If You're Taking Flak, You're Over the Target

A lot has already been written about the John Avlon piece at the Daily Beast that casts Governor Palin as some kind of hypocritical charlatan who exploits donors to her PAC. I don't want to re-hash what has already been said too much.  Please just read here, here, and here.

I do want to make a few points though. Please excuse this atypical format. I'm writing after a long work day combined with overindulgence in caffeine. If it's not too violence inciting, I just want to make a few bullet points. I'm italicizing my sarcasm to avoid confusion:

* John Avlon is the co-founder of No Labels, an organization that is supposedly centrist, but stands for nothing in particular. This No Labels organization is classified as a 501c4, which is not required to itemize their disbursements nor reveal their donors. While Avlon is decrying SarahPAC's FEC report, he himself doesn't even have to report anything specific. No labels, no transparency. (By the way, Avlon's wife is Margaret Hoover, former staffer in the Bush White House and in Bush's 2004 campaign, meaning she worked with the likes of Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace).

* Avlon also tries to conflate a PAC with a political campaign. When Governor Palin called for consultants to be fired and pollsters to be furloughed, she was referring to the types of overweight consultant schmucks who told her what to eat, micromanaged her every move, and suggested to her running mate that suspending his campaign was a good idea in 2008.  If you want to look at the kind of "consultants" Governor Palin hired, consider the following descriptions.  The speechwriter she hired, that Avalon snarkily blasted, is as grassroots as you can get, yet could run circles around Peggy "Thousand Points of Spite" Noonan. This speech writer is a from far outside the beltway and started as #justablogger who started a site you may have heard of with a $10 domain name purchase. Other "consultants" the Governor hired include advance people. You know, the people who ensure that all the logistics are worked out when she stumps for candidates. Yes, those are the real entrenched guys who corrupt the political process that the Governor called out--the guys who make sure that she gets from the airport to the stump, make sure her notes are on the podium, and usher the Governor through rope lines, among a lot of other tasks. But wait, weren't we told earlier this week that the Governor never talks to the grassroots? Additionally, there are those who do things like assist with clerical and administrative things like websites and mailing lists, and of course, a treasurer. But, no, Palin should not pay a treasurer to make sure she's in compliance with the oh-so-simple FEC regulations! She should just use TurboTax, just like that smart guy who used to be a Cabinet secretary. 

*Avlon also mentions that Governor Palin spent a chunk of change on postage for direct mailings. What's that? A political figure sends out direct mailers. That never happens! It's amazing that Governor Palin employed a government agency like the post office as a "consultant"! Shouldn't the Left be praising the Governor for being so generous to an agency that is essentially bankrupt? Or are they saying that Governor Palin should hand deliver her mailings by snowmachine? This piece at RedState, written by a fellow Illinois conservative, goes into more details on specifics. Yes, I'm recommending a piece at RedState. They're few and far between, but there are some good ones.

*Avlon also whines about the return on investment of Palin's endorsements and the amount of overhead, but he fails to mention the limits that PACs have on giving. He'd rather take advantage of the fact that casual readers won't know the FEC caps on giving. The maximum amount a PAC can give is $5,000 per election (general and primary are counted separately). Even if the Governor devoted one-third of her spending to candidates, she would have to give the maximum to both the primary and general elections to over 150 candidates, but even then I suppose she would be criticized for hiring any staff and not supporting 450 candidates.  She should have endorsed every GOP Congressional candidate! However, Palin is a force multiplier (h/t RefudiateGOPe). When Governor Palin gives an endorsement, the phone rings off the hook  for those candidates. Perhaps we should just ask Senator Dewhurst how effective Governor Palin's endorsement? No? 

* A final point. Social media is not the absolute barometer of what we loosely call the "conservative movement", but it is a barometer. People who decried this news are the same ones who tongue lashed conservatives who were critical of Romney in 2012. They certainly didn't have a problem when news came out weeks before the 2012 general election that Governor Romney's campaign invested over a hundred million dollars in consulting firms owned by his senior staffers and he lost! No circular firing squads, they say! Unless they're the ones who get to hold the gun. This is par for the course in the "conservative movement" though. When Governor Palin worked her butt off to try to get McCain elected generating more excitement in the GOP than had been there in over 25 years, she ultimately got blamed for the loss. When Governor Walker was getting hit with a recall, the GOP and "conservative movement" was eager to help, but when Governor Palin got inundated with dozens of frivolous ethics complaints, crickets. When Governor Palin was cast as accomplice to murder in Tucson, there were conservative bloggers and some media personality who defended her, yet again, overwhelming crickets from her own party machinery. However, when Ann Romney was told "she never worked a day in her life", you couldn't get Mr.overgrown college Republican and the RNC to calm down in demanding an apology.  Today, you certainly didn't hear outrage when Marco Golden Boy spent over 90K of his PAC donors' money on political consultants in just the month of February alone, did you?

I'm tired of this. Tired of the lies. Tired of the finger pointing and intellectual dishonesty. Tired of the attacks. However, as the World War II saying goes, "if you're taking flak, you're over the target", which is good if you're loaded for bear:

 

Crossposted here and here.

Exclusive: The Washington Post Receives Coveted Fishwrapping Contract with Seattle's Pike's Place

Washington D.C.--The Washington Post announced in a press conference today that they  received a coveted contract with Seattle's famous fish market, Pike's Place, to become the exclusive provider of fish wrap for the market.  

The Post's Kevin Merida, who was just named managing editor earlier this month, said, "this is a step in an exciting and bold direction for the Post. We want the Washington Post to reach not just to the District of Columbia, but also to Washington state as well. We do share the same name, and we want our excellent news coverage and in depth analysis to reach from the Potomac River to Puget Sound". 

A press release from Pike's Place noted that the market was thrilled with the partnership: "We are known for having fun at Pike's Place, and we think that this new relationship will added need depth and seriousness to our efforts to bring fresh fish to Seattle and its tourists." The release also noted, " we are glad that the Post takes diversity so seriously as to expand their outreach to new species".  

The Sierra Club also was pleased to hear of the contract. Their executive director, Michael Brune, noted that the Washington Post prints their newspaper on post consumer recycled paper and uses soy based ink. Brune also stated, " Pike's Place previously used non-recycled fish wrap. This is a step in right direction to make sure that our nation's precious trees are being preserved". 

The contract begins in March of 2013. The Washington Post beat out the New York Times and Politico's print edition for the contract. Newsweek had to withdraw their proposal after recently suspending their print edition. 

The above passage is quite obviously satirical. However, when a "journalist" is operating with a biased agenda, satire appears like legitimate news. Earlier today, Suzi Parker of the Washington Post based and entire post around a "story" at a satirical website that claimed Governor Sarah Palin had signed on with Al-Jazeera to reach out to religious people. The article's overarching point was that Governor Palin was supposedly trying desperately to hang on to relevancy, yet if she were truly irrelevant, why would the media have to grasp at straws to find something to pin on Palin?

For the Washington Post, this is par for the course. Since Palin burst on to the scene in 2008, the Washington Post has aimed to smear the Governor at every turn. During the 2008 election, then blogger Dave Wiegel, who covered conservative politics at the site, operated an email list among journalists to coordinate stories. Later, in 2010, it was revealed that these email exchanges included discussion on how to cover speculation that Governor Palin was not the mother of her son, Trig. Weigel left the Washington Post shortly after the news of this email list hit only to be replaced by "conservative" Jennifer Rubin. Rubin was complementary of Palin when she wrote at Commentary, but within eight days of signing on at the Washington Post, she began to slam Palin. As I wrote nearly two years ago:

Last November, the Washington Post hired Jennifer Rubin to replace journolister, Dave Weigel, as their "conservative" blogger. Yes, those quotation marks are needed. Many, including Newsbusters, saw this hire as a step in the right direction for the Washington Post, as Rubin replaced the unscrupulous Weigel and had a great tenure writing for the neoconservative outlet Commentary. In fact, prior to her departure from Commentary, Rubin wrote at least four lengthy pieces supporting and defending Governor Palin. Rubin wrote articles supporting Governor Palin's non-elitism, highlighting her as a strong Tea Party voice, offering high praise for Governor Palin's political instincts, and defending Governor Palin against those who criticized her Restoring Honor rally speech.  

 What a difference a new employment contract makes! Rubin was announced as a new conservative commentator for the Washington Post on November 23, 2010 writing a blog called "Right Turn" and eight days later, wrote her first anti Palin screed arguing that Governor Palin was not a front runner for the GOP presidential nomination and poo pooing Governor Palin's use of the term "death panel"--a phrase that Rubin was supportive of in her articles at Commentary.

This kind of anti-conservative coverage has continued, as Rubin bashed Senator DeMint when he resigned from the Senate and knocked Senator Ted Cruz's early days in Washington D.C. Those who don't wear the conservative moniker,and some who even claim to be objective have engaged in this type of behavior as well. When Governor Palin's emails were released in the Summer of 2010, the Post's "journalists", obviously averse to the idea of performing due diligence and actual research, crowd sourced the emails, asking readers to find juicy tidbits about Palin. During the 2012 election, shortly after writing a piece on how sexist it was that the media focused on Michelle Obama's clothes, one Washington Post "She the People" blogger spent most of a post criticizing what Governor Palin wore at a rally for Missouri Senatorial candidate Sarah Steelman.

Just recently, Chris Cillizza, who has been less-than-objective to Governor Palin in the past wrote a lengthy post declaring Palin irrelevant following her decision not to renew her contract with FoxNews. Just a few short weeks later, Cillizza invoked Palin's name to take a shot at both Palin and the Pope when the Pope announced his resignation. While Palin is still supposedly irrelevant in his eyes, she was still relevant enough to mock.

To be sure, the Washington Post is known to smear and misrepresent many conservatives, but it is especially   apparent and pointed when it comes to Governor Palin. When Palin gave her acceptance speech at the RNC  in September 2008, she looked right into the camera and noted that she wasn't aiming to seek the media's approval; she was aiming to serve the people of the country. That is what she has done. She served Alaska as governor leading to multiple credit upgrades, ethics reform, and strong budgets for the state. She has supported conservative candidates, rallied the Tea Party faithful, helped in tornado relief in Alabama, visited Haiti after a devastating earthquake, flew thousands of miles to attend the memorial service of a fallen hero on her birthday. Palin often notes that only dead fish go with the flow. Palin is no dead fish, but the media who continue to claim her irrelevance may find their writing only serve to wrap actual dead fish, proving that real irrelevancy lies with the legacy media.

Crossposted here and here. 

President Obama's Immigration Speech Cost Taxpayers $527 per Word

Yesterday, a study from the publicly funded University of Minnesota was released noting that Governor Sarah Palin was paid $15.85 per word during her time as a FoxNews contributor. Despite all of Governor Palin's purported irrelevancy, this study generated stories at USA Today, the Washington Post, The New York Times, Yahoo! News, and Politico, among numerous other outlets.

Meanwhile, just today, President Obama flew from Washington D.C. to Las Vegas to give a speech on immigration reform. Per the Weekly Standard, his trip cost taxpayers a $1.6 million or $182,000 per hour of flight on Air Force One. According to the transcript at the Chicago Sun Times, President Obama's immigration speech was 3,079 words and applause instances, meaning that President Obama's speech cost the taxpayers just under $520 per word and applause. Including the instances of applause is being generous to the President, as if those weren't included, his speech would have cost taxpayers $527 per word. The transcript also notes that President Obama's speech lasted 25 minutes. Using 2012 spending levels as a reference, the federal government spent $170 million during the President's speech, at a rate of roughly $6.8 million per minute.

Those numbers won't be found outside of the conservative blogosphere, however. The legacy media are more concerned with how much money a woman, who currently does hold publicly office, made for appearing a privately owned television station than they are with how much money the President's junkets and astronomical spending are costing the taxpayers.

Crossposted here and here.

Big Journalism: AP accuses Conservatives of Blocking Business

I wrote the following post at Big Journalism on Wednesday taking on a very biased article by the AP which blamed conservatives for being roadblocks to business:

On Monday afternoon, as President Obama announced his support for a tax increase that would affect nearly 900,000 small businesses, the Associated Press tweeted the following tweet and story to implicate Republicans as “roadblocks” to business:

The Associated Press

• ✔

@AP

Republicans often tout themselves as 'pro-business.' Yet conservatives have often put up roadblocks for business:apne.ws/NVlnJ3 -PP

9 Jul 12

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

The story begins: "Conservative Republicans have roughed up the business community this year - and it's not over yet."

Really? Apparently, the Associated Press has ignored that Democrats' opposition to the job-creating Keystone Pipeline or the Supreme Court upholding the $500 billion Obamatax law will destroy jobs, among other examples. However, those oversights are only part of the media’s bias on display in this piece. 

The article then goes on to assert that conservative Republicans' supposed opposition to recent transportation bills, antipathy towards the Law of the Sea Convention, and resistance to re-authorization of the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank are to blame for putting “roadblocks” to business.

The author, Donna Cassata, notes some conservatives preferred that the transportation projects be funded at a state level, going on to state, ”[n]ine short-term extensions later - and almost three years after the last transportation bill expired - businesses finally prevailed last month.” Cassata fails to mention that in 2009 and 2010, both Houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, and during the last year, President Obama threatened to veto any transportation bill that included approval of the job-creating Keystone Pipeline. Democrats had ample opportunity to approve a transportation bill for two years but failed, and President Obama’s anti-energy development agenda prevented the bill from passing quickly since Republicans took over the House following the 2010 elections.

You can read the remainder of the post here.

What if Political "Journalism" Was Held to the Same Standard as Scientific Research?

As I have realized the necessity of being politically and culturally aware in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the media, in general, hold themselves to a different occupational and ethical standard than the rest of us. Yes, I know this is no breaking news; it's been this way for years. However, I've begun looking at things in the context of my job as a healthcare researcher. The essence of journalism and scientific research of any kind are very similar broadly speaking. You pose a question. You determine your methods of data collection and collect your data, then you report your results. Pretty simple, huh? For the most part, journalism, as we know it today, does not do this. However, what if journalism was held to that same standard--both in process and writing?

When a scientific researcher poses a research question, there generally is a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis for their question. For example, if a researcher wanted to compare two treatments for the flu, their null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two treatments. The alternative hypothesis may be that treatment A is more effective than treatment B based upon what the researcher anticipates. However, when a researcher begin their experiment and does their analysis, they do so using the null hypothesis as their statistical standard and draw their conclusions based on the actual results. When journalists do their investigation, they often begin their equivalent to the alternative hypothesis, making their bias the leading factor in all facets of their journalistic process--their data collection technique, the analysis of those data, and the presentation of their results. Ultimately then, their research proves their bias. For example, 60 Minutes has a segment on Sunday looking at insider trading in Washington. Their segment highlighted a handful of Congress members who engaged in insider trading, land deals and the like. However, the segment included four Republicans and only one Democrat. To be sure, Republicans need to be held accountable for their unethical behavior and I most certainly don't want to let them off the hook, but why did CBS choose this unbalanced ratio of examples? Likely it is because this type of behavior among Republicans fit their "alternative hypothesis" based upon their bias. If researchers engaged in this kind of behavior, their research would be considered lacking integrity and would not be published. When "journalists" do it, it's commonplace.

When a researcher sets out to publish their results, the first part of their manuscript is their background/significance section where they describe why the research is significant and share other relevant information. Upon doing this, the researcher is required to cite their sources--whether it be a cancer prevalence statistic or the results of a previously performed study. The need for citing sources appears to be unnecessary for some journalists. Often, they "cite" anonymous sources only (see pretty much any article about the McCain/Palin campaign in October of 2008), where no sources in a story hundreds or thousands of words long is a proper noun. Heck, sometimes the only source they seem to have is a strawman, which seems to feed and perpetuate their bias. 

If a researcher's project gets funded--be at from a non-profit, the government, industry, or their own institution--they are required to note their funding source, and they are also required to report any conflicts of interests that may exist. I remember doing the literature review for my master's thesis which was on caffeine consumption and depression when I ran across an article on the effects of drinking soda where the researchers concluded that soda was a reasonably benign beverage. However, I noticed that the study was funded by Coca-cola. This isn't to say the data and results were biased necessarily to indicate the effects of soda were neutral or benign. The study had been peer-reviewed. However, at least those reading the piece were aware of where the funding came from and that possibly the results could be skewed toward the liking of those funding the research.  If a researcher is a consultant for a drug company, that is known as well. However, in journalism such informational tidbits are not readily known to the average American. The average American may not know that George Stephanapolos once was President Clinton's press secretary, yet he is working as a "journalist", not a commentator. It is not readily known that, although they are managed independently, there are funding ties between federally subsidized GE and MSNBC. If a researcher leaves out their citations, funding source, or conflicts of interest, they don't get published,  yet for "journalists" is just another day at the office.

Striking the balance between idealism and realism while attempting to not become overly cynical is hard when it comes to today's journalism. However, what is required of scientific researchers as a matter of solid research principles, integrity, and ethics, is tossed by the wayside by many journalists. I don't want to lump everyone in that category; there are a rare few who understand the core of real investigative journalism. Scientific research is not without its own faults and failings itself--both in method and ethics. It mush be said though that it would go along way for the reputation of political journalism if they held themselves to the same standards as research scientists do as a matter of both principle and career success.

A Call to Action--Boots on the Ground and Fingers on the Keyboard

In Governor Palin’s most recent eviscerating Facebook post, she said, “ [r]eal hope comes from realizing how God has blessed our exceptional nation, and then doing something about it”. What an optimistic challenge to us! After we have been subject to that “hopey changey stuff” for the past two and a half years, it’s time to continue to recognize where our real hope comes from—God and the extraordinary way He has blessed this nation. You may be thinking, “what can I do, as an ordinary barbarian or unruly peasant, to make a difference?” The revolution that founded this nation was fought by men and women who had different talents and different ways of contributing to the movement. Thomas Jefferson was not a great orator, but he could put quill to paper to write one of the greatest documents known to man—the Declaration of Independence. During the War for Independence, women such as Molly Pitcher (one of my personal favorites), carried water to soldiers in the Battle of Monmouth and even reportedly took control of one of the cannons when her husband fell victim to heat stroke. Benjamin Franklin was 81 during the Constitutional Convention and had to be carried in a chair to the convention due to his poor health and advanced age, but he contributed mightily to the blueprint of our nation’s government. Suffice it to say, people with various talents and flaws and in different stations in life contributed to the revolutionary founding of our country. What can that say for our efforts to assist in the fundamental restoration of our nation?

Over recent months and recent weeks we have discussed many ways to assist in efforts to support Governor Palin and her message. One key way that you can do this is to join Organize4Palin. On national, state, and local levels, Organize4Palin is acting as a great “tundraroots” way to support Governor Palin. Please do sign up, and see how you can best contribute to efforts nationally and within your state. As CharterOakie mentioned yesterday, you can contribute financially to efforts in the nation’s earliest primary state of Iowa where there are volunteers working tireless hours and sacrificing much to lay groundwork for a potential Palin campaign for the Presidency. As Organize4Palin volunteers have spearheaded, you can join in Voluteering4Palin’s efforts to bring people to see “The Undefeated”—a movie event that can both serve to set the record straight on Governor Palin and to empower the grassroots conservative movement. As Nicole recently mentioned, you can write letters to your local paper to encourage people to see “The Undefeated”.

The call to be boots on the ground extends further though. In addition to being boots on the ground, we can be fingers at a keyboard. Not too long ago, Tammy Bruce declared that Palin supporters should ensure that there should be no more free shots on Governor Palin, meaning if the media or another politician misrepresents or attacks the Governor, we should call them out and respond. Most days with the media it seems that we’re living in PeeWee’s Playhouse and “Sarah Palin” are the perpetual secret words of the day. If you are unfamiliar with the reference see here. Following Governor Palin’s recent Newsweek article and Facebook post, stories ranged from her challenge to Speaker Boehner to not cave on debt ceiling talks to how the outfit she wore on the cover of Newsweek supposedly made her unpresidential to how a photo in the Newsweek article taken in a field of flowers was a supposed signal to supporters that she was not running for President. Many of us visit Palin friendly blogs and comment there, but as some are doing already, we have the opportunity to visit main stream media sites and comment there. Let us change the dialogue and re-direct the narrative. Many open minded individuals visit news sites in search of just that—the news. They may not be the ones who comment on such stories, but they may read the comments. Well reasoned and supported comments may change the mind of the skeptics and plant a seed in the open minded. If an article misrepresents her record, correct them. If an article correctly states her position, highlight her boldness and consistency. If an article launches an unsubstantiated attack, call them out. There are several resources you can reference to arm yourselves with the facts. Organize4Palin has a page that outlines her stance on the issues and her record on many of these issues. US4Palin has an extensive collection of links regarding her accomplishments as Governor and throughout her political career. Connecticut for Sarah Palin has categorized her Facebook posts by policy topic. Commenting on articles often require a innocuous registration process, so jump in and get the word. Visit the sites of the general mainstream media news channels, the online news sites, political sites, the Republican and conservative sites. ABC, FoxNews, CNN, The Hill, the National Review, the Weekly Standard—whatever it may be. We have the greatest example of setting the media straight and get the truth out right in front of us—Governor Palin herself.

Whether your talents, funds, or time allows you to get involved with Organize4Palin, assist in encouraging people to see “The Undefeated” , donating money to these efforts, commenting on articles online, or doing all of above, we have the opportunity to contribute to the fundamental restoration of the country. The future of this country lies not in the Establishment, but in the grassroots—boots on the ground, fingers on the keyboard.

Crossposted here and here.

The AP’s Sins of Omission and Commission on Bailey’s “Tell-All” Book on Governor Palin

A chapter in one of my graduate school textbooks opened with a quote from Aaron Levenstein that says, "[s]tatistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. " Research involving statistics and journalism are supposed to be similar. Both are supposed to collect the data and report objectively on those data. Neither are supposed to conceal facts or results that run counter to their hypotheses or their own personal opinions. However, it seems that Associated Press reporter Becky Bohrer has neglected the journalistic tenet of objectivity in her piece on Frank Bailey's "tell all" book about Governor Palin. Her piece is rife with omissions. This is nothing new for Bohrer. As Stacy wrote earlier this month, Boehrer showed glaring omissions in an AP story about the most recent frivolous suit against Governor Palin by serial lawsuit filer, Chip Thoma. In this most recent piece, Bohrer is guilty of both omission and commission.

The first glaring omission from Bohrer in this piece is in that she does not even once mention Frank Bailey's ethical lapses. One of the frivolous ethics complaints filed against Governor Palin and her staff exonerated her, but required Bailey to take ethics training. Comments made by SarahPAC staff corroborate with this:

“Frank Bailey was the only member of the Palin administration to be found to have acted unethically – twice,” Crawford said. “He is currently under investigation again by the state attorney general. Then, as the administrator of certain email accounts, he acted unethically by appropriating account information he was entrusted to protect.”

This would seem a pertinent detail, but is omitted by Bohrer. This omission allows readers unfamiliar with Bailey's unethical behavior to assume that because Bailey once worked for the Governor, he may seem a credible source. His ethical lapse tells a different story, however.

Additionally,while Bohrer does discuss the attorney general's investigation of Bailey's use of emails, she is not entirely forthcoming:

The Alaska attorney general's office has said it's investigating Bailey's use of the emails. Executive ethics laws bar former public officials from using information acquired during their work for personal gain if the information hasn't been publicly disseminated.

This is not an investigatory effort started by the attorney general's office on their own accord. This is effort is due to the filing of a complaint by serial ethics complaint filer, Andree McLeod. McLeod is no friend of Governor Palin and, in fact, is responsible for many of the frivolous ethics complaints filed against Palin in the last few years, yet Bailey's use of emails against Governor Palin for his own gain have spawned complaint from McLeod. If another person who seems to have an agenda against Governor Palin is even questioning the ethics of Bailey in writing this book. would that not give people pause with regards to Bailey's credibility? Would not the complete facts behind the attorney general's investigation be pertinent to the story?

Thirdly, Bohrer neglects to identify Bailey's co-authors in his book. She writes:

In February, the book project also made headlines when a draft manuscript was leaked. An attorney for Bailey and his co-writers accused author Joe McGinniss, who has his own Palin book coming out this year. McGinniss' attorney acknowledged McGinniss selectively shared the manuscript, but said the manuscript included no request for confidentiality.

Who might those unnamed co-authors be? None other than Jeanne Devon and Ken Morris--bloggers from the anti-Palin blog Mudflats. Even the biased Politico was honest enough to report the names of the co-authors. Again, does not the mention of co-authors further reveal the potential intentions and credibility of Bailey's book? Bohrer quotes Bailey as saying that he has nothing against Governor Palin, but wouldn't his selection of such individuals as co-authors tell a different story? However, Boehrer does not bother her readers with such details.

In addition to these glaring omissions, Bohrer tops off her piece by building a strawman argument regarding Bailey's suggestion of unethical behavior by Governor Palin and the Republican Governors Association in the production of an ad. Boehrer writes:

At that time, there was a one-year statute of limitations on complaints, and the Alaska Public Offices Commission did not receive any complaints related to Palin and the association during that period. However, the RGA was fined - unrelated to Palin - for late reporting, according to the commission's executive director, Paul Dauphinais.

Bohrer is right to say that no complaints were filed regarding the RGA and Governor Palin. Ian has written about this false claim already. However, why would Boehrer mention a missed deadline by the RGA unrelated to Governor Palin unless she was trying to implicate Governor Palin in some kind of wrongdoing? It is a false argument with no reason for inclusion except to misrepresent Governor Palin.

Bohrer's piece shows several sins of omission. What the media choose to report is important, but what they omit is equally vital. Journalists' sins of commissions and omissions in attempts to reveal a "scathing" story about Governor Palin only leave their bias exposed.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

A Eureka Moment for Governor Palin

Governor Palin spoke at an event on Saturday at a California university where she took some time to thank some of the fallen soldiers who were among the attendees. Some of these individuals were Corps men. During her speech, she also referenced a tornado in Kansas that killed thousands of people, or in actuality, a few people.

Oh, wait, what's that? If I click on the links, those gaffes aren't from Governor Palin! They're from the teleprompter reader-in-chief President Obama!?

What Governor Palin actually said was that President Reagan's alma mater was in California, not Illinois. Was this incorrect? Yes. However, it was simply Governor Palin speaking extemporaneously. She was referring to Reagan, as she often does. She happened to be speaking in California, where Reagan spent a significant portion of his life, at a university. The result? A slip of the tongue, not a legitimate lack of knowledge or display of ignorance. Governor Palin clearly knows that Eureka College is in Illinois. I had the privilege of hearing Governor Palin speak in Washington, Illinois, just a short drive from Eureka College, in April. She referenced Eureka College and its proximity to where she was speaking during her amazing speech, at one point saying that a Eureka educated man played better in Peoria ( a short distance from both Washington and Eureka, Illinois) than a Harvard educated man. She obviously knows where Eureka College is!

You have to wonder why the media chooses to make this issue a focus. It's not like we don't have a recession, massive oil spill, SCOTUS confirmation hearing, finance reform bill deliberation, or anything like that going on right now!

Cross posted here and here.

Media Access to Governor Palin's Speech Backfires

A lot of hubbub has surrounded Governor Palin's speech at a fundraiser for California State University-Stanilaus on Friday night. From dumpster diving college students looking for Governor Palin's contract to Governor Palin's "diva-like demands" for bendy straws (oh the horrors) to partisan calls for investigations into the speech by gubernatorial candidates, even before Governor Palin spoke, her appearance caused a great deal of nontroversy, including a request that media have access to the speech. This request was granted, and likely the media was looking for some soundbite or event to make the Governor look bad or unintelligent. The speech was covered by Fox40 out of Sacremento, California. The video and audio from this station was not high quality, but it is available nonetheless. Governor Palin highlighted moral relativism and the importance of the Founders while also drawing out ideas from Reagan, Kennedy, de Tocqueville and others:




Courtesy of the Right Scoop

However, the story that came of this event came not from Governor Palin's speech, but from the ineptness and lack of professionalism of some "journalists" who apparently didn't know or care that they were miked ( you may need to turn up your volume):



Courtesy the Right Scoop

The media opinions, whether or not they belong to the Fox40 people (Fox40 is claiming that the voice heard doesn't belong to their photographer, but doesn't categorically deny that one of their employees is heard) should not have been heard at all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of a public figure, but to voice your opinion ( i.e. comparing one's speech to a roller coaster or criticizing the number of quotes) while one is at work is unprofessional and is a sad, but truthful commentary on the media today. They are not about objective truth and reporting, but about subjective truth and biased reporting, whether or not it is blatant and well though out, or if it's off-the-cuff. And people wonder why Governor Palin refers to them as the "lamestream media"?! While the media waited with bated breath, longing to hear a dumb statement escape Governor Palin's lips, what we find instead is that the media again reveals its bias. But, hey, if the media in California doesn't like Governor Palin's speech, I think that spells success!

Cross posted here and here.