Poor, Pitiful Palin

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Oh, and I wish her daughter's baby daddy's 15 minutes would end soon. That kid is a puke!

But Joanie loves loved Chachi!

[Shawnee123]

Nice taste in men. Does he remind her of her dad? (I know, she's young and probably didn't realize what an ass he was, but man he is a Grade A Asshat!)

[TheMercenary]

I wonder how much truth there is in this?

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'

"Imagine that," the post read. "11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing."

AP spokesman Paul Colford said the organization, with more than 4,000 employees, and 49 Pulitzer Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, has the luxury of putting multiple reporters on major stories. He confirmed 11 people worked on the story, but not all full-time. He refused to say, however, if similar number of journalists were assigned to review other political books, or if Palin has been treated differently.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ok-fact-check/

[SamIam]

Consider the source. I'm always skeptical of Faux.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ok-fact-check/

Of course before they could run the story, Fox News had to call in an expert to explain this concept of 'fact checking' to them.

Originally Posted by richlevy

Of course before they could run the story, Fox News had to call in an expert to explain this concept of 'fact checking' to them.

You mean like FOX news today showing a "crowd shot" and inferring that it was at a book signing when it fact it was from a campaign even last year?

[xoxoxoBruce]

From what I've seen on the net, those 11 AP reporters would be kept busy just answering the phone calls and emails, from former campaign staffers working for McCain and the Democrats, wanting to tell their side.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Redux

You mean like FOX news today showing a "crowd shot" and inferring that it was at a book signing when it fact it was from a campaign even last year?

Wow. Frickin' Fox.

[Undertoad]

People, please. That's merely an anchor making a mistake about B-roll footage. It happens all the time.

There are several media-watching outlets on both sides, that monitor news 24x7, and breathlessly feature every single thing that could be interpreted as bias. They have a lot of source to work with and they re-tube everything.

They know it's an anchor making a mistake about B-roll footage, too. (No serious newshound could not understand.) They love it when you get all breathless over stuff like this, because it excites them to be a part of the professional wrestling side of politics. Too bad it's all fake.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

People, please. That's merely an anchor making a mistake about B-roll footage. It happens all the time.

There are several media-watching outlets on both sides, that monitor news 24x7, and breathlessly feature every single thing that could be interpreted as bias. They have a lot of source to work with and they re-tube everything.

They know it's an anchor making a mistake about B-roll footage, too. (No serious newshound could not understand.) They love it when you get all breathless over stuff like this, because it excites them to be a part of the professional wrestling side of politics. Too bad it's all fake.

When the anchor says "These are some of the photos coming into us..." there is an intent to misrepresent. Other networks used real time videos at a mall book store...with relatively long lines and respectable crowds, but not screaming with enthusiasm for Sarah. FOX chose to misrepresent the video.

This was much like Hannity did recently with the rallly at the Capitol opposing health care reform....using video from an old rally with the intent to demonstrate inflated numbers. Its one thing to use stock footage of the Capitol when reporting a story about the Capitol. It is another to use footage with the intent to misrepresent the news.

They all do it? You have some examples from CNN, MSNBC?

Do they all misrepresent Rs as Ds when reporting on members of Congress involved in sex scandals? Unintentional mistakes by low level staffers?

[Undertoad]

Yes, they all do it. It happens all the time.

If you didn't know, I'm the Cellar's appointed cable news viewer, and although I don't do it any longer (preferring internet news sites), for several years I watched a good 10 hours/day, 7 days/week of all three cable news networks.

They all make these kinds of mistakes because it is very difficult to put together this amount of live news. It's tons of airtime to fill, and not enough good people to do it properly.

The silly thing is, it's much easier to spot real bias in the news, rather than these "gotcha" mistakes, but it's harder to build a narrative around that bias. If Think Progress examined which stories Fox covered, and how they covered them, it would be far more damning for serious thinkers... but far less damning for folks with low attention spans for it, who prefer that knee-jerking OMG FOUL BLOOD SPILLED REF KNOCKED OUT style. Folks like yourself!

Do they all misrepresent Rs as Ds when reporting on members of Congress involved in sex scandals? Unintentional mistakes by low level staffers?

They all display much, much more serious bias than merely getting the letter wrong. Getting the letter wrong is paper-thin fluff compared to what else goes on.

[Shawnee123]

here's a solution :p

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you didn't know, I'm the Cellar's appointed cable news viewer, and although I don't do it any longer (preferring internet news sites)....

I like internet news sites as well....many are always good for a laugh.

Most recently on Newsmax:

Palin-Beck Ticket? Sarah Doesn't Rule it Out

"I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I'm not there yet," Palin tells Newsmax. "But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He's a hoot. He gets his message across in such a clever way. And he's so bold — I have to respect that. He calls it like he sees it, and he's very, very, very effective."

The Dream Team..........for Democrats!

[Undertoad]

Here's what the righty version of Think Progress and Media Matters would say, if you want an example of 10-second excerpting of media bias.



But it doesn't really tell you anything.

[Shawnee123]

Are you having trouble keeping up with Sarah? What is it about Sarah, what makes her tick? Do you want to know all of these things, but don't think you'll be able to schedule in a reading of her book?

Worry no more! Slate has compiled an index for Going Rogue so that you may find answers to the questions you are asking.

A sampling:

prayers
__answered
boyfriend, 33
job for Todd with British Petroleum, 50
__not answered
winning debate with Joe Biden, 295
winning 2008 election, 333

pregnancy
__descriptions of
"I porked up," 50
"ready to calve," 51
"more nauseated than usual," 171
"starving for king crab and scallops," 192
feeling contractions during Texas speech, 194
__reaction to own
"Holy geez!" 171
__reaction to Bristol's
"Truthfully, I was devastated," 207
campaign's advance knowledge of, 214
campaign's botched handling of, 234

science, inadequacy of to explain existence, 47

sentence, actual
"As the soles of my shoes hit the soft ground, I pushed past the tall cottonwood trees in a euphoric cadence, and meandered through willow branches that the moose munched on," 102


upbringing, hardscrabbleness of,
sewed own clothes, 16
baked own bread, 17
stacked own firewood, 17
unheated, unfurnished family room, 26
didn't ask for money from parents, 32

terrorists
Obama palling around with, 306
regret over inability to talk more about, 307