Palin acts as if the media scrutiny of her book is totally unprecedented but also totally predictable. In that case, why didn’t she have her own team of fact-checkers combing through the manuscript? Why didn’t her publisher? Why did she let such easily-debunked bullshit get into the text when she knew the “liberal media” was going to call her on it?
It’s true that the fact-checking article is bigger news than other such articles have been about other people. There are two reasons for that: first, the election made her into a bona-fide celebrity in a way that most politicians aren’t (much to McCain’s chagrin, I’m sure), and second, because they found so much bullshit. “Nancy Pelosi’s book largely free of factual error” is hardly a page one story.
So I agree with Palin on that point: a big media fact-checking story about her book was completely predictable. She could have accepted this and gone the extra mile to make her book as truthful as possible, or she could have left in the bullshit and used the resulting media frenzy as an excuse to turn on the butthurt*. I’m not really surprised by which way she went.
Yeah, I know the word has been pitted, but it’s just such a perfect descriptor for Palin’s shtick.
Because fact-checking gives her one more thing to whine about. “Waahh! They’re being mean to me!” To which her following responds with, “That’s OK, Sarah! We still love you!” That’s what she wants.
Keep in mind that, clinically or not, she’s one hell of a narcissist. When she spouts bullshit in her book and gets called on it, it’s not her fault for lying. It’s the fault of the biased liberal media who hates her and wants to see her fail. To which her following responds with, “That’s OK, Sarah! We still love you!”
Politifact are currently picking through it, although it looks like much of the same stuff as in the AP article. Note that where she gets it right, she gets credit for it.
When The Audacity of Hope came out, Obama was both nationally recognized (as I mentioned, the title of the book is the same as the title of the speech he gave at the DNC national convention, and he was a Senator) and he announced his candidacy a few months after the release of the book which was a statement of his campaign themes.
Are you claiming that Sarah Pallin has announced for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency? If so, cite please.
So, a prominent national figure, widely expected to be a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate, puts out a book. In one case, the AP assigns a whole team to fact-check the book and instantly releases an opinion piece attacking it. In the other, nothing. Funny how that works.
Good point. I mean, I became aware that she was BSing by using my clairvoyant time-travel vision (a power we evidently have in common), but it would have been nice if the media had said something so that other people could have found it out, too…
Not fair. During the campaign, when she was in strong contention for the nomination, it became clear she was willing to play a bit loose with the truth. At that point, it seems her books could have been subjected to the fine-tooth comb treatment, no clairvoyant time-travel vision needed.
But yeah, since we both have it, how 'bout that Game 6 of the 2010 World Series? Was that an amazing ninth inning or what?
Well, she had, just not recently. It Takes A Village came out in, what, 1999? I mean, I don’t see why anyone would go back and fact-check a 9-year-old book, but hey…
But when the book actually came out, he was not a candidate. And he certainly had a lot less popular name recognition back in 2006 than Sarah Palin does now. I really don’t see how you can tap-dance your way around the fundamental fact that the author of the brand-new book The Audacity of Hope back in 2006 had a far less newsworthy public persona than the author of the brand-new book Going Rogue does right now.
Um, yes. You may have missed it, but it happened back in summer 2008. She’s not running for national office at the moment (yet?), but she certainly is a universally known media megastar precisely on account of her record as a Vice-Presidential candidate.
C’mon Shodan, you’re really stretching a point here. The difference in newsworthiness between Obama in 2006 and Palin in 2009, on account of their difference in exposure in national campaigns at those respective times, is real and substantial. It certainly deserves to be considered as a factor in the difference in the media response to the appearance of their books.
And that’s not even taking into consideration Palin’s widespread reputation as a bumbler and prevaricator, who is considered untrustworthy and a liar even by many of her fellow Republicans.
Mind you, I’m not asserting that there can’t possibly have been any animus against Palin personally operating in the decision to put out a news article on the errors in her book. It’s well-known that Palin has a tense, not to say dysfunctional, relationship with the media, and she (unlike McCain, for example) probably has few fans among professional journalists.
But I think that Palin’s defenders, in their haste to lay claim to the victim label by attributing this fact-checking article solely to anti-Palin and/or anti-conservative media bias, are losing sight of some pretty obvious facts.
Clinton’s written two books (It Takes a Village in 1996 and Living History in 2003), and neither was very new by the time she declared for the nomination. It’s standard for candidates to put out a book as they are running, or preparing to run. Most of these are ignored. Did anybody here read Four Trials by John Edwards or G.W. Bush’s A Charge to Keep? Does anyone remember major press coverage of those books?
When the politician is famous enough, his or her writings will be scrutinized. The question isn’t “Why Not Obama?” it’s “Why Palin?” And the answer, basically, is that she’s Palin. She’s enough of a known entity that everything she says and does is colored by her pre-existing reputation. Obama wasn’t a nobody in 2006 and there is no reason his book couldn’t have been subject to similar fact checking, but it’s also a fact that he didn’t have that kind of profile.
I think it is perfectly non-hypocritical to be ok with a non-factchecking of Obama’s book(on which we have no evidence either way) and to think it’s appropriate(or at least a natural consequence) to see Palin’s book fact-checked. The factor which makes this a possibility for me is the respective individual’s relationship with the media. Palin’s book is reportedly a sort of memoir about her experience on the campaign trail. Numerous times it includes criticism of the media coverage, and the organizations which covered her. Obama’s book, again reportedly, I haven’t read it, doesn’t have such comments.
You throw rocks at the media in your book, expect them to throw rocks back. There’s nothing hypocritical about that in the least.