estimated due date at 40 weeks or 280 days from the first day of the last menstrual period.
A postterm pregnancy, also called a prolonged pregnancy, is one that has extended beyond 42 weeks from the first day of the last menstrual period. As many as 10 percent of pregnancies are postterm.
http://www.uptodate.com/patients/content/topic.do?topicKey=~9msJF6x6hG7HV&selectedTitle=5~150&source=search_result
I think you let off Kos and Sullivan too easily. Both of these bloggers have major influence in the blogosphere, and both of them have serious problems with women. This was evident in their coverage of both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the election. The is-trig-her-baby ridiculousness (with demands for Palin to release her OB-GYN records) was just one of the more egregious examples. Kos may not have written the rumor himself, but he sets a tone that permits juvenile and misogynistic approaches to women and womens' issues. And don't even get me started on Sullivan.
I see Boehlert is getting the big press today for an article he wrote complaining about the cost of Bush's inauguration.
It is on Drudge's report.
Well, then, if the egg man says it's so, then it must be.
He are the eggman? ;)
In 2005 you were critical of what was being spent on Bush's inauguration. How do you feel about what is being spent on Obama's?
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration
This entire piece is clear evidence that MMFA is a politcal organization hiding behind a tax-exempt status. Its purpose is to prop up liberal democrats and destroy Republicans.
The media is not putting out "misinformation" here. Sarah Palin is a politician, not a member of the media and therefore there is no story here.
MMFA is a bunch of sorry liberal hacks.
MMFA needs to be investigated and its tax-expemt status should be pulled. They a ripping off the taxpayers and they want their money back.
Will you also push for similar investigations of the Heritage Foundation, The Hoover Institute, AIE, and the rest of the conservative think tanks? Or are they somehow out of bounds.
Eric is calling out some bloggers and posters for running with a supposition, progressive liberal bloggers/posters y'know. How does that prop up liberal democratic folks and destroy republicans? Please tell us about it.
There are certain wingnuts who treat liberal reasonableness and self critique as a weakness and then proceed to yell and scream at them. Are you one of that type?
In my opinion, it's high time the MSM does take up this story, presuming Sarah Palin intends to remain a figure in American politics. There is just too much that does not add up. and no matter what the truth, clear extreme lapses in judgment are obvious. Two picture links, and then have fun exploring every possible aspect, at Audrey's blog:
http://threebrain.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-difference-three-days-makes.html
http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8194634 (this baby does not look anything like a premie newborn).
http://www.palindeception.com/blog/