The media firestorm in response to Sen. John McCain's vice presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, has been, for the most part, shameful. Fueled by left-wing blogs and the rumor mill, the talking heads on most networks and in the papers are discussing various memes, half-truths and falsehoods about the former mayor of Wasilla that reflect poorly on the likes of CNN and the New York Times.
The most disturbing lie that was floated began on the fringe DailyKos Web site, where an anonymous blogger suggested that Palin's infant son, Trig, could actually be the son of Palin's oldest daughter Bristol. The blogger used family pictures to "prove" the 17-year-old Bristol was pregnant, even going to the depths of scrutinizing the size and shape of her stomach.
Once-respectable bloggers like Andrew Sullivan picked up the story, and soon the template was set for the networks to start asking the question seriously. It was revealed later that the pictures used were dated from 2006, and Trig Palin was born in April 2008. On Monday, Palin released the information that Bristol is five months pregnant, further debunking the lie that the Palins had deliberately misled the country and the McCain campaign about Trig's motherhood.
The scrutiny that has been placed on Palin's daughter (who is, by the way, not a candidate) was visibly absent when revelations about former presidential candidate John Edwards's indiscretions arose. While the National Enquirer insisted their story on Edwards was solid, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and other papers declined to cover it. This made these papers look foolish after Edwards came forward to admit he had had an extramarital affair.
How did the decision makers at these media outlets determine the Enquirer was less of a reliable source than one left-wing blogger? The double standard in media coverage is despicable, and leaves many questions open. In the coverage of Palin, is the media motivated by partisanship, sexism or simply a lack of credible ammunition to discredit a surprise vice-presidential pick?
Journalists should focus on Palin's policies, her positions, and her politics. Coming across a juicy story with innuendos is no justification for poor journalism. Ideology and partisanship have their place, but facts should always prevail.
Gov. Palin's Family
While intrusive journalism tactics are often unpalatable, let us not forget that Gov. Palin uses her family to leverage her own political fortunes. She uses her son to connect with grieving military mothers, she uses her husband and many children as examples of her commitment to family values, and she has no qualms about placing her family on the stage at the RNC. If she decides to use her own family as political capital, to more richly craft her narrative, in the hopes of securing political office, then how legitimate are her, or your, complaints. She says that her family is her base and a source of inspiration; Do we, as voters, not have the right to see what exactly inspires her, especially when she places the spotlight on them as squarely as any journalist?
Also, as a side point, I agree that the media should focus on the facts and policy. However, after watching Gov. Palin's speech, perhaps you should pass that advice along to her.
Sarah Palin
You mention "various memes, half-truths, and falsehoods" yet give only one example, which the candidate herself cited as the reason for revealing her daughter's pregnancy. What are the other "memes, half-truths, and falsehoods" exactly? This just sounds like another feeble attack on the messenger to distract from the blatant failings and questionable history of a weak candidate. In the era of Karl Rove politics, why would we get honest academic discourse, even at the esteemed Vanderbilt University? This just seems to be more partisan-driven hackery.
out of curiosity
Did the LA Times or NY Times report on the story concerning Bristol as Trig's mother, before Monday's press release by the Palin family that Bristol is pregnant?