The all-too predictable NY Times hit piece on Palin

Rick Moran
The Times gave it the full treatment; front page above the fold, ominous headlines, and a completely misleading lede.

In a 4500 word hit peice, the Times blows many things out of proportion while minimizing or dismissing Palin's accomplishments. Jennifer Rubin has read it and analyzed it so that you don't
have to:


In just the first few paragraphs you have testimony that she was "effective and accessible." So where are we going here? Well, despite the testimony that she was "accessible," others find her "secretive" and inclined to put a premium on "loyalty." The evidence? The Governor's office declined a request for emails that would have cost over $400,000. Proof positive. Oh, and the records sought (about Polar Bears and such) were in fact obtained.

Then there is the " she blurs personal and public behavior" charge. The evidence? A phone call from Todd Palin to a state legislator about the latter's chief of staff, which Palin denies was mentioned. Pretty thin gruel.

Next we have her tenure as mayor, where again all heck breaks loose because - are ya sitting down? - she brought in her own team. No! Unheard of. Jeeez. Next she'll be firing the town museum director. Oh no- it's true! Palin says ("Oh yeah, she says," you can hear the Times reporters hrrumphing) she was cutting the budget.

This is pathetic, really. Is there something illegal here? Is there something nefarious? What is the point?

The "point," Jennifer, is to hint at wrongdoing, stretch the truth, exaggerate the negative, and hope that those few Times readers who aren't aware of their shocking bias will be disposed to think ill of Mrs. Palin.

But Rubin identifies the real problem with the article; there simply isn't anything of substance that the reporters can point to that either disqualifies Mrs. Palin from high office or even makes her appear different than many politicians and, in some areas, shows her in a better light than most.

With so many reporters prowling around Wasilla and Anchorage, if this is the best the Times can do, Palin doesn't have much to worry about.
The Times gave it the full treatment; front page above the fold, ominous headlines, and a completely misleading lede.

In a 4500 word hit peice, the Times blows many things out of proportion while minimizing or dismissing Palin's accomplishments. Jennifer Rubin has read it and analyzed it so that you don't
have to:


In just the first few paragraphs you have testimony that she was "effective and accessible." So where are we going here? Well, despite the testimony that she was "accessible," others find her "secretive" and inclined to put a premium on "loyalty." The evidence? The Governor's office declined a request for emails that would have cost over $400,000. Proof positive. Oh, and the records sought (about Polar Bears and such) were in fact obtained.

Then there is the " she blurs personal and public behavior" charge. The evidence? A phone call from Todd Palin to a state legislator about the latter's chief of staff, which Palin denies was mentioned. Pretty thin gruel.

Next we have her tenure as mayor, where again all heck breaks loose because - are ya sitting down? - she brought in her own team. No! Unheard of. Jeeez. Next she'll be firing the town museum director. Oh no- it's true! Palin says ("Oh yeah, she says," you can hear the Times reporters hrrumphing) she was cutting the budget.

This is pathetic, really. Is there something illegal here? Is there something nefarious? What is the point?

The "point," Jennifer, is to hint at wrongdoing, stretch the truth, exaggerate the negative, and hope that those few Times readers who aren't aware of their shocking bias will be disposed to think ill of Mrs. Palin.

But Rubin identifies the real problem with the article; there simply isn't anything of substance that the reporters can point to that either disqualifies Mrs. Palin from high office or even makes her appear different than many politicians and, in some areas, shows her in a better light than most.

With so many reporters prowling around Wasilla and Anchorage, if this is the best the Times can do, Palin doesn't have much to worry about.