try Media Matters
Posted By: Sandy on 2008-09-02
In Reply to: I expected that so where do you all get your info...please share so ...sm - read that 2
They go after both sides for inaccuracies. They back up their points with facts.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
about Media Matters....
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
Media Matters...William Bennett Audio...sm
You'd have to hear it yourself to get the correct context. The caller was not even talking about reducing the crime rate, Bennett brought this up out of the blue, and he says I do know... before he made the comment, NOT making a reference to Freakonomics but his own opinion.
From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
SNORT! Media Matters! Crappers complaining
X
Lol. Media Matters liberal misinformation vs conservative misinformation.. pot ... kettle...nm
nm
So you're saying the left controls the media? I thought the media produced the story.
I haven't seen or heard one thing blaming Obama's crew for this. Where can I read about the right aligning to attack the left? Where did you find this information? Or is this just your observation and opinion of things?
Speaking of the media, let's take a poll who thinks the media has run amuck sm
and which ones do you think are the most ridiculous? Fox News, NYT, AP, Wash. Post, CNN, your choice.
Not that it matters
http://www.factcheck.org/archive.html
Excerpt from Bush - Kerry debate and analysis by Factcheck.org
George W. Bush: FactCheck: Most of Bush tax cut went to top 10%
BUSH: Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. And now the tax code is more fair.
FACT CHECK: Bush could hardly have been farther off base when he said most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. That's just not true. In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated that most of the tax cuts-53% to be exact-went to the highest-earning 10% of US individuals and families. Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661. And as for the low- and middle-income Americans Bush mentioned-the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, a far cry from most of the cuts as claimed by Bush.
Source: Analysis of Third Bush-Kerry debate(FactCheck.org Ad-Watch)
George W. Bush: FactCheck: Wealthy pay 63% of taxes, not 80%
BUSH: 20% of the upper-income people pay about 80% of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.
FACT CHECK: The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said that the top 20% of earners pay about 80% of the taxes in America today. That's incorrect. In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of taxes in America, not just income taxes.
Source: Analysis of Third Bush-Kerry debate(FactCheck.org Ad-Watch)
yep - what really matters is the
electoral college -- Obama WAY ahead there. Yippie-oh-coyote.
What really matters
Instead of giving so much credence to Palin's mean spirited attempt to cast aspersions on Obama's character, maybe you should be a bit concerned about McCain's documented palling around with folks who are bringing this nation to financial disaster. I dare you to watch this!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo
Well it matters to me
Someone show me one iota of REAL proof that Obama is or associates with terrorists and I will immediately change how I vote. I don't want a terrorist in office and I don't want a liar either but in either case that is exactly what we're gonna get. As near as I can tell Obama happens to live in the same neighborhood as Ayers. Is he the only one who knows people in his neighborhood, attends parties with the, etc. Don't YOU know people in your neighborhood that you aren't necessarily close friends with?
What really matters now is not
who got us into it, but who can help us get out of it. The next thing is an honest (nonpartisan) look into how we got into this mess so that we can avoid it in the future.
well it matters to me
if there was an all white group ANY where in this country that wouldnt allow ANYONE in based on their skin color, it would be a huge deal and people would be held accountable. DUH. The reason that it matters is because our new president is probably not going to do anything about this and had a nice little smile on his face when the rev. was giving his speech on inauguration day and said his little comment about its time for white to embrace what is right. That is the problem. Many white people in this country have ALWAYS embraced what is right and feel that EVERYONE should be treated equally and I am one of them. For there to be a group out there doing this is WRONG. By the way, I am so talented that I can talk about this issue AND the ecomony all at the same time!
It matters very much.......... sm
what the Bible says, and the Bible is what shapes, or should shape, a Christian's whole way of thinking. One can hold current day newspaper headlines up against Daniel and Ezekiel and see the events unfolding just as they were foretold over 2000 years ago. That people today have grown so politically correct as to disregard, or worse yet ridicule, the Bible's teaching is a very sad commentary on the condition of our hearts.
Do you think it matters WHO you wish to rot in hell???!!!!! Oh my! NM
Course it matters. He lied.
VA's have a policy. No demonstrating or protesting on their grounds. It's what laws are for. He said he wasn't protesting but he was lying. Now, in those VA beds are soldiers who were probably wounded in battle. This kind of this does not belong in the VA. Period. Rules are rules.
Think your vote matters? Think again. sm
October 11th, 2008 7:08 AM Eastern
Think Your Vote Matters? Think Again
Editor’s Note: The non-partisan Web site “Opposing Views” offers readers a look at all sides of the debate on a variety of issues. This is the part of ongoing series of posts from the Web site that will appear in the FOX Forum.
By Dr. John R. Koza
Chairman, National Popular Vote
You’ve become enthralled with John McCain and Barack Obama’s struggle to win the presidency. Along with record numbers of Americans, you tuned into the debates, attended rallies and registered to vote, many of you for the first time. Yet in all likelihood your vote won’t matter because this historic election will be decided by voters in only six or so closely divided “battleground states.”
The reason the vast majority of states don’t matter in presidential elections stems from a winner-take-all rule (Nebraska and Maine being the notable exceptions). This rule awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. Consequently, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or even pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. This harsh effect of the winner-take-all rule became clear in the first week of October when McCain’s Michigan state director AL Ribeiro explained McCain’s abrupt cessation of campaigning in Michigan: “The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited resources with the goal of winning nationally.”
Of course, voters in 36 of the 50 states never mattered, even before the 2008 presidential election began. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a little later. As early as spring 2008, The New York Times reported that both major political parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
The best and most direct way to fix our broken system is to elect the president by a national popular vote. Under a national popular vote, every person’s vote, in every state, would be equally important, regardless of political party.
Every vote would be equal, and politicians would be forced to address the concerns of every voter. There would be no red states, no blue states, and no battleground states.
It’s crucial to remember that the winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law. That’s why we support the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). It is currently being debated in all 50 states and has been enacted by four states- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.
It’s time to reform the current system and do what more than 70 percent of the public has long supported – elect the president by a national popular vote.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/think-your-vote-matters-think-again/
On which other matters of US politics would you have us
These other "must read" story headlines read like the Intruder tabloid and show us just what a reputable source you have cited. Waste of time and white matter. Ignored. No sale.
I don't think it matters anymore
We are on the brink of a major depression. I don't know that anything they do will prevent it. The best they can do is maybe lessen the severity and length. The automakers, credit card companies, and banks are going to end up like the airlines (at best) in having to be propped up for an indefinite period of time by the government.
I can't believe it matters. 2000 or 6000, what's... sm
The difference? It's still an ancient piece of fiction written by primitive, superstitious people from a corner of a long-dead empire. Why anyone in the present day would chose to believe any of it, let alone feel compelled to organize their life around it (or believe that it predicts the future, of all things!) is beyond me.
Here - let me try to educate you on a couple of matters
Obama's mother was in Kenya. Could not fly back to the US due to her late stage in pregnancy. After the birth she flew to HI to register the birth that happened in Kenya.
The law at the time of his birth was that a US Citizen may only pass to a child born overseas to a US citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Obama's mother was 18 years old. Therefore, because US citizenship could not legally be passed to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born".
Also, if for some reason he could somehow have been deemed "natural born" that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia where his mother married his stepfather .
But since he was never an American citizen to begin with there was nothing to take away.
Just because you have a mother who is a citizen does not automatically qualify you as a citizen. Just the way the laws were then.
Whether you like it or not those are the laws.
Besides...why is everyone in such an uproar. If everyone is so certain that Obama was born in Hawaii, then why is everyone defending so hard for an independent party to be able to view Obama's original birth certificate - the one he has yet failed to provide.
So, if he is american born, the judges will examine it, and if he's natural born life will move on. If not, you will still have a democratic president. No big deal.
Matters not one whit....he is now in charge of
.
These were matters that were ajudicated and people were
Get a clue, willya?
Also, you're conflating these with the "torture" (dry cough) issue - and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.
And incidentally, waterboarding isn't torture. If it was so torturous, why did they have to use it 83 times on one individual to get the information? Must be REEEEEEEL bad!
That's right Character matters, meanwhile MQ puffs on W's cigar
Yep, W is his goooood buddy. They be bestest of friends. Gives him big ole bear hugs. Nice to see McSame in the saddle.
It doesn't matter how it started; it matters that it stops.
x
I think the media....
often creates more questions and issues than politics in general. I think all politicians are crooks and only out to line their own pockets with money, as evident by all the promises made during election year that never came into play during their actual term.
I go through spurts. I get mad and then I stop watching and then I calm down and I start watching again and then I get mad again. It is a vicious cycle. 
Media
not going to be timid this election about the deceptive way the RNC wants to paint them as liberal and pro-Obama.. They are openly discussing it as a divisive tactic that has been used over and over by the RNC. Chris Matthews heatedly faced down Pat Buchanan last night over Pat's attempt to be Mr. Women's Rights regarding SP. Chris noted that with this election, no one is supposed to look into McC or SP's activities or views. If the media rightly investigates McC, they throw up the POW story. With Palin, it is going to be Sexist story. The media's job is to bring us information so we can decide. Free press is essential to our country. For this reason we must tolerate all extremes of opinion, as we must on this board. See MediaMatters.org for facts on media misstatements.
The media is doing its best
to make sure Obama is elected. It is sickening how one-sided they all are, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. They totally overlook anything that might reflect negatively on Obama/Biden, and jump with glee on anything having to do with McCain/Palin. What that CNN reporter did to Palin was a disgrace.
I wish I could believe everything the media
I have family that live in Arizona and Texas who are democrats. They said it was a known fact that illegals were voting left and right, all with fake SS#s and fake IDs. It hasn't been a secret that illegals are acquiring fake SS#s.
One family member, who runs a large company out there, said he stood in line with many he knew were illegal while he watched them vote and pull out so-called IDs. He knew some of the companies (through the grapevine) some of these illegals work for and knew they were hiring illegals and yet there they stood, voting as if they had the right. Even standing in line bragging about how Obama would help their families. It's not a secret if you live in these areas where you see it happening all the time. Now, if you want to believe all the hundreds of thousands of illegals voting were somehow "legal" that's your business, but I do transcription every day from Texas with doctors questioning how a patient got on disability when they aren't even legal residents of this country, so it's no surprise to me how O got in there. Factor in all the illegals in California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and it was a done deal.
Media would be ALL over it if
--
when it happens, the media has been sm
all over it! I don't know where you have been. Do I need to send you examples? My goodness they have even taken some of the more publicized cases and made movies out of them.
Open your eyes!
Considering that the media
is so liberally biased....I'm sure there is a lot that we aren't being told the truth about.
Treating captive terrorists like dinner guests will not make them like us. It will not stop attempts on American lives by terrorists. All that will accomplish is letting them know that they can blow us up and kill thousands of Americans and all they have to do is sit in a prison until released and that is all they get out of it.
Terrorists that we have released from Gitmo have gone right back. We didn't waterboard them. They were released and joined back up with their terrorist pals again. Gee....I guess they sure learned their lesson, huh? Another free terrorist who can come back again and try to kill more Americans in the name of Allah.
It seriously amazes me how you people defend these guys.
Actually, the way I am reading it is the media is DOING it. SM
Looking for some dirt. That's the way I read the article. Time will tell I guess.
Did the media jump all over...
the horrible HORRIBLE things that Charlie Rangel said about Bush the other day. Only O'Reilly. The rest of the media has given it a pass, as usual.
It's clearly the LIBERAL media
It's okay to trash Clinton but don't touch St. Ronnie. Besides, the producer is a friend of Rush,
so clearly it's fact based....uh huh.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/09/liberal-media-strikes-again.html
Not so funny when it comes to the media
doing the same thing to Repubs as they do to Dems?
I do think it's wrong. Sound byte politics is wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter who it's directed toward.
Media bias...
Have you seen the two US Weekly covers, the one for Obama and the one for Palin?
I just love this email sent by former Clinton operative and Us Weekly employee, Mark Neschis, that went out to all media in St. Paul:
Thought I would send over our Us Weekly/Sarah Palin cover story, on stands Friday, if helpful in your coverage. Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out.(Us Weekly has 12 million, mostly female readers)
Mark Neschis
Corporate Communications Director
Wenner Media
Us Weekly | Rolling Stone | Men’s Journal
A former Clinton operative....smearing another woman in politics. What a double standard! Whatever respect I EVER had for the Democratic party...is gone. Party before country, party before decency....party BEFORE. NO thanks.
What Obama needs to do now is put his money where is mouth is, and tell all his operatives to tell all their buddies on the blogs and media to cease and desist...if indeed he was sincere in his objection to this treatment.
You got that right. Point is that media
nm
Media breakdown
Sticking this here in case it's relative, not as a reply to above post. Have LOTS more if you want newspapers and radio too. Sorry, but this is a driveby for the night. I'm tired, irritated and incapable of human interaction today. *Disclaimer: Informational only, not interested in arguing.
GENERAL ELECTRIC --(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)
Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
Other Holdings:
* GE Consumer Electronics.
* GE Power Systems: produces turbines for nuclear reactors and power plants.
* GE Plastics: produces military hardware and nuclear power equipment.
* GE Transportation Systems: runs diesel and electric trains.
==================================================
WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC.
Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group)
Television Holdings:
* CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
* CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
* Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
* Group W Satellite Communications.
Other Holdings:
* Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
* Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
* Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.
================================================================
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.
Television Holdings:
* Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel (joint owner), Flix.
* 20 major market US stations.
Media Holdings:
* Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
* Simon & Schuster Publishing.
=============================================
DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640,000 to GW's 2000 campaign)
Television Holdings:
* ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
* ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
* Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
Media Holdings:
* Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
* Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
* 3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
* Hyperion book publishers.
* Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
Other Holdings:
* Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
* All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.
======================================================
TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
Media Holdings:
* HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
* Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
* 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
Other Holdings:
* Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling.
=======================================================
NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch) (donations see bottom note)
Television Holdings:
* Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
* Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%).
* The Golf Channel (33%).
MEDIA HOLDINGS:
* Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight.
* 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian.
* 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard.
* HarperCollins books.
OTHER HOLDINGS:
* Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League.
* Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines.
* Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).
*(Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000)*
That is how most of the media is showing it....
McCain speaks at every rally also. Same with Obama and Biden. Biden speaks first, then Obama. That is the way they have done it for years. The VP candidate speaks first, then the Pres. candidate when they are at the same venue.
No wonder they don't let her loose with the media.
coached, rehearsed, restrictive and repetitive responses. It's like one of five answers fits all or is interchangeable between questions. How many times did she call him "Charlie?" So watch. Instead of "my friends," she's a first-namer. Did I hear the word nookuler, or am I just imagining that? Shallow. No suprise there.
try not to believe everything the media tells you to....
x
because of lopsided media
nm
But the media, the dems, and
all these Obama supporters just sweep that under a rug. They continue to point fingers and blame others and yet they will take no responsibility at all for what they did. They will not give McCain credit for his warning. They will not admit that they ignored that warning. I'm tired of the media having their nose up Obama's ars. They call McCain a coward for wanting to postpone the debate when it was McCain who was pushing for the debate before until this and now he wants to be in Washington to help find a solution. He wants to put the country first instead of his own personal campaign. To me...this says a lot about McCain and yet the dems and the media can do nothing but downgrade. How in the world are we to have a fair election when the media is so obviously one-sided?
At this point, I really don't know that any candidate can get us out of this mess. I guess I've just lost hope all around. As for all those so-called plans Barry Obama promised.....he can't do a one of them....not that they would have worked in the first place but now it is impossible for him to even try. So now what, Barry? What else are you going to promise you will do that you can't deliver on?
How can she be swayed by the media
when she says she is picking McCain and the media is so far up Uhhhbama's butt that if they opened their mouth, you could see the top of his head.
As for McCain disrespecting woman....that makes no sense. He picks a woman as his VP and that is disrespectful to women? McCain pays his women employees more than Uhhhbama does AND employs more women than Uhhhbama.
media brainwashing
You want to buy a car that costs $45,000 and gets 11 miles to the gallon? You want a $100,000 loan for your kid's college. You want to buy a house that costs $350,000. Because if they don't pass this bill, all of these things will be cheaper and more affordable. And if they pass this bill they will keep house prices the same, the 401Ks the same, gas prices the same, food prices the same, college expenses the same, car prices the same..... Are you getting paid the same or less?
You have to look at who owns the media. sm
All the media is basically owned by 3 huge corporations. They have monopolized everything. The owners are part of the establishment (rich elites). Naturally, they want candidates who will fulfill their agendas so the establishment candidates get all the face time on TV. They marginalize and ignore the rest.
I don't believe everything the media tells me to...
Media causes trouble
I think half the time it is the broadcasting of such statements that prompt people to react in such a way. It's almost like they feel it is expected, so they then act out.
Plus the whole group mentality is freaky. Look at what people do sometimes after big sports events (like college games) ... even the winners. Like a pack of dogs!
or maybe it's just media bias, you think?? nm
nm
I don't think you need to depend on the media
If you lose your job (or don't have any work), if your neighbors lose their jobs; if you can't afford groceries much less health care and if you can't make your house or car note you can be pretty well certain that he is failing. On the other hand if you start seeing all those things going the other way, you can safely conclude that he is succeeding. At some point here common sense has to take over.
Media Malpractice...
Video Exclusive: A Revealing Morning With Sarah Palinby John Ziegler
If someone told me five months ago that in early January I would pay over $1,400 for an incredibly inconvenient plane ticket and $120 for a 3 a.m. cab fare to get from sunny Los Angeles to Wasilla, Alaska, I would have told them there was a better chance the Dow Jones would be below 9,000 and a gallon of gas less than two dollars.
If they would have told me I’d be glad to have made the journey (even with a seven-hour, weather-aided stop in Seattle), I would have told them Sarah Palin had a better chance to be John McCain’s running-mate. Of course, as we all now know this turned out to be true. And even though I still have the flu I got just before the trip, I’m thrilled to have experienced minus-eleven degrees in Alaska.
Obviously, I was there to interview Governor Palin for my forthcoming documentary about the media coverage of election 2008. My understanding is that the only reason Governor Palin did this interview (while rejecting hundreds of other requests) is because of her sincere devotion to setting the record straight on what really happened during the campaign and to determine why the news coverage was as dangerously slanted as it so clearly was.
Largely because of absurd claims by Democrats that she was violating ethics rules by answering campaign questions on state grounds (one of several ways in which the Democrats in Alaska, who used to love her, are now fully invested in the “take Sarah Palin down” industry), we did the interview at the Palin home. At 9 a.m., without a security guard or handler in sight, Bristol Palin, eight days removed from giving birth, politely answered the door and Governor Palin, not yet fully put together, rushed out to tell myself and my crew to make ourselves at home.
One of the things you quickly learn when you visit the Palins is that the legend created around who they are and how they live is no myth. It appears to be absolutely real and everything about them seems 100% sincere. From the stuffed hunting trophies on the wall, to Track’s military photo by the TV set, to Piper’s crayon school projects on the refrigerator door - everything is exactly as you imagined.
What’s particularly valuable about my perspective is that I am not Charlie Gibson, Matt Lauer or Greta Van Susteren (who I understand now gets her mail delivered to the Palin home) — the conductors of the three most prominent interviews done in this Wasilla home on a frozen lake at the end of a drive with the sign “Palins” posted on a tree. I am virtually unknown nationally and there was absolutely no reason for anything to be done differently as “show” for us. We saw the genuine Sarah Palin and it is patently obvious this is the only one who exists.
She is the real deal.
As a former TV sportscaster and radio talk show host I’ve interviewed a lot big-time “celebrities,” and can honestly say that even though you could argue Sarah Palin was the most prominent, she is also by far the nicest, most sincere and seemingly honest subject I’ve ever questioned.
For context, I admit to being a Sarah Palin fan even before she was named John McCain’s VP candidate. I attended her convention speech and consider it by far to be the finest I have ever personally witnessed. But being a world-class cynic I also wondered if maybe there was at least some truth to the negative media narrative created about her. Maybe she really wasn’t that smart, maybe she was indeed a “diva” or a “wack job.” Well, if any of those smears are remotely true, Palin should move to LA permanently because she’s a far better actor (not to mention better looking) than the vast majority of actresses in Hollywood.
Our interview started early and ended late (ask Barbara Walters how often that happens at this level). The Governor fully answered every question, even though some of them brought up media episodes which clearly upset her. When the subject turned to her kids being targeted, she was even a little emotional. She then posed for pictures and signed autographs for the entire crew, and casually discussed all sorts of topics, including how the local newspaper is absurdly still trailing the “story” that her youngest son is not really hers (this, while Todd walked around with Trig on his back and Bristol cared for Trip, her newborn, in a nearby bedroom; even Trig conspiracy theorist Andrew Sullivan would have had a hard time not seeing the insanity in his own delusion).
The madness of the local paper’s efforts to prove Trig is really not Sarah’s baby is not all we learned in post interview conversations. Conservatives will be thrilled to know she immediately “got” and seemed to fully appreciate my joke that Pete Wilson (and not Arnold Schwarzenegger) would go down as the last Republican Governor in the history of California. If that wasn’t enough, when she looked at the back cover of my first film (“Blocking the Path to 9/11” www.blockingthepath.com) and saw the photo of one of the film’s targets, Keith Olbermann, she literally let out a shriek and, pointing to his photograph, declared, “THAT guy is EVIL!”
Beyond the great interview for the film (from which there is still plenty of tremendous stuff yet to come), the most important part of my visit to the Palin home was learning there’s a big difference between thinking something is true and knowing for sure it is. I now know Sarah Palin is exactly who I thought she was.
I also know, with moral certitude, that the media assassination of her, her character and family, was one of the greatest public injustices of our time and that I’m totally justified in devoting my life to correcting the historical record in my forthcoming film, “Media Malpractice… How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Smeared.”
|
