Media's Bias On Display In Hate Of Palin

Media's Bias On Display In Hate Of Palin

Investors Business Daily Editorial
June 10, 2011

The New York Times and Washington Post have asked their readers' help in scouring 24,000 emails from Sarah Palin's governorship, released Friday. They hate her — really hate her.

Imagine a newspaper in 2008 asking readers' help in perusing Barack Obama's emails as U.S. senator and Illinois state senator. Or for that matter, help in unearthing his college records. The howls from "mainstream" journalists and Democratic politicians would have been deafening.

But a private citizen conducting a bus tour across the country — Palin is not a candidate, let's not forget — is fair game for a mob witch hunt.

The Post told its readers "we're looking for some help ... to analyze, contextualize and research" Palin's emails, released after Freedom of Information Act requests, "right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release."

The paper asked for recruits for "100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the emails," open to anyone with an online computer.

As for the "Newspaper of Record," "Times reporters will be in Juneau, the state capital, to begin the process of reviewing the emails," the paper's "Caucus" blog said Thursday. "We're asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy emails, people and events that we may want to highlight." A "simple form" was provided to readers to do so.

The twin anti-Palin projects are telling in a number of ways — with other papers, like the Los Angeles Times and Britain's Guardian, catching their own cases of Palin email fever.

These once-formidable journalistic institutions, in decline as online competitors kill their revenues, obviously want for once to scoop the blogs and avoid the embarrassment of a Matt Drudge or Andrew Breitbart doing what only Woodwards and Bernsteins used to do.

In other words, the Times and the Post want to prove they're still relevant in an era when tons of "news that's fit to print" isn't printed at all but gets posted by someone sitting at home in his pajamas.

The vendetta also shows how fearful the establishment media are of a Palin presidency. Apparently they don't share the view of so many that she has no chance of beating President Obama next year.

A charismatic female leader and mother who is conservative across the board — whose opposition to abortion is backed up by the presence of a special-needs son — spells trouble for the social revolution unleashed in the '60s.

And what monumental disclosures came in the first hours after the emails' release? The daughter of the former Alaska governor wanted her mother to pull a state lawmaker's hair, Palin refers to journalists as the "lame-stream" media and the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee wanted a tanning bed.

If lame-stream reporters subjected President Obama to similar probing, we'd bet Americans would find the results a lot more unsettling.

Scour 24,000 Palin e-mails? Hmmm. I'm soooooo glad that they did this in 2009 to the 2700 pages of the ObamaCare bill.

And you guys really wonder why I hate the "mainstream" media in this country.

TexasBlue wrote:Scour 24,000 Palin e-mails? Hmmm. I'm soooooo glad that they did this in 2009 to the 2700 pages of the ObamaCare bill.

And you guys really wonder why I hate the "mainstream" media in this country.

I don't wonder. I know exactly why!

Do you remember this bit shortly after Obama was elected? It was an interview of Tom Brokaw by Charlie Rose. This is how the exchange went:

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

Here's the video on Youtube so you don't think I'm making this up:



It was allegedly the JOB of the mainstream media to know these things and the two most "knowledgeable" mainstream media commentators are expressing on national television that DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA!!!! Why didn't these two morons just ASK OBAMA THE DAMN QUESTIONS???? BEFORE he got elected???

And you can bet these same media geniuses knew every little thing that could be known about Sarah Palin - the mainstream media were camped out in Alaska digging up any dirt that could be found (or invented)! But they didn't know a damn thing about the President-elect!!!

I mean, how much more obvious does it have to get before people wake up and realize that the mainstream media are nothing more than shills for the Democratic Party!?!?!?

Brokaw was a decent anchor back in the day but he's as liberal as they come and he admits it.

TexasBlue wrote:Brokaw was a decent anchor back in the day but he's as liberal as they come and he admits it.

Brokaw was as biased an anchor as any of them. Looking back, there's not a single mainstream media TV news anchor that I can recall that wasn't biased toward the left. And that includes the two anchor gods Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.

I used to watch Brokaw nightly. He wasn't very biased back then. I can't say the same for his predecessor, Brian Williams.