Now that I’ve been checking my AOL e-mail more regularly through my browser rather than via its own application, I get to see the latest headlines they feature as I do those on Yahoo! And just like their sister server, they have a similar liberal bias and intense animus against a certain former Alaska Governor.
Every time I click on a link to an article about that good and accomplished woman, I chance on some screed, usually poorly sourced, attacking her in some form or another. The latest is AOL’s piece from left-wing columnist Jill Lawrence. As with much in the MSM about Governor Palin, well, we should just consider this hearsay, something that awaits confirmation by more reliable sources.
Almost all Lawrence’s sources are unnamed. So, I doubt the accuracy of her headline about John McCain being a “bit disappointed by” his running mate’s book.
Do these journalists even realize how they’re covering her, with no pretense at objectivity? It’s no wonder Palin is avoiding their ilk when she does her book tour.
As per my last post, Sarah Palin may well be seeking the spotlight, but that doesn’t mean the news media have to shine it upon her nor does it require them to use filters to obscure her accomplishments.
Once again, I ask, why this need to demonize her? Why don’t they just ignore her? I mean, heck, she’s no longer a Governor or anything.
Methinks it has much to do with their “need” to dismiss her appeal and discredit her supporters. These people really do seem compelled to attack those who do not fit their paradigm of a woman who enjoys the adulation of a large segment of the population. They want all successful women to fit the feminist narrative.
Problem is many, if not most, don’t.
Good point!
I can only think that the liberal media themselves find Palin attractive and charismatic, and are terrified that she’s not under their control or psychologically dependent on their approval, like McCain was.
Sorry to repeat the following from the other MSM/Palin thread, but I have a feeling it sort of got ‘buried’. Courtesy of HotAir headlines, a great little commentary from Dave Kopel:
So apparently not only Dan, but “I love capitalism” also, does not understand the first thing about capitalism. News media cover Palin because they …hold on now…..make money by doing so (gasp!).
She attracts eyeballs. People read stories about her because – well I guess it is human nature, like the urge to watch a train wreck if you see it happening – this being a slow-motion one.
Why did the media get wrapped up in the OJ story, the summer of Chandra, the endless succession of little blonde girls who disappear, the balloon boy. Sarah has the buzz, people are interested, the news media will feed the beast.
I think we have a new derangement syndrome going – Media Derangement Syndrome – an obsessive paranoid compulsion to paint the media as some great conspiratorial force tinkering with the grey matter of the body politic, when in fact they are just a bunch of hacks hustling a buck.
I voted for John McCain, because I darn sure was not going to vote for Obama and his no resume tent revival campaign. I found it easier to pull the lever for McQueeg because of Sarah Palin. When the election was over, Obama did not crush McCain by the numbers I anticipated. McCain ran a dismal campaign and was so busy being Yosemite Sam with hives that he should have gone down with a record drubbing.
Sarah Palin is not going to get the MSM to ever like her and she would be a fool to try. But the media has no inkling of why so many in middle America do cleave to Sarah Palin. The more she draws a crowd, the more the MSM attacks her.
Clearly, the presidency is won by how the “independents” swing. These voters decide in the last days of the campaign who they will vote for and whether they will vote at all. Obama and ACORN pushed a lot of young, generally indifferent voters to get to the polls. Whether he can pull that hat trick twice is anyone’s guess. But in 2012, Obama will face a lot of voters who bet on him in 2008, but are against him now.
The Democrats want a plain vanilla Republican to bore people and cause them to skip the election. Sarah Palin is anything but plain vanilla. Obama has his sanctimonious polished vision teleprompter routine which is wearing thin from his multiple uses of “I” and “me” and “my” in every breath. Sarah Palin is feisty. Somehow, I think that more than a minority of voters are ready to see Obama have to face the music as he predictably shags off into boilerplate self adulation.
There, Tano, I fixed it for you.
Where is the essay proving that Bush destroyed America’s standing in the world? C’mon, boy, you can certainly bluster up something for me to deconstruct. Or, may I take your silence as confirmation that your hyperbole machine is waiting for talking points from the Kos Kids?
#3: “I think we have a new derangement syndrome going – Media Derangement Syndrome – an obsessive paranoid compulsion to paint the media as some great conspiratorial force tinkering with the grey matter of the body politic, when in fact they are just a bunch of hacks hustling a buck.”
Talking Points Tano, you’re not only delusional, but your analysis is,…well, it’s not even an analysis. If you were a journalist and wanted to make a name for yourself as such and please your editor/publisher in the process, would you pursue a story that the female, Republican VP candidate was wearing expensive clothes purchased for her by her party so she could look great on TV, or would you chase down leads about the Democratic Presidential candidate’s association with an unrepentant domestic terrorist? Or how about his 20 year membership in a church where the pastor (who performed the marriage ceremony of the candidate and who delivered a sermon with the same title of one of the candidate’s books) can be seen on video making vile, racist, anti-American statements from the pulpit? TPT, explain to me how journalists and their publishers “make a buck” by refusing to publish a story about a candidate for the Democratic Presidential Nomination having an affair that produced a love-child with some floozy behind his cancer-stricken wife’s back? Talking Points, if it’s “human nature” to want to watch a “slow moving train wreck,” then why did every mainstream media outlet (except the National Enquirer) decide that the Edwards affair wasn’t news?
As always, Talking Points Tano, I expect you to treat these questions as either rhetorical or addressed to someone else. I know you can’t respond because your abilities end with stating a position, not defending it.
“I think we have a new derangement syndrome going – Media Derangement Syndrome”
This is not new at all.
It is the marketing slogan of Rush, Hewitt, Savage and the rest of the Conservative Media. By saying it over and over again, it becomes true and helps them maintain their victim status.
Look at how many posts just this site has had on this subject. Two virtually identical posts in a few days.
Poor conservatives. They are so oppressed.
Conservatives playing the victim card!!!
What a hoot! We must be starting to become politically correct.
For the classic poor me, life isn’t fair rant, please see Victim Sean’s comment at #6.
Wow.
He even tries to say the media dropped the ball not raking through Obama’s alleged loose associations with people in his community while instead reporting on Palin’s ACTUAL ACTIONS.
Geez.
Your tinfoil is showing pal. The media is not out to get you and all conservatives.
Step off the ledge.
You mean loose affiliations like holding fundrasings with admitted terrorsits?
You mean loose affiliations like the minister who’s church he sat in and performed his marriage?
Or maybe you mean his actions like voting against a ban on vaccuming a baby’s brain out, that matched the one he says he’d supported, if only he were in the senate.
gillie can’t even list Sarah Palin’s accomplishments. She has one accomplishment that Obama can never have. She doesn’t associate with terrorists.
Once again, I ask, why this need to demonize her? Why don’t they just ignore her? I mean, heck, she’s no longer a Governor or anything.
It’s not her, it’s the pitbull mentality of liberals in general (the MSM being liberal). Joe “The Plumber” was never a threat, but look what they did to him.
Interesting expression DoorHold, pitbull mentality of liberals in general. I may have to use that. 🙂
Yet another whining, willfully illogical and disingenuous post.
You say: “Why don’t they just ignore her? I mean, heck, she’s no longer a Governor or anything.” You’re actually suggesting that the media should ignore Sarah Palin? She is newsworthy for several reasons that have nothing to do with “liberal bias:” she was the second female vice-presidential candidate in US history; she was a governor who resigned after a short time in office without giving a particularly coherent reason; and she just wrote a memoir and is promoting that memoir with interviews on virtually every major network. She herself is seeking news coverage. Besides all of that, she is newsworthy by your very own definition: she “enjoys the adulation of a large segment of the population.”
So wait, is that your point, then? “Don’t criticize her because so many people like her?”
See this link for the AP’s recent analysis of the claims Palin makes in her memoir:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_el_pr/us_palin_book_fact_check
Sorry, this kind of journalism isn’t “liberal bias” demonizing; it’s fact-checking. It’s an honest and comprehensive look at the facts behind her statements.
Are you actually saying we should just take what she says about her record at face-value? We should just be quiet and take her word for it? Really?!!
If you’re uncomfortable with your idols being fact-checked, then you should either get a thicker skin… or maybe get more honest idols.
#9: “He even tries to say the media dropped the ball not raking through Obama’s alleged loose associations with people in his community while instead reporting on Palin’s ACTUAL ACTIONS.”
gillie, I wouldn’t say the media “dropped the ball” on reporting on those associations–more like, stood immobile, hands at their sides, refusing to catch the ball in the first place. Like when CNN anchor John Roberts interviewed Obama and declared CNN a “Reverend Wright free zone.” Wasn’t that nice of him?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/05/05/cnn-s-roberts-declares-rev-wright-free-zone-during-obama-interview
william,
How many people fact checked President Obama’s books in the name of being ‘unbaised’ For if they assigned 11 reporters to an ex-vice president, surely a presidential candidtate should be worth at least 16 per book.
And furthermore, william, what say you about the media admitting this morning that they deliberately LIED about Palin?
Why do you call it “fact-checking” when even the media admits they are lying, william? Don’t you understand the difference between facts and lies?
NDT, thanks, I missed that one.
Acknowledgement of what? That they were photoshopped? His “apology” never says.
…until next time, of course.