She’s announced that she’s resigning as governor. That was actually pretty bright. It’s obvious that she’s planning to run for President in 2012. And we already know all the stupid stuff she’s done so far. By stepping down from office, it means that she is eliminating the possibility of doing even more stupid stuff that could be used against her in a campaign.
Of course, it makes one wonder if there’s some scandal brewing that she’s trying to avoid by stepping down, but that’s merely speculation.
PAD
• 
I forgot how much I missed this. We have Bladestar saying Palin’s selection and Obama’s election are all part of a GOP plot since “no one” could fix this economy in 4 years. Geez, even I think Obama COULD, but only if he does things differently than what he has been doing. But you know what? I could be wrong. I doubt it in this case, from the variety of information I pore over every day. But it is the height of pessimism to just write the next 3 1/2 years off as hopeless.
Then we have Alan Coil pretty much saying he feels I am unwelcome here. Why it keep it civil and respect a different opinion.
Then we have Craig Ries showing his maturity and making a great counterpoint by saying,”Shh! Listen! Can anybody else hear a broken record?” This from a man who obviously feels telling someone else on this thread to STFU is the way to answer a contrary opinion. So I’ll consider the source.
I am glad you replied, Tim. Though I obviously disagree with your definition of rant and points about Palin, I can at least respect the fact that you took the time to make them and obviously believe them. I obviously feel differently. In a very strong way. But boards like these should be about the exchange of ideas.
Bill Mulligan and Timothy Butler, I’ve missed you both.
It’s good to be back.
Ahh, there’s the Jerome I remember, the one who has an unnatural obsession with me! But unlike certain politicians who should never be heard from again, I’m not hiring lawyers threatening to sue anybody over what’s being said about me.
.
And yes, you are a broken record: you IMMEDIATELY went for the “liberal media” angle, a topic which has been debunked and dismissed time and time again. Yet it should surprise nobody that you would jump on it.
.
But *obviously* I’m the one at fault here. Of course, how silly of me. Let me go get some more of my Liberal Media Kool-Aid that I apparently drink every day since I do not see things in the same warped manner as one Jerome Maida and His Great Left-Wing Conspiracy Against Sarah Palin!
I’m just wondering how you debunk and dismiss the “liberal media angle”…
Did you do hours and hours of research on the subject? Did you ask the major news channels to honestly answer the question: “DO I report the news from a liberal angle?”
Did you poll the newspapers and ask them also?
Or is this just a “the majority of us on this website tell you you are wrong, so shut up about it already!” type of thing?
Coincidentally in regards to this topic, a very telling poll came out today from Gallup-USA today:
“Palin herself has argued that she has been unjustly attacked by the news media, and most Americans seem to agree. The new poll finds 53% describing the news media’s coverage of Palin as “unfairly negative,” while just 9% say it has been “unfairly positive” and 28% say it has been “about right.”
When Gallup asked a similar question about news coverage of Palin shortly after the Republican National Convention last September, Americans were more evenly divided in their views, with 33% saying the coverage was unfairly negative and the plurality of 36% saying it was about right. At that time, 21% thought the media were being unfairly positive toward Palin.”
’m just wondering how you debunk and dismiss the “liberal media angle”…
.
Because studies have shown that while the media is generally made up of left-leaning individuals, there is no inherent bias toward one side or the other.
.
As was previously mentioned, what IS wrong with the media is that they are biased toward sensationalism. That is what sells, sadly.
.
As was also previously mentioned, by me, is that there are plenty of examples where the media came down hard on liberals, all of which were extreme examples of sensationalism on the part of the media. And I don’t recall conservatives screaming about a liberal bias when Clinton’s dirty laundry was being aired for the world.
.
The “liberal media” is simple a time-honored tactic of dismissal by those on the Right. And as this thread has shown, whenever they need to automatically dismiss something, simply turn to blaming the media and hope the problem goes away.
Jerome Maida said:
.
“Then we have Alan Coil pretty much saying he feels I am unwelcome here.”
.
I didn’t say that.
.
Tangentially, I think most of us here welcome sane, rational discussion.
Off Topic, But…
.
Wow.
.
Fox News just reported on a radio news break that CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress in a recent briefing that the agency misled them on “significant actions” for a “number of years.” The “significant actions” that were concealed were Bush interrogation policies.
.
You know… The things that Nancy Pelosi said she was mislead about and that Fox News and crew then crucified her for saying, called her a traito and said that she needed to resign over. Wonder if Hannity, Rush, Savage, Bill’O and crew will apologize to her or not.
.
Who am I kidding. Of course they won’t.
Well, better info kinda deflates that one. We’re basically back to he said/she said on it.
Craig,
While I completely agree with your response in regards to the media tending towards sensationalism, I do wonder *how* you can take human bias out of any equation.
I am of the belief that journalism is dead. Commentators are one thing. You will always have the Sean Hannitys and the Keith Olbermans of the world, but I do not consider them journalists.
But what I continually see in the media, (and I am not calling it for one side or the other) is a continued lack of professionalism in which you see objectivity diminished.
I see it in local newscasts, I see it in newspapers, and I see it national broadcasts. And that is concerning to me, because you no longer get “just the facts.” You get the fact laced with something more. And for intelligent human beings, one of which I consider myself to be, I can read through the garbage, or do my own research and find the facts. But there is a sizable portion of this population that is, to put it mildly, stupid. I believe that journalists owe it their profession to report the facts and let people make up their own minds. For the most part, I do not believe that occurs today.
As for studies on media bias, I would like to see yours, if you would like to provide them. Here is a link to a study done by UCLA in 2005: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx.
Also, these poll numbers are horrendously disconcerting to me: http://www.gallup.com/poll/9430/news-media-too-liberal.aspx
Naturally in that poll, I disregard what Conservatives think about Liberal News and Liberals think about Cons. But the numbers regarding moderates in general, and how liberals feel about the news being too liberal as opposed to conservatives feeling about the news being too conservative is the troubling part.
You will always have the Sean Hannitys and the Keith Olbermans of the world, but I do not consider them journalists.
.
Well, not only do I not consider them journalists, but I think it’s a mistake to consider MSNBC and Fox News as news outlets. I don’t believe MSNBC has ever labeled itself as such, and now says they’re a channel of political commentary, which is accurate. Fox News’ biggest mistake was to call itself ‘fair and balanced’ and try to claim they were not biased; it too is all about commentary these days, and I don’t know why anybody would watch it for actual news.
.
As for studies on media bias, I would like to see yours, if you would like to provide them.
.
I will have to see if I can locate them again. It’s been awhile since I’ve read them, and I’m not big on bookmarks. I also suck at finding stuff, even with the almighty Google.
.
FWIW, I quickly found a bit on the MediaMatters.org (left wing) attempting to debunk the UCLA study on a number of things, including claiming that the authors have received funding from conservative think takes, and some of the categorization scores that were applied to groups like the NRA (as barely conservative) and ACLU (as barely liberal). And the Wall Street Journal was found to be the most liberal news outlet?
.
As for the Gallup poll, I’m not sure there’s anything of value to take from it. Perception doesn’t automatically equal reality, and I don’t think you can discount the fact that conservatives telling the world for years that the media is liberal biased has affected peoples opinions. This is reinforced when folks like Palin use the media to blame the media for all their problems, and then in turn people come to websites and blogs and blame the media, as was done in this thread. It’s the old ‘repeat it often enough’ adage.
.
And as a counter-point, here’s one article about a study regarding bias going into last year’s presidential election:
http://www.utne.com/2008-07-29/Media/New-Study-Shows-Media-Bias-Against-Obama.aspx
That study was released in July 2008. It found that on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive) and that John McCain’s coverage, was 57% negative (vs. 43% positive).
.
But if you go on their site and scroll up a bit…well, as we know, the campaign did not end in July. More studies, which looked at 2 or 3 times as much airtime as the first one were done as the campaign went on. By October 14, 2008, they had released a new study which found:
.
Since the party conventions kicked off the final phase of the presidential campaign, comments about Senator Barack Obama on the network evening news shows have been 65% positive, compared to only 36% positive comments about Senator John McCain.
.
Despite a brief flurry of good press during the GOP convention, comments about Governor Sarah Palin have been only 42% positive. (There have been too few evaluations of Senator Joe Biden for meaningful analysis.)
.
This represents a return to Obama’s favorable media image during the primary season, when his coverage was 62% positive on the broadcast networks. By contrast, McCain’s coverage during the primaries was only 34% positive, almost the same as his general election coverage.
.
Fox was negative on everyone, though more so on Obama.
.
They eventually released a final election watch this year (can be read at http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/media_monitor_jan_2009.pdf) which found that:
.
Barack Obama got the best press they had ever measured for a presidential nominee.
.
Obama’s press was 2 to 1 positive; John McCain’s was 2 to 1 negative.
.
Obama’s policies also got better press than McCain’s did.
.
Sarah Palin’s coverage was 2 to 1 negative; Joe Biden’s was light but balanced.
.
(unsurprisingly) The number of voters who saw election coverage as unfair
rode to new highs.
.
So this group may not have been the best one to mention as evidence against media bias.
In an unrelated but amusing (to me anyway) story, the New York Times has just withdrawn a photo essay when it turned out that the photos, which were explicitly labled as not digitally enhanced, were enhanced up the wazoo.
.
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/07/new-york-times-magazine-withdraws-possibly-altered-photo-essay.html
.
What amuses me is how there are people who are so good at figuring this out and, conversely, there seem to be so many photographers who are unaware that they exist. Like the fake letters that got dan rather fired, you have to wonder how anyone thought it wouldn’t come out. Me, I’m no good at spotting those “What’s different in these two pictures” puzzles but there are people who are dámņ good.
.
No political agenda in this one, I guess. The guy was supposed to photograph large housing construction projects left unfinished when the housing market collapsed. Why he felt the need to fake what should be pretty easy shots to find is beyond me.
Bill, I think a lot can be drawn from the ‘bias’ in coverage last year in the way each campaign was run once we got past the conventions.
.
Obama was never over the top negative in his campaigning, whereas we all know what happened at some of the rallies for McCain and Palin toward the end. That in turn likely spurred negative coverage. I mean, when you’ve got people literally yelling out to kill somebody, the coverage is not likely to be positive.
.
Also, one can view McCain saying that the economy was fine as The Beginning of the End, in terms of policies. McCain, too, who always viewed himself as a media darling, started to complain about how the media covered him.
.
So, to be honest, I can’t help but wonder if much of the shift in ‘bias’ last year was simply self-fulfilling.
.
McCain blasts the media, and so the media blasts him right back. Perhaps if McCain hadn’t attacked the media (or if Palin wouldn’t continue to do so to this day), I would imagine the coverage would be more positive. The media should NEVER sink to the level of what is essentially payback, but that’s unfortunately where we’re at in this country.
.
In the end, beyond the sensationalism, the media doesn’t like being told what to do, what to write; they don’t like being pushed around. And there’s been a lot of pushing going on from both sides of the political aisle toward the media in recent years.
I agree, a lot of what happened to the McCain campaign was self inflicted. As I said, I think the whole thing was pretty much over when he suspended his campaign to solve the economic crisis and didn’t. From that point on the only hope was that Obama imploded and he declined the opportunity to do so.
.
But I did not want to let pass the impression that there is much, if any, evidence that Obama got a rougher ride from the press than McCain did.
I felt kind of bad for McCain when it became clear that his only chance at winning was if Obama went on national TV and said “Kill whitey” while shooting a puppy.
Here’s an oddly appropriate news story, considering the turn this conversation has taken:
.
Murdoch Tabloid Hacked Into Cell
Phones Of “Hundreds Of Celebrities And Politicians”
.
For what it’s worth, I doubt that Murdoch, if this is true, did this for a political agenda. I would bet it was simply to sell papers, politics, ethics and laws be dámņëd.
Well, if we’re going off on tangents, a couple of great examples of media sensationalism vs journalism (just to show it’s not just about politics) have been in the news lately: the deaths of Michael Jackson and Steve McNair. One would think by the media reporting that Jackson was a lost son of God, and that McNair really was a great, great man because he was a good QB… oh but don’t mention the word ‘affair’.
.
Additional low blow: I think it’s safe to say that Jackson’s death was the best thing to happen to Jon, Kate, and their eight kids.
Yeah, it seems like, increasingly, celebrity is a light that burns. And the opportunity for it has been opened up so much–it always took more than just talent and/or infamy, there was a big element of luck, of being in the right place at the right time but now it has become so easy to have millions of people become aware of you virtually overnight.
.
There can hardly be a more overused cliche than the mention of Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame but it sure looks prescient about now.
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist one more example of “journalism” from the media. Considering how this was posted on the New York Post’s website, everybody can decide on their own whether this is bias or sensationalism… or maybe both. 😉
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31849470#31849470
Doesn’t look to me like Obama was looking at the girl, though it would hardly be any big deal if he were–women, even young ones, in form fitting dresses get looked at.
.
But it is awfully nice of MSNBC and ABC to point out that one moment in time does not necessarily tell the tale (Bwah!), which is a truth that I don’t recall being explicitly made when other politicians have been snapped making funny faces or seemingly awkward poses.
.
I just hope that there’s video that makes his trip to Russia look better because the photos of him and the Russian president looked excruciating. I haven’t seen anyone that reluctant to take a handshake since Jimmy Carter approached Ted Kennedy at the 1980 convention. Then he met Putin and the bášŧárdš deliberately put Obama in a chair that was too small for him, making him look like a gawky kid next to Putin, who sat at the edge of the chair and looked like his coach. Not that i blame Obama–this is what you have a support staff for and apparently they have enough trouble spelling his name, much less outfoxing ex-KGB.
which is a truth that I don’t recall being explicitly made when other politicians have been snapped making funny faces or seemingly awkward poses.
.
Got any good examples?
.
Everybody gets hit with funny face photos (Bush had more than his fair share, not surprisingly), but I honestly cannot recall any awkward pose moments in a picture off the top of my head.
.
But it also helps in this case that there is actually video, and that the ‘photo’ appears to be nothing more than a screen capture of the opening of the video.
I’m more curious about this photo:
.
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/foto-leader-g8/4.html
.
Not only does it show Obama apparently checking out a young lady’s posterior, with that dámņ Frenchman right next to him, grinning like a jackal…none of which bothers me in the least…but check out the two world leaders to the right. They look like victims of a Las Vegas hypnotist. Or zombies. Old school zombies.
.
Our rulers are zombies. We are well and truly f***ed.
Well of course they’re all looking. It’s all they can do. Some clumsy wisenheimer went and screwed up the “casual” shoulder massage move for everybody else.
.
Ðámņ you George W. Bush!!!
Doesn’t seem to have stopped Sanford. Or Ensign. Or Edwards.
.
Is it just when you BECOME president that it’s not workable any more?
Well, Sarkozy doesn’t look as though his gaze is quite in the right direction. Obama, heck yeah.
.
Now, I’ll concede the possibility that the photo’s misleading — maybe she just bent down to get something and he’s looking over to see if she needs help — but frankly, even if it’s exactly what it appears to be I don’t think it matters in the least. Worst case, Michelle’s gonna slug him. 🙂
Not looking would be grounds for impeachment.
Actually, there’s a video accompanying the picture, and from the video it looks like the still basically caught him in the middle of turning around. At worst, it looks like a quick glance. (Even Fox agrees, and that’s got to mean something.)
.
Here’s a link: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907100001 .
Gawker does a frame by frame analysis better than anything since the Zapruder film:
.
http://gawker.com/5311959/
.
From the comments: Americans have spent more time looking at this girl’s ášš than they have looking at Obama’s Health Care plan. We really are a bunch of áššhølëš.
.
Also from the comments–an ad that makes the point very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFogBUS3y6I&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgawker.com%2F5311959%2F&feature=player_embedded
That’s a beautiful, beautiful ad. Nice.