Rachel Maddow & US Magazine: Mighty Quick to Report Palin Jokes As News

[astorian]

This is getting to be a trend- some left-wing satirist writes a joke story in which Sarah Palin says or does something demented, and someone in the mainstream media eagerly repeats the story without making the slightest effort to find out if it’s true.

Rachel Maddow picked up a satirical piece by ChristWire.org, a piece in which Palin was about to call publicly for a U.S. invasion of Egypt, and broadcast it as fact.

For an alleged Rhodes Scholar, that wasn’t very smart, was it? But instead of apologizing profusely, for admitting she was either unforgivably stupid, unforgivably lazy, or too blinded by Palin-hate to question an implausible story, Maddow did what liberals usually do: she excused her own stupidity and indirectly blamed her goof on Palin. After all, everybody knows that Sarah Palin is a dangerous loon, so how was Rachel supposed to tell truth from comical distortion?

Now, US Magazine has published another satirical story about Palin as fact: without bothering to check, they stole a story from a satirical web site. This time, the joke story alleged that Sarah Palin was pushing to have Christina Aguilera deported for her botched rendition of the National Anthem.

Again, no fact checking. None. Everybody knows Palin is a stupid racist, so why bother checking a fishy story? That just SOUNDS like the kind of thing Palin’s enemies KNOW she’d say, and isn’t that enough to justify running a phony story?

Just a thought, Lefties in the media… maybe, just MAYBE, you could wait until Sarah Palin actually says or does something newsworthy before you write about it. Hmm?

[Hamlet]

Good Pit thread.

[Procrustus]

Just a thought, Lefties in the media… maybe, just MAYBE, you could wait until Sarah Palin actually says or does something newsworthy before you write about it. Hmm?"

Has she ever done anything newsworthy?

[Der_Trihs]

A combination of Poe’s Law and modern media laziness. Pretty much any accusation of stupidity or craziness is plausible when applied to someone like Palin, and the modern mainstream media typically doesn’t really care if something is true or not as long as it gets them viewers/sales. They’ve no pride in their work anymore, it’s all capitalism.

[Lobohan]

@astorian

This is getting to be a trend- some left-wing satirist writes a joke story in which Sarah Palin says or does something demented, and someone in the mainstream media eagerly repeats the story without making the slightest effort to find out if it’s true.

Rachel Maddow picked up a satirical piece by ChristWire.org, a piece in which Palin was about to call publicly for a U.S. invasion of Egypt, and broadcast it as fact.

For an alleged Rhodes Scholar, that wasn’t very smart, was it? But instead of apologizing profusely, for admitting she was either unforgivably stupid, unforgivably lazy, or too blinded by Palin-hate to question an implausible story, Maddow did what liberals usually do: she excused her own stupidity and indirectly blamed her goof on Palin. After all, everybody knows that Sarah Palin is a dangerous loon, so how was Rachel supposed to tell truth from comical distortion?

Now, US Magazine has published another satirical story about Palin as fact: without bothering to check, they stole a story from a satirical web site. This time, the joke story alleged that Sarah Palin was pushing to have Christina Aguilera deported for her botched rendition of the National Anthem.

Again, no fact checking. None. Everybody knows Palin is a stupid racist, so why bother checking a fishy story? That just SOUNDS like the kind of thing Palin’s enemies KNOW she’d say, and isn’t that enough to justify running a phony story?

Just a thought, Lefties in the media… maybe, just MAYBE, you could wait until Sarah Palin actually says or does something newsworthy before you write about it. Hmm?

Maddow retracted it and explained how they were confused. That seems like the correct thing to do, doesn’t it?

Again, the problem is that the far right is full of ignorant, idiots. Maddow got pulled in by Poe’s Law is all.

Edit: Ninjaed!

[spifflog]

@Lobohan

Maddow retracted it and explained how they were confused. That seems like the correct thing to do, doesn’t it?

No, it doesn’t seem like the correct thing to do.

The correct think it to not report it if you’re not sure it’s correct. Or use the same “test” for a “far right wing” pol as you would for a “far left wing” pol.

[Der_Trihs]

@spifflog

Or use the same “test” for a “far right wing” pol as you would for a “far left wing” pol.

There aren’t any of the latter to apply any “tests” to, not in America.

[spifflog]

@Der_Trihs

There aren’t any of the latter to apply any “tests” to, not in America.

There aren’t any left wing politicians in America?

[Gyrate]

The media just reports any damn thing that comes into someone’s inbox. Doesn’t anyone factcheck these days?

spifflog: Dennis Kucinich maybe. Certainly not the vast majority of Democrats.

[Der_Trihs]

@spifflog

There aren’t any left wing politicians in America?

We have the far right Republicans and the moderate right Democrats. The left is essentially nonexistent.

[Chronos]

Well, there is Bernie Sanders. And Dennis Kucinich, I suppose.

[Tyrrell_McAllister]

Can you provide a cite for the claim that Maddow “broadcast[ed] it as fact” that “Palin was about to call publicly for a U.S. invasion of Egypt”?

This seems to be the segment that you’re referring to. In the clip, all Maddow claims is that ChristWire.org called for Palin to call for an invasion. And, indeed, ChristWire.org did call for Palin to do this, albeit satirically.

[furt]

@Gyrate

The media just reports any damn thing that comes into someone’s inbox.

That’s pretty much it. “Someone said it, and it sounds good, and it fits my preconceptions. Run it!”

[Cort]

Meh, easy mistake to make. It’s exactly the kind of deadbrained fuckwittery Quitter Palin would come out with.

[Deeg]

@Cort

Meh, easy mistake to make. It’s exactly the kind of deadbrained fuckwittery Quitter Palin would come out with.

That’s a lame deadbrained fuckwittery excuse for a journalist.

[pulykamell]

@Cort

Meh, easy mistake to make. It’s exactly the kind of deadbrained fuckwittery Quitter Palin would come out with.

Speaking as a left winger myself, that is not an acceptable excuse. The media needs to check do their homework and not report on every rumor that crosses their desks without validating it for themselves. I mean, for fuck’s sake, that sort of story wouldn’t fly in my journalism classes–why I should I not hold the media to the same standards I would hold myself to?

[MsWhatsit]

Nitpick: Maddow is not an alleged Rhodes scholar. She is an actual Rhodes scholar. (That site took forever to load for me, so if anyone else has similar problems I can tell you that it is an official list of all Rhodes scholars, and Maddow is on it.)

[Crawlspace]

@astorian

Rachel Maddow picked up a satirical piece by ChristWire.org, a piece in which Palin was about to call publicly for a U.S. invasion of Egypt, and broadcast it as fact.

For an alleged Rhodes Scholar, that wasn’t very smart, was it? But instead of apologizing profusely, for admitting she was either unforgivably stupid, unforgivably lazy, or too blinded by Palin-hate to question an implausible story, Maddow did what liberals usually do: she excused her own stupidity and indirectly blamed her goof on Palin. After all, everybody knows that Sarah Palin is a dangerous loon, so how was Rachel supposed to tell truth from comical distortion?

This is not true.

The piece in question never directly quoted Palin and Maddow made it explicitly clear that these were not Palin’s ideas, but rather a suggestion to Palin made by someone they (the show) thought was loony. It came at the end of piece on some of the more absurd analysis of the turmoil in Egypt and used this as an example of the most absurd they could find.

The following day they admitted that the piece was absurd because it was a brilliant piece of satire and they were ashamed of having believed it. Having never offended Palin in the first place there was no need to apologize to her and in no way used her as an excuse for their own goof. The only thing you could possibly construe as weaselly is her claim that a world full of Glen Beck style “analysis” has blurred the line between reality and satire.

Please heed your own advice and verify information before posting it as fact.

[Wheelz]

Not that I’m excusing Maddow’s sloppy journalism (if indeed that’s what it was), but I don’t think it’s fair to single her out for this. It’s not exactly unprecedented for cable news talking heads on the left and the right to spout whatever stupid crap will make the other side look bad. In fact, I’ve never before heard of any of them admitting to it, so 1 point Maddow.

And US Magazine? Really?? Not exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity to begin with, unless you really need to know the latest on the Jennifer/Angelina feud.

[GIGObuster]

@Lobohan

Maddow retracted it and explained how they were confused. That seems like the correct thing to do, doesn’t it?

Now that on air retraction is commendable, compare that with Mr. “I’m never wrong” O’Rilley:

http://www.newshounds.us/2011/01/28/bill_oreilly_wants_to_know_how_the_moon_got_here.php

In attempting to argue with an atheist who claims that religion is a “scam,” noted theologian Bill O’Reilly challenged Rob Silverman with a question about the tides. O’Reilly said “I’ll tell you why [religion’s] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that.” When Silverman repeated Bill’s comment about the tides, Bill, obviously not familiar with the gravitional pull of the moon, said “See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can’t explain that.” Bill was appropriately pilloried by those who live in the reality based community and lampooned by Steven Colbert who consulted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson regarding the science of the tides.

In his “I was still correct in a way” explanation he launched the dare of "“then how did the moon “got here?” [you pinheads]”

Well Bill, lets Pierre-Simon Laplace from the 19th century (yes, ever since then) explain it to you:

Pierre-Simon Laplace

Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. (“I had no need of that hypothesis.”)