Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

hyteckit · Nov 17, 2009, 05:18 PM

Remember how Sarah Palin criticizes Hillary Clinton when ask about then Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's complaints about perceived unfair media bias against her?

PALIN: Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. I mean you gotta plow through that. You have to know what you're gettin' into, which --- I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton, and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo also --- but when I hear a statement like that, coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think 'Man, that doesn't do us any good'. Women in politics, women in general, wanting to progress this country, I don't think it bodes well for her, a statement like that.

Palin angered by 'sexist' Newsweek cover - Yahoo! News

Yes Sarah Palin. Shut up cause you are doing women a disservice by bitching about sexism.

The Final Dakar · Nov 17, 2009, 05:21 PM

I don't understand how that photo is sexist.

Warren Pease · Nov 17, 2009, 05:23 PM

Service, Disservice, it doesn't matter.

Hey! Look at who's in the headlines! Hey! Look!

SpaceMonkey · Nov 17, 2009, 05:24 PM

Nice gams.

Dork. · Nov 17, 2009, 05:33 PM

Reading the article, I do think it's a bit disingenuous that Newsweek used a picture taken from an older photoshoot for a magazine that has nothing to do with politics, or her book, for the cover. Newsweek's excuse that "it was simply the most interesting picture" sounds kind of inane. When Bill Clinton came out with his book, I'm willing to bet that Newsweek didn't use a photo of him in jogging shorts on the cover that week. (If Newsweek wanted to do a photoshoot with Palin and she had refused, I could at least understand why they were combing through old photos.)

But the OP is right about the hypocrisy coming from Palin. I wonder if she even listens to herself sometimes.

OAW · Nov 17, 2009, 05:38 PM

First of all .... Sarah Palin was the one who took the picture. She was the one who chose to strike the "beauty pageant" pose ... even though it was for a "running magazine". And make no mistake about it .... the woman wouldn't be nearly as high profile as she is today if it wasn't for her good looks. She has a valid point when she says the photo being put on the cover of Newsweek now that her book is being released is "out of context". That clearly is the case. But "sexist"? Not so much.

OAW

turtle777 · Nov 17, 2009, 05:40 PM

She's better looking than Hillary.

That's what counts.

-t

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2009, 05:52 PM

What does a photo for a fitness magazine have to do with the story? Does Newsweek have a plausible answer for this?

besson3c · Nov 17, 2009, 05:53 PM

It is a little sexist. How often do you come across magazine covers of male politicians that are designed to titillate the senses?

hyteckit · Nov 17, 2009, 05:55 PM

I agree that the photo not appropriate for the cover because Sarah Palin wants to be portray as a serious politician, not an athlete.

If Sarah Palin was some sort of well known fitness guru, runner, or athlete, then the photo would be appropriate.

However, there is nothing sexist about it.

Newsweek just doesn't think Sarah Palin is a serious politician.

Maybe Newsweek is suggesting Sarah Palin should write a book and go on tour, or maybe write a bought on eating healthy and staying fit.

besson3c · Nov 17, 2009, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I agree that the photo not appropriate for the cover because Sarah Palin wants to be portray as a serious politician, not an athlete.

If Sarah Palin was some sort of well known fitness guru, runner, or athlete, then the photo would be appropriate.

However, there is nothing sexist about it.

Newsweek just doesn't think Sarah Palin is a serious politician.

Maybe Newsweek is suggesting Sarah Palin should write a book and go on tour, or maybe write a bought on eating healthy and staying fit.

How often do you come across magazine covers of male politicians that are designed to titillate the senses? Maybe the photo just doesn't arouse you in any way?

hyteckit · Nov 17, 2009, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

How often do you come across magazine covers of male politicians that are designed to titillate the senses? Maybe the photo just doesn't arouse you in any way?

It's a cute picture. Seems like it was nicely photographed.

But I'm not into older women. Sarah Palin doesn't do it for me.

Carrie Prejean on the other hand is one hot lady.

SpaceMonkey · Nov 17, 2009, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Carrie Prejean on the other hand is one hot lady.

Thus automatically making her political opinions more interesting.

hyteckit · Nov 17, 2009, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Thus automatically making her political opinions more interesting.

Only reason why Carrie Prejean's 15 minutes of fame has lasted so long.

besson3c · Nov 17, 2009, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

It's a cute picture. Seems like it was nicely photographed.

But I'm not into older women. Sarah Palin doesn't do it for me.

Carrie Prejean on the other hand is one hot lady.

It doesn't do much for me either, but it seems designed to get some people hot and bothered, just as showing that topless picture of Barack Obama on a cover would probably get a lot of women, gay men, and Turtle hot and bothered too.

Because this cover was chosen for her and the latter sort of photo for Obama still considered pretty unprecedented for a male politician, I agree with Palin that this is sexist.

Funny that, huh? Me agreeing with Palin?

SpaceMonkey · Nov 17, 2009, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Only reason why Carrie Prejean's 15 minutes of fame has lasted so long.

We'll get an idea of how long Levi Johnston's fame will last once we get a better look at that Playgirl issue.

hyteckit · Nov 17, 2009, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

We'll get an idea of how long Levi Johnston's fame will last once we get a better look at that Playgirl issue.

Haha...

I think it's depend more on how much gossip or juice Levi has on Palin more than the length of Levi Johnston's "fame".

olePigeon · Nov 17, 2009, 06:41 PM

Ian: Bobbi, Bobbi, can I tear you away from all of this?
Bobbi: Do you have a drink? Everything ok?
Ian: No, I don't, I don't really need one. But, listen, um...I really, I really do have to talk to you a bit about this, uh....
Bobbi: Ian, come on, tell me whatever is on your mind....
Ian: ...this whole issue of the, uh...the issue of the cover.
Bobbi: Yeah.
Ian: ...uh, we feel, I mean, we feel and it seems to be facts that, uh...the company is rather down on the cover. Is that the case?
Bobbi: Yes.
Ian: You can give it to me straight, you know.
Bobbi: Listen umm... they don't like the cover, they don't like the cover.
Ian: Uh huh, well that is certainly straight.
Bobbi: They find it very offensive and very sexist.
Ian: Well what exactly...do you find offensive, I mean, what's offensive?
Bobbi: Ian, you put a greased naked woman...
Ian: Yes...
Bobbi: ..on all fours...
Ian: Yes.
Bobbi: ...with a dog collar around her neck...
Ian: ...with a dog collar...
Bobbi: ...and a leash...
Ian: ...and a leash...
Bobbi: ...and a man's arm extended out up to here holding on to the leash and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that offensive, you don't find that sexist?
Ian: No I don't, this is 1982, Bobbi, come on.

stupendousman · Nov 17, 2009, 09:47 PM

Who really takes anything Newsweek says or does seriously these days? The cover is a prime example as to why the magazine is a joke. I might as well read the American Spectator to get the facts.

Wiskedjak · Nov 17, 2009, 11:16 PM

Does this photo make sense on the cover of Newsweek? None what-so-ever when there are gazillions of Sarah Palin photos available. Clearly it was chosen to show what Newsweek thinks of Palin as a politician.

But, is the photo "sexist"? That's a little trickier, since "sexist" is a very subjective term. *I* think it's a very tasteful photo and doesn't objectify women in any way. Clearly, Sarah Palin *also* thinks it's a tasteful photo, otherwise she wouldn't have authorized it's previous use. Can such a photo be tasteful in one use and not in another? I'm not sure.

CreepDogg · Nov 17, 2009, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

How often do you come across magazine covers of male politicians that are designed to titillate the senses? Maybe the photo just doesn't arouse you in any way?

ebuddy · Nov 18, 2009, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Who really takes anything Newsweek says or does seriously these days? The cover is a prime example as to why the magazine is a joke. I might as well read the American Spectator to get the facts.

It was clearly intended as a hack job on Palin. It's shameless as usual. They could've found any one of a thousand photos of Palin without choosing the one that has the absolute least relevance to the article inside. Newsweek is illustrative of the overall condition of journalism in this country. DOA

stupendousman · Nov 18, 2009, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It was clearly intended as a hack job on Palin. It's shameless as usual. They could've found any one of a thousand photos of Palin without choosing the one that has the absolute least relevance to the article inside. Newsweek is illustrative of the overall condition of journalism in this country. DOA

True. Though I think it signals something else: their absolute fear of Palin.

I don't think that they'd go to that effort, and pretty much show the degree of their shamelessness without thinking that it's a "worthy cause."

I think the cover is sexist because this is supposed to be a "news" magazine and they would likely never put a similar male politician on their cover posed the same way. This isn't the same as Hillary crying because she thinks they are picking on her because she's a girl, even though no one ever mentioned it or brought focus to her gender.

I won't say that I think that Palin is the best candidate for political office we have, or could get - (though she was clearly the best out of what we had to choose from last election) and I think that scares the living crap out of liberals and some moderates who want to impress their liberal friends.

IOW, I expect bigger and better things for Palin if for no other reason than the left has signaled she's a power to be reckoned with.

BadKosh · Nov 18, 2009, 08:54 AM

You libs just can't stand Sarah Palin. Same for Glen Beck. It's so funny to see the idiot discussions go on page after page as you twist in the wind. LOL. Newsweak has to sell magazines somehow. I guess its a hit piece no one will read, but just look at the cover.

stupendousman · Nov 18, 2009, 12:54 PM

In other news, the Associated Press has decided to get in on the shameless bias train wreck, sacrificing what little respect they have in order to play "gotcha" on Palin:

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check' - FOXNews.com

For instance, when Palin claimed that she didn't often stay at pricey hotels, AP thought it worth correction when they found a single incident where she did so.

How many facts did they need to correct in Biden and Obama's books?

When Obama was on national television being asked about what he thought about the "Bush Doctrine", what was his response?

When Obama was condescendingly asked what specific books or magazines he read to keep up on current events, what was his response?

When Newsweek, Time, etc. put a racy picture of Obama on its cover with some really negative headline, how did his people respond?

Anyone have any answers here?

Laminar · Nov 18, 2009, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

In other news, the Associated Press has decided to get in on the shameless bias train wreck, sacrificing what little respect they have in order to play "gotcha" on Palin:

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check' - FOXNews.com

For instance, when Palin claimed that she didn't often stay at pricey hotels, AP thought it worth correction when they found a single incident where she did so.

How many facts did they need to correct in Biden and Obama's books?

When Obama was on national television being asked about what he thought about the "Bush Doctrine", what was his response?

When Obama was condescendingly asked what specific books or magazines he read to keep up on current events, what was his response?

When Newsweek, Time, etc. put a racy picture of Obama on its cover with some really negative headline, how did his people respond?

Anyone have any answers here?

You forgot to mention the part where Obama ACTUALLY, REALLY, SUPER-REALLY DOES BELIEVE that there are 57 states in the US.

Laminar · Nov 18, 2009, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Newsweak has to sell magazines somehow. I guess its a hit piece no one will read, but just look at the cover.

CreepDogg · Nov 18, 2009, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

In other news, the Associated Press has decided to get in on the shameless bias train wreck, sacrificing what little respect they have in order to play "gotcha" on Palin:

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check' - FOXNews.com

From the linked article at Fox news...

Originally Posted by Fox News

The attraction to Palin doesn't appear to be partisan, since AP didn't fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.

Maybe they use fact-checking only on people who have a reputation of playing loosey-goosey with facts? Perhaps the 'bias' is toward those who are trustworthy, rather than partisan?

And if you don't trust Obama/Biden/whoever with facts, feel free to hire your own 11 reporters to check up on them. No one is stopping you. I'm sure there are plenty of teabaggers who would be more than willing to pay to subscribe to your content.

SpaceMonkey · Nov 18, 2009, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

Maybe they use fact-checking only on people who have a reputation of playing loosey-goosey with facts? Perhaps the 'bias' is toward those who are trustworthy, rather than partisan?

I think it's also because it was widely assumed prior to the book's release that Palin would be taking some shots at the McCain campaign which would be disputed by others, leading to a natural opportunity to fact-check one argument against another.

andi*pandi · Nov 18, 2009, 01:39 PM

I bet the fact-checking had more to do with the SNL brouhaha than anything.

And I also bet that this was some poor shmo in the art department being told, no, you can't use any of the campaign photos, and she didn't authorize a new shoot, and we don't want to give her free book publicity by using that cover... so go in grab some stock photo that no one has seen much of.

The photo is not sexist. She approved it, she posed for it, it's tasteful and not demeaning. Is it appropriate for the purpose? Maybe not.

But why waste so much time on such a trivial detail? Everyone back to the Playgirl thread.

The Final Dakar · Nov 18, 2009, 01:39 PM

Eh, I can believe the media is being more aggressive in its fact checking against Palin. However, that doesn't mean her embellishments aren't embellishments just because they make more of an effort to discover them. (i.e., "She's being persecuted" is not a valid defense)

lpkmckenna · Nov 18, 2009, 01:46 PM

Sarah Palin is a whiner.

OAW · 01:57 PM

It seems to me that if Sarah Palin's book contains actual "facts" then she has no need to worry about the AP doing a "fact check". The "they didn't send 11 reporters to fact check Obama" argument is very grade school at best. It's like when one Kid A hits Kid B and Kid B hits back. Kid B is actually seen by the teacher and sent to the principal's office. Kid A gets away with it because he wasn't caught. Then Kid B goes "But you didn't send Kid A to the principal's office!". Hanging his hat on that point when the fact remains that had he not hit Kid A in the first place he wouldn't be in the principal's office at all.

My prediction is that this is a "preemptive strike" on the part of Sarah Palin because she knows some of her claims aren't going to hold up. So she plays the "victim card" and accuses the "liberal media" of doing "gotcha journalism" against her in a way that they didn't do against Obama et al. Just a classic use of the "change the subject" strategy that's often employed when the facts don't support your position. And her constituency will eat it up.

OAW

PS: And did she just call Obama's economic policy "Backasswards"? She apparently can't even get her colloquialisms right.

CreepDogg · Nov 18, 2009, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

It seems to me that if Sarah Palin's book contains actual "facts" then she has no need to worry about the AP doing a "fact check". The "they didn't send 11 reporters to fact check Obama" argument is very grade school at best. It's like when one Kid A hits Kid B and Kid B hits back. Kid B is actually seen by the teacher and sent to the principal's office. Kid A gets away with it because he wasn't caught. Then Kid B goes "But you didn't send Kid A to the principal's office!". Hanging his hat on that point when the fact remains that had he not hit Kid A in the first place he wouldn't be in the principal's office at all.

My prediction is that this is a "preemptive strike" on the part of Sarah Palin because she knows some of her claims aren't going to hold up. So she plays the "victim card" and accuses the "liberal media" of doing "gotcha journalism" against her in a way that they didn't do against Obama et al. Just a classic use of the "change the subject" strategy that's often employed when the facts don't support your position. And her constituency will eat it up.

OAW

True. 'Gotcha journalism' is only effective when there are some meaty 'gotchas' to be had. If Sarah is worried about 'gotcha journalism', then I'd recommend she strengthen her positions so she can't get 'got'.

sek929 · Nov 18, 2009, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

It's so funny to see the idiot discussions go on page after page as you twist in the wind.

Like all the twisting you've been doing for god knows how long in the Al Gore thread? I agree.

OAW · Nov 18, 2009, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

True. 'Gotcha journalism' is only effective when there are some meaty 'gotchas' to be had. If Sarah is worried about 'gotcha journalism', then I'd recommend she strengthen her positions so she can't get 'got'.

But that would be too much like right.

OAW

olePigeon · Nov 18, 2009, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

PS: And did she just call Obama's economic policy "Backasswards"? She apparently can't even get her colloquialisms right.

I just wanna hear her say "colloquialism."

turtle777 · Nov 18, 2009, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

PS: And did she just call Obama's economic policy "Backasswards"? She apparently can't even get her colloquialisms right.

Sure she didn't say Bassackwards ?

-t

OAW · Nov 18, 2009, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Sure she didn't say Bassackwards ?

-t

Not according to all the news reports. They all list her saying backasswards ...

palin backassward - Google Search

And given the nasal sound of her voice, I can imagine it sounded even worse than it reads.

OAW

hyteckit · Nov 18, 2009, 06:24 PM

I hate back ass warts. It's such a turn off.

OAW · Nov 18, 2009, 06:39 PM

Sarah Palin is quite an interesting figure. She's definitely a political force to be reckoned with. But that certainly doesn't preclude her from also being pretty clueless on policy issues. Take for instance her recent comments to Barbara Walters on the Obama administration's (half-assed) demand that Israel halt settlement activities in the Palestinian territories:

Originally Posted by Sarah Palin

"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

Doesn't have any right? Doesn't have any right?! How about the fact that the settlements in and of themselves are illegal under international law? Let alone their expansion? How about the fact that Israel gets US aid to the tune of billions of dollars a year? The fact that it has been among the largest recipients of US aid for decades?

Israel is going to grow in population so that's why they should be allowed to expand settlements huh? So explain this to me Ms. Palin .....

Israeli Jewish population growth rate: 1.7%

West Bank Palestinian population growth rate: 2.225%

Gaza Strip Palestinian population growth rate: 3.422%

So the Occupied Palestinian Territories have a higher population growth rate, but Israel should be allowed to (continue to) illegally settle there and take even more land from the population that has a greater need for it? And you really think that's a recipe for peace and stability in the Middle East?

OAW

besson3c · Nov 18, 2009, 06:41 PM

OAW: her rhetoric is about the same as most other Republicans these days - make simple, black and white, manipulative statements wrapped up as being quasi sensible while failing to acknowledge the opposing arguments or complexity of the situation. That quote of hers makes it sound like it's just a simple dispute over building permits or something

besson3c · Nov 18, 2009, 06:45 PM

The other thing about Palin's interviews, it is impossible to pin her down. The interviewers work very hard for her to summarize her positions, and she usually just meanders and seems to struggle to find her point. If you didn't keep her on track she would not answer the questions asked at all.

Obama's problem is that he usually has to take the painfully long and thorough route to be completely accurate in reviewing the entire context and making qualification after qualification until he gets around to the main point. If I had to choose between one or the other, regardless of whether I agreed with what they were saying or not I would definitely choose Obama's style. Palin almost always comes across as rather spacey and unfocused in her interviews, not to mention extremely simple minded.

McCain, I felt, was generally a pretty good speaker, although at times he has seemed a little forgetful and/or unprepared.

I'm still waiting for full acknowledgment by the Republicans here that whether or not you agree with Obama or not, his speaking skills are clearly not a weakness of his.

OAW · Nov 18, 2009, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

OAW: her rhetoric is about the same as most other Republicans these days - make simple, black and white, manipulative statements wrapped up as being quasi sensible while failing to acknowledge the opposing arguments or complexity of the situation. That quote of hers makes it sound like it's just a simple dispute over building permits or something

Oh it's waaaay deeper than "building permits" for sure. The Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 between Israel and the PLO, called for a "two state solution". But since then the settler population in the West Bank has tripled. There are over 100 "outposts" that are illegal even under Israeli law ... most of which have the necessary water, electricity, and security infrastructure provided by Israeli governing authorities for them to exist. A rose by any other name .... And seeing how 40% of all West Bank land is within the "municipal jurisdiction" of the settlements but only 2% is actually built up .... the settlements can have "natural growth" that supposedly doesn't expropriate new land by just building out to this imaginary line drawn on an Israeli map.

Bottom line? Allowing continued settlement activity puts the Palestinian Authority into a position of incessantly "negotiating" with Israel over an ever shrinking amount of land. It is simply unsustainable as a component of a serious and legitimate peace process. The US either supports the two-state solution or it doesn't. If it does, then it needs to apply whatever diplomatic tools are at its disposal to bring both sides to the table. Not ask. Not wait. Simply tell both sides that they will sit their behinds down and hammer out an agreement or the US (or perhaps UN) will make one or them. And if they don't comply then the diplomatic cover that the US provides to Israel in the UN gets pulled. The billions in aid dries up. The security training and millions in aid to the PA dries up. Of course, the Israeli lobby in the US will fight such an approach tooth and nail. So naturally, the Israel/Palestine apartheid reality will continue.

In any event, I'd be willing to bet that Sarah Palin couldn't provide a substantive summary on the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a live interview if her life depended on it.

OAW

stupendousman · Nov 18, 2009, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

You forgot to mention the part where Obama ACTUALLY, REALLY, SUPER-REALLY DOES BELIEVE that there are 57 states in the US.

I'm pretty sure he now knows that there are not 57 states in the U.S. I'm taking a real leap here, but I'm guessing someone close to him gave him the facts at some point and he believed them.

stupendousman · Nov 18, 2009, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

Maybe they use fact-checking only on people who have a reputation of playing loosey-goosey with facts? Perhaps the 'bias' is toward those who are trustworthy, rather than partisan?

I don't remember them ever fact checking any of Bill Clinton's books, and he was the king of "loosey-goosey" facts. He's the guy who got impeached because he got "loosey-goosey" even in a court of law.

I'd say that pretty much destroys that theory.

And if you don't trust Obama/Biden/whoever with facts, feel free to hire your own 11 reporters to check up on them. No one is stopping you. I'm sure there are plenty of teabaggers who would be more than willing to pay to subscribe to your content.

You are right. No one is stopping me. Nor is anyone stopping me from pointing out the fear that the AP is showing in going above and beyond normal means to try and discredit her, even faking a correction to the record that needed no correction just to try and paint her as some kind of high-spending fool.

stupendousman · Nov 18, 2009, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

True. 'Gotcha journalism' is only effective when there are some meaty 'gotchas' to be had. If Sarah is worried about 'gotcha journalism', then I'd recommend she strengthen her positions so she can't get 'got'.

Not true at all. "Gotcha journalism" seeks to take trivial things and via manipulation, explode then into faux major issues. Normally it's done to sensationalize an otherwise drab story to sell copies or get viewers. In this case, it was done because they had no real "meat" to discredit someone they feared and felt the need to try and disarm.

andi*pandi · Nov 18, 2009, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Not true at all. "Gotcha journalism" seeks to take trivial things and via manipulation, explode then into faux major issues. Normally it's done to sensationalize an otherwise drab story to sell copies or get viewers.

I didn't know we were we talking about Fox News, but now it all makes sense.

CreepDogg · Nov 18, 2009, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Not true at all. "Gotcha journalism" seeks to take trivial things and via manipulation, explode then into faux major issues. Normally it's done to sensationalize an otherwise drab story to sell copies or get viewers. In this case, it was done because they had no real "meat" to discredit someone they feared and felt the need to try and disarm.

So you give a post attempting to define 'gotcha journalism' Congratulations! I'm glad we have it defined now. I wasn't talking about its definition. I was talking about when it's actually effective.

It only 'sensationalizes an otherwise drab story to sell copies or get viewers' when it actually has 'meat'. You know - it was a 'gotcha' when Obama talked about 57 states, except that no one really cares except dingbat wingnuts, because only dingbat wingnuts actually think Obama was actually trying to assert that there are 57 states. No 'meat'. With Sarah, people take interest in the 'gotchas' because there's a popular sentiment that she's a hypocrite. 'Meaty' - and hence - it sells.

So - I'll say it again - if Sarah is so concerned with 'gotcha journalism', maybe she should strengthen her ability to assert her positions so she can't get 'got'.

CreepDogg · Nov 18, 2009, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I don't remember them ever fact checking any of Bill Clinton's books, and he was the king of "loosey-goosey" facts. He's the guy who got impeached because he got "loosey-goosey" even in a court of law.

I'd say that pretty much destroys that theory.

So what facts did he cite in his book that are untrue? Was there subject matter in his book that warranted dissent and therefore had value in being checked? Did he write about anything where people would suspect he would be 'loosey-goosey' that would warrant it?

When Clinton 'goes rogue' on those around him in a book, I'm sure some fact checking will be in order. 'Til then, keep trying.

And, just for fun, let's take my theory off the table. We also know it's not partisan bias, since that bastion of truth Fox News said so. So then - have we established there's no bias involved at all? If so, why did you claim there was?