AP Discredits Sarah Palin Because She's a Conservative Woman
By Kelly Boggs
ALEXANDRIA, La. --- I don't know which frustrates me more: hypocritical
politicians -- Democrats and Republicans - who are more concerned about their
own power than their constituents concerns, or liberal members of the media who
loathe conservatives. Today, given a recent news development, it is the
latter.
The Associated Press recently assigned eleven reporters to
scrutinize Sarah Palin's new book "Going Rogue." Given the ex-governor of Alaska
and former vice-presidential candidate's book is 432 pages long, that comes out
to 39 pages per reporter.
The eleven reporters pored over the 39 pages
they were assigned and together discovered 12 so-called misstatements of the
facts. For those of you keeping score that is 1.09 errors per
reporter.
Three of the so-call factual errors cannot even be classified
as such.
The AP takes issue with Palin's travel expenses. In her book
Palin contends that she asked for "reasonably" priced rooms and "not often"
stayed in luxury accommodations. While the AP does admit that Palin's travel
record as governor supports her claim, the eleven reporters point out that she
once stayed in a fancy hotel in New York City that cost $707.29 per
night.
Palin did not say she never stayed in ritzy hotels. Only that she
did not make it a habit. The fact that Palin's travel records indicate that her
luxury hotel stays were a rarity -- one time -- only serves to prove her
statement is true.
If you've priced New York City hotels lately you would
find the price for Palin's room is not that outrageous.
In actually, the
AP unwittingly supports Palin's statement on her travel habits. So, let's
subtract one of the so-called factual errors. Instead of 12 errors, there are
now only 11 out of 432 pages.
There is another error the AP highlights
that is worth scrutinizing. Throughout her book Palin contends that her reasons
for running for office were altruistic. The AP quotes Palin from "Going Rogue,"
"Was it ambition? I didn't think so. Ambition drives; purpose
beckons."
The AP charges that Palin's stated motive for running for
public office is not factual. "Few politicians own up to wanting high office for
the power and prestige of it, and in this respect, Palin fits the conventional
mold," the AP wrote. "But 'Going Rogue' has all the characteristics of a
pre-campaign manifesto."
I did not know that reporters were endowed with
the ability to see inside a person's mind and discern true motives. With that
kind of power I wish they would concentrate on the politicians that are in
office rather than one that recently resigned.
The AP's swipe at Palin's
motivation for public service is nothing more than an opinion, a jaded one at
that. If the AP were scrutinizing Palin in an opinion piece or editorial they
would have license to speculate all they want. However, to do so via a supposed
straight news report is unconscionable.
Another so-called factual error
concerns an interview Palin did with Vogue magazine. In the AP's words "the
facts are somewhat in dispute." AP did nothing to clear up the matter, thus the
facts are still not clear. That said, this so-called error must also be
dismissed.
For the record, the AP spent a tremendous amount of money and
manpower to uncover nine errors in a 432 page book by a wildly popular former
politician. I hope they think it was worth it.
Of course, the AP will say
it is only doing its journalistic duty by scouring Palin's book with a
fine-tooth comb. Politicians, whether it be current or former, should be held
accountable. However, it is interesting to note that the AP has not so
scrutinized the words of other politicians of note. The AP routinely reviews
politico's books, but never with the same rigor as was done with Palin's
book.
Books released by Barack Obama prior to his being elected president
were not fact checked by the AP. Neither was a volume produced by the late Sen.
Ted Kennedy. Autobiographies by Bill and Hillary Clinton also escaped the AP's
fact-checking crew.
The attention the AP has given Palin's book begs the
question: "Why?" One person has dared answer that question. "They're obsessed
with trying to discredit her," said Adrienne Ross, the state organizer for the
New York State 2012 Draft Sarah Committee. "Because she's a conservative
woman...."
I have to agree with Ross. Members of the media blinded by
liberalism tend to loathe conservatives in general. Add committed Christian into
the equation and the emotion seems to rise to disgust.
In the case of
Palin, she is not only conservative and Christian, she is also a woman and
popular. Not only do many in the media despise her, they want to destroy
her.
The AP has every right to fact check any author's work because truth
does matter. However, if the AP is to have any credibility it must scrutinize
other books equally. By choosing to cherry pick a former, female conservative
politician, they reveal they are more political operatives than they are serious
journalists.
Kelly Boggs is a weekly
columnist for Baptist Press and editor of the Baptist Message
(www.baptistmessage.com), newsjournal of the Louisiana Baptist
Convention. Coptyright, Baptist Press.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
That is it in a Nutshell
Bay Buchanan is a conservative woman as well ..... nobody is standing up giving her props. Bay has been around a long time and has been a loyal conservative for years. She is smart and well liked .... she is also a big girl and is quite able to defend herself. Good luck on that one Sarah!
The AP is liberal. More, than that, they abhor anyone who is not liberal. Therefore, the Palin bashing is to be expected from them. But, so what? If one sees the AP adjacent to a story they promulgate, avoid it. If read, the slant is predicable. Wire services are a dying news dissemination format anyway, so who cares?
I am apolitical in the sense that I can't stand Obama and the Mitt Romney's and the Sarah Palin's just don't do it for me either. Romney's crumbling old views are typical, and Palin is just too whacky to be taken seriously as a presidential contender. Perhaps I am not alone in this conundrum.
I subscribe to the WSJ, generally conservative but with sprinkled with some alternative thoughts, as well, and their articles are much more constructive. Even so, no forum has exposed a third party person, not necessarily a politician, with the right components to give us a chance to be a term election spoiler. To split the traditional tickets is the best way to clear Obama out of office. When will people take notice of this fact?
As to Palin, sure she misstates facts and projects an image of a power seeker. Bu what politician doesn't? She didn't write the book herself and many of her remarks are poorly scripted. She is not a thinker of original thoughts and some of her views about burning books and preaching in public schools are not consistent with progress. Her creationist beliefs that dinosaurs were somehow used as work animals are just plain scary. I don't care if she's conservative, a woman or a politician. I don't need the AP to discredit her. She already did it to herself.
I saw a reprint of David Greenburg's article in Slate magazine.
I feel much better now, knowing that attractive, yet vapid, failed vice-presidential candidates will likely remain known only to cross-word puzzler types in the future (Estes Kefauver? anyone? anyone?)
We can all chill
http://www.slate.com/id/2235941 /
Can we please stop discussing this woman, stop interviewing her, don't buy her book much less pore over it for mistakes, stop discussing her in the news or tabloids, etc.? I don't think she is calculatingly trying to lie and manipulate the American people, though others have used her to do so indeed. She is just a woman of average intelligence who was never qualified or capable of the job of vice president.
Democrats , liberals, and anyone else who wastes his time paying this woman any attention is only furthering the problem at this point. Led her fade into being an interesting note in history text books about the strange 2008 presidential campaign.
AP fact checkers were not quite making stuff up, but their research, analysis, and presentation were clearly skewed. With an 0 for 12 record, the 11 Associated Press "fact-checkers" have now been debunked.
Fact-checking the “fact-checkers”:
Reagan Facing A Worse Recession than Obama
AP “FACTS”: “The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not repealed under Reagan and capital gains taxes are lower now than when Reagan was president.
Economists overwhelmingly say the current recession is far worse. The recession Reagan faced lasted for 16 months; this one is in its 23rd month. The recession of the early 1980s did not have a financial meltdown. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, worse than the October 2009 high of 10.2 percent, but the jobless rate is still expected to climb.”
THE TRUTH: Richard Rahn, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth was the source of Palin’s assertion, “President Reagan inherited an economic situation even worse than the one President Obama has. When Reagan took office, the economy had been in recession for about a year, the unemployment rate was almost identical to today’s, but the labor force participation rate was smaller, and inflation was out of control.”
Mr. Rahn also notes: “Both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.”
The November 1982 unemployment rate was 10.8%. Our current unemployment rate is 10.2%.
In the first quarter of 1982 Reagan recession the economy shrank 6.4%. When the assertion was made the economy had shrunk 6.3% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 5.7% in the first quarter of 2009.
Most economists agree that the current economy is equivalent to the 1982 economy, but the current economy is the result of Obama policies executed over the last 10 months. Obama’s policies may yet make this recession worse than Reagan’s with the same kind of backward policies that Jimmy Carter initiated, and AP seems to predict that by projecting increased unemployment in the months to come. It would be a real shame if the “fact-checker’s” advocacy of the Obama agenda proved to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The “fact checkers” failed to understand Governor Palin’s obvious point. She never claimed Reagan repealed the death tax or lowered the capital gains tax to below current levels. Clearly she was applying the same tax-cutting principle that worked for Ronal Reagan to current economic troubles by proposing the elimination of the death tax and cutting the capital gains tax to stimulate investment. Perhaps the AP “fact checkers” are using this project to pursue a clandestine agenda that requires more government spending with higher taxes?
Governor Palin’s Natural Gas Pipeline (AGIA)
AP “FACT”: “Palin characterized the pipeline deal the same way before an AP investigation found her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited a company with ties to her administration, TransCanada Corp. Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders during the process, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada.”
THE TRUTH: This AP story from the last election was completely debunked by Alaska media ( http://juneauempire.com/stories/102908/loc_349549309.shtml ) and rightfully referred to as a “hit piece” by a Democrat lawmaker who supported the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA). AGIA was a bi-partisan effort that passed by a 58-1 vote . It was open, transparent, and the guidelines were very clear. If they cut and paste their own hit piece after it has been debunked, it seems that checking facts might not be their real agenda.
They didn't do a very good job of fact checking, so perhaps political advocacy is their real goal? Regardless of how you feel about Sarah Palin, the AP's liberal bias shines through here!
Most of these comments are posted by people who really disrespect this woman. It is also funny how several say that disproving her is necessary because the people who do respect her are blind.
I haven't seen one comment posted by a blind follower.
My only conclusion is that there is a blind hatred.
AP fact checkers were not quite making stuff up, but their research, analysis, and presentation were clearly skewed. With an 0 for 12 record, the 11 Associated Press "fact-checkers" have now been debunked.
Fact-checking the “fact-checkers”:
Governor Palin’s Position on Bailouts and the Stimulus
AP “FACTS”: “Palin is blurring the lines between Obama’s stimulus plan — a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts — and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.
Palin’s views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain’s vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said ‘taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street.’ A week later, she said ‘ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy .’
During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being ‘instrumental in bringing folks together’ to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said ‘it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in.'”
THE TRUTH: In her book , Palin demonstrated that the line between the stimulus plan, the TARP bailout, and several other Obama bailouts is blurred by the common principle of unhealthy government intervention that seemed to elude the fact checkers while they were building their straw man.
The fact checkers tried to slam her for supporting something that most people supported grudgingly at the time because almost every economist was telling us if we didn't support it the country would fulfill the prophesies of 2012 . Surely liberal AP would have loved this headline: Conservative Republican VP candidate says, "Maverick Two goes rogue on Maverick One."
Governor Palin has consistently voiced disapproval of the stimulus plans she calls "porkulus." She got criticized relentlessly for turning down stimulus dollars. Eventually the Alaska legislature overturned her veto of those dollars. Once again, her principled stance on the issue is thoroughly documented in public documents that the fact checkers failed to cite.
This is what Governor Palin told Wolf Blitzer on November 14, 2008 about bailouts after TARP:
“…the federal government must play an appropriate role in shoring up some of these industries that are hurting and will ultimately hurt our entire economy and the world’s economy if there aren’t some better decisions being made. But we also have to start shifting some debate here in our country and start talking about personal responsibility and responsibility of management in some of these corporations and companies so that from henceforth it’s not assumed that the federal government is going to be bailing out everybody who is going to soon line up, Wolf, for more taxpayer assistance.”
Anyone who is willing to see knows that the AP fact checkers did a lousy job. Perhaps a new line of political advocacy is in their future? Wait, that's their line now!
You can find the rest of the fact check corrections in other strings.
You know it is always funny to me when these conservatives complain about how "liberal" the media is. Have you seen who owns these big "liberal" media groups? Some of the most conservative and wealthy individuals in the world. Hmmm.... makes you think or if a conservative maybe you don't. Sarah Palin is a dysfunctional ex-beauty pageant winner (look at her family) but because she chose the republican party suddenly she should be off limits?
AP fact checkers were not quite making stuff up, but their research, analysis, and presentation were clearly skewed. With an 0 for 12 record, the 11 Associated Press "fact-checkers" have now been debunked.
Fact-checking the “fact-checkers”:
Governor Palin’s 2006 Campaign Financing
AP “FACTS”: “Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.
Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.”
THE TRUTH: The AP “facts” inadvertently confirm Palin’s statement by demonstrating that almost half of the contributions to her campaign were less than $500, which is half the maximum individual donation and quarter of the PAC donation. How “small” does it have to be to satisfy the liberal AP fact checkers? The way the “fact-checkers” frame the facts reveals their anti-Palin bias .
Had the AP looked more closely at those “Republican Party” contributions, it could have discovered that most of the money came from eight different local Alaska Republican women ’s clubs—small grassroots donors. The Alaska Federation of Republican Women and seven different state women’s clubs (in Ketchikan, Sitka, Juneau, Kenai, Mat-Su, Fairbanks, and two in Anchorage) contributed $44,500 total. The Republican women’s groups conduct year-round grassroots fundraising, from monthly luncheons to garage sales to support a Republican woman as gubernatorial candidate.
The remainder of the AP’s quoted $76,000 was money RETURNED to the party chairman, including contributions from district Republican organizations, and $20,000 from “in-kind” contributions/support from the state party. The Governor’s campaign filed 31 financial reports with the Alaska Public Office Commission – all accurate and on time. The AP “fact checkers” had the time to pour through tens of thousands of individual transactions line by line in the various reports. Did they fail to notice these facts, or did they notice and fail to mention them?
They aren't very good fact checkers, so perhaps a profession of liberal advocacy is in their future? Wait, Gamesman, isn't that what they are doinmg now? You can find the rest of the fact check corrections in other strings.