More Liberal Media Bias

Shady · November 18, 2009

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'

When the former Republican vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor wrote her autobiography, the AP found a copy before its release date and assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages.

The treatment Palin's book received appears to be something new for the AP. The organization did not review for accuracy recent books by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, then-Sen. Joe Biden, either book by Barack Obama released before he was president or autobiographies by Bill or Hillary Clinton

Link

Great response from Sarah!

"Imagine that," the post read. "11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing."

The AP, an organization with over 4,000 employees and 49 Pulitzer Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, wouldn't comment on their own reporting for this story.

Aww, the AP hasn't commented on their reporting. Gee, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

BubberMiley · November 18, 2009

I guess when a book is filled with non-facts, it requires 11 people to fact-check it. You must be terribly uncomfortable with people fact-checking Palin to make such a big deal about it. I guess the lies they found must be terribly embarrassing that today's official Foxnews talking points are to go after the people who discovered them.

Shady · November 18, 2009

I guess when a book is filled with non-facts, it requires 11 people to fact-check it. You must be terribly uncomfortable with people fact-checking Palin to make such a big deal about it. I guess the lies they found must be terribly embarrassing that today's official Foxnews talking points are to go after the people who discovered them.

Nope, not at all. In fact, there's very little that the 11 fact-ckeckers found that needed correcting. But you can't possibly defend AP for allocating such resources on a private citizen's biography vs healthcare legislation etc. Can you? If so, how and why are you so blindly partisan? Is it more important to know all of the facts regarding government legislation, or a famous persons's recently released book?

BubberMiley · November 18, 2009

Do you know what a strawman is? It’s not an “either/or” situation, but your argument pretends it is. The healthcare legislation is being widely covered. They could spend less time covering the lies that Republicans like Sarah Palin have spewed about health care (like “death panels”), but I digress. The press is also free to scrutinize a book by someone who is positioning herself for a 2012 presidential run (Go Sarah!). In fact, they would be negligent not to.

The fact is, they had a small window of time before the book came out to get the scoop on all the lies. And they found a lot of them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/going-rogue-the-18-bigges_n_359837.html

Shady · November 18, 2009

Do you know what a strawman is? It’s not an “either/or” situation

But it is. AP is fact-checking Palin's book, but has yet to doing anything similar in regards to Obamacare. Why can't you see that?

BubberMiley · November 18, 2009

Why can't you see that?

Because it's not true? AP has done lots of fact-checking of Obama's speeches and of Obamacare. Why, they even fact-checked Sarah Palin's claim about death panels and found she was lying.

The truth hurts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/ap-fact-check-no-death-pa_n_256486.html

Shady · November 18, 2009

Because it's not true? AP has done lots of fact-checking of Obama's speeches and of Obamacare. Why, they even fact-checked Sarah Palin's claim about death panels and found she was lying.

The truth hurts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/ap-fact-check-no-death-pa_n_256486.html

You've entirely proved my point. The only reason AP fact-checked the death panel provision is because it involved Sarah Palin. Where was the fact-checking involved in healthcare for illegals? Or funded abortions? There wasn't, because Palin didn't directly address them as she did the panels.

BubberMiley · November 18, 2009

Where was the fact-checking involved in healthcare for illegals? Or funded abortions? There wasn't, because Palin didn't directly address them as she did the panels.

YEs, actually there was.

Shady · November 18, 2009

YEs, actually there was.

Oh, before I forget to ask, how's the whole "Palin's gonna be irrelevant" mantra working out for you?

LOL

BubberMiley · November 18, 2009

It's working out just fine, though I'm hoping she picks up steam because there is nobody more divisive among conservatives than her. The more we talk about her, the more likely Obama will coast to a second term.

I hear she got a new twitter account, so her influence must be very powerful now. :lol:

rad79 · November 18, 2009

Maybe she is politically irrelevant? I always saw her being used as a "image" ploy. And, watch the Obama adminstration is not going to pick up steam! At least, not until his 2nd term and that is will he get one?

Shady · November 18, 2009

It's working out just fine

Yep, heckuva job Brownie! :lol:

BubberMiley · November 18, 2009

Yep, heckuva job Brownie!

I'll take that as an admission you didn't know what you were talking about when you said AP never fact-checked Obama's healthcare plan.

Perhaps your lol should have had a larger font.

GostHacked · November 18, 2009

I'll take that as an admission you didn't know what you were talking about when you said AP never fact-checked Obama's healthcare plan.

Perhaps your lol should have had a larger font.

72 pt is about as large as you are gonna get in a web browser !! Or in the case of this website, Shady can crank the LOLs up to 7 !!

Shady · November 18, 2009

72 pt is about as large as you are gonna get in a web browser !! Or in the case of this website, Shady can crank the LOLs up to 7 !!

Well, in your case I should. Remember when you made this glorious prediction?

Palin will be about as relevant as this post will be in another 6 months.

LOL!

GostHacked · November 18, 2009

Well, in your case I should. Remember when you made this glorious prediction?

Indeed, this thread, like her are still irellevant. But if you really want her to tear down the GOP from the inside, then by all means. If she does manage to divide the GOP like she did during the elections, I should in fact support her endeavors.

If she was relevant, you'd have posted more on her to prove she is still relevant. A published book does not make you relevant. In any case, CHEERS to her for the eventual tear down of the GOP.

WAIT A SECOND ......

This is NOT the Sarah Palin thread I thought I was posting in..... meh, that's irrelevant I guess.

Edited November 18, 2009 by GostHacked

Shady · November 18, 2009

If she does manage to divide the GOP like she did during the elections

Complete nonsense.

BubberMiley · November 18, 2009

Complete nonsense.

But, once again, true.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - More than seven in 10 Americans think Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president, according to a new national poll.
Seventy-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning believe the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee is not qualified to be president, with 29 percent saying she does have the credentials to serve in the White House. Republicans appear split, with 52 percent saying she's qualified and 47 percent disagreeing with that view.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/28/cnn-poll-7-in-10-say-palin-not-qualified-to-be-president/

Shady · November 19, 2009

But, once again, true.

Not at all. Your claim was that she divided the GOP during the elections. Citing a poll from October of '09 on her qualifications to be President has nothing to do with running as VP last year. Nice try, nice lie.

BubberMiley · November 19, 2009

Speaking of lying, I never once mentioned the last election so don't put words in my mouth. GostHacked did. My reference to her divisiveness was purely in the context of 2012, and the way she's been ostracizing moderates in the Republican party is very, very pleasing to me. I just love how the lunatic fringe among conservatives are getting all the air time. As for your small part, keep posting Shady! I don't resent your presence here like others have said they do.

PocketRocket · November 20, 2009

Re: AP's decision to investigate Palin's book......they are able to make their own decisions for their own reasons and are not answerable to you or I. If you think they are liberally-biased, then at least you have the comfort of knowing there's 24-hrs/day of Republican-biased news coming out of Fox to balance the books.

As to the oft-argued relevance of Palin, it seems to me that most, if not all, of the news I've heard on Palin in several months has been primarily focused around her private life, ie; daughter breaks up with boyfriend, Palin's marriage in trouble, Palin goes hunting again, Palin buys new wardrobe, and other such highly politically-charged news.

You can do the math regarding her relevance in the actual political arena.

sharkman · November 21, 2009

Her revelance can be directly measured by how her enemies and opponents have been acting since the election. They haven't given her a moment of rest and have been attacking her on many fronts. She must be one tough lady, and certainly a threat to their cause of advancing liberal nonsense.

I was LOL whilst reading the Globe and Mail, they've had several pieces on her and her book this week. The amount of hissing going on was hysterical! Of 4 or 5 pieces that I read, all were women. The lone male, Rex Murphy, didn't cut her to pieces but gave an honest analysis of her charisma and what he thinks is its source. No doubt his co-workers will shun him for the next month and drain the coffee before he gets a cup in the morning.

Pliny · November 22, 2009

The point is the liberal media is biased. I would suspect if it were liberal media it would be biased.

Bubber - is AP liberal media? You haven't said it isn't? I would assume then that you understand it is biased.

Is Palin relevant? Perhaps she will make the GOP irrelevant.

The problem with the GOP is that there are too many there that are really Democrats - you call them moderates - that is a problem of the GOP - becoming too much like the Democrats.

BubberMiley · November 22, 2009

Bubber - is AP liberal media? You haven't said it isn't? I would assume then that you understand it is biased.

There's no such thing as liberal mainstream media It's all owned by multinational corporations that want you to think it represents a "liberal" viewpoint so that you don't rise up and kill them all.

BubberMiley · November 22, 2009

They haven't given her a moment of rest and have been attacking her on many fronts. She must be one tough lady, and certainly a threat to their cause of advancing liberal nonsense.

Nobody's attacking her, but they talk about her a lot because they desperately want her to run against Obama in 2012 because they know she's unelectable.