The Palins have been completely left alone. No one has invaded their privacy. No one has attacked the kid that had a baby. All of this persecution is imaginary.
And if one of the Obama girls got pregnant, you can rest assured that Fox News and talk radio would never stop gloating about it.
First of all, cite for that being what the “first report” was? From my reading it lookslike they could just be saying that Reuters first reported that Palin’s daughter was pregnant. It looks like the CBS story was piggy backing on Reuters. I think you’re misreading your own link.
You said that Reuters “removed a report.” Cite? The CBS story doesn’t say that.
Having said all that, so what if Reuters reported that a blogger had made an accusation. Was that not true? How is that an attack?
For arguments sake, let’s concede that the media is purely liberal, Sarah has always been ruthlessly picked on, she is completely sincere in feeling that her family should be off limits, and Trig really is her baby (ha!).
How does one (yea, you all know *which *one) explain the choice to invite TV cameras to follow her and her family around?
Help me understand Sarah, since my feeble reasoning can only conclude that she is an insincere money grubbing attention whore (and worse).
Who is “they?” Andrew Sullivan?
No, it was a request by a conservative blogger that the McCain campaign put an end to the story.
What attackers?
I imagine she would demand total control of editing decisions, and everything filmed would likely be meticulously staged in any case. It’s not like she would allow anything legitimately candid.
I have a question. What negative stories about the Obama family have appeared in media you would consider to be conservative-oriented that have not appeared in mainstream media, which you would consider largely liberal?
Possibly a bit premature. From CNN:
That sounds more reasonable.
Wow! So the media would really do that? I guess that’s settled then. The media are biased because Starving Artist’s imagination says they are.
That’s definitive then.
As long as Palin does some amateur action, I’ll be happy.
Is that the media that employs Palin?
Yes, those ones. The ones that hate Palin and are biased against her, except when they are helping her promote herself by featuring her in a show where she can use her name to help produce and promote the show.
Those bastards!
Aren’t you paying attention? The media that employs Palin doesn’t even make up 5% of the media out there, so they don’t count. The other 95% spend their resources attacking her family on a regular basis.
What would you consider to be a justified attack on her family?
Well that won’t do at all. It’s Palin herself that I want to see boffing, not her family.
Right. Those media are constantly attacking her family. Regularly. Spending their resources to do so. I can’t imagine the horror she must go through, and how she manages to carry on.
I await the mounds of evidence of these merciless continuing attacks.
Well, if her family were shown to be terrorists. Or if someone thought they might be terrorists. Or if they supported terrorists at any point. Or if they lived next door to terrorists.
Really? ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Playboy, Cosmo, The View, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and 95% of Hollywood’s celebrities are all going to do that?
Cool.
And on preview, what woodstockbirdybird said, although “attacking” is probably a little strong for some of the outlets mentioned above. After all, some of these outlets continue to try to put up the pretense of having at least a little journalistic integrity, so instead of attacking Palin outright, they just constantly add little snippets to the continual but subtle and not so subtle media drumbeat of “Look how stupid and backwards Palin and her family are”.
Are you sure about that? I admit I haven’t found a cite that says it’s greater or lesser than 5%…but it’s beating the pants off CNN news these days.
here are some citations, and I’ll try to keep my sources fair & balanced:
[QUOTE=Wikipeda]
For the year 2009 Fox News had the highest ratings in its history, topping its cable news competition in all day parts and seeing double-digit gains for all of its programs.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Economist]
THE “fair and balanced” network is heading for its best year of ratings ever, averaging 2.1m viewers while CNN plunges to 805,000 and MSNBC rises to 787,000.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NY Times as quoted in Conservapedia]
At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined. The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates.
[/QUOTE]
I think the complaint that Fox is a minor player rings a little hollow.
Is it possible Palin ain’t easy to make look smart? Is anything bad about her “liberal media,” or is it possible just “information that doesn’t make her look good”?