Recently in Media Category

After watching this ABC News story about how the Treasury has come to its senses and stopped minting dollar coins no one wants, I had to ask this question: Why did ABC come to the wrong conclusion about these coins?

On more than one occasion I have posted about how the government has gotten it wrong when dealing with the dollar coin. I've posted about it three separate times this year alone.

The problem isn't that the Treasury is making coins no one wants. It's that it's still printing dollar bills that last for a small fraction of the time that a coins lasts. The cost to print a bill is half that of minting a coin. A dollar bill lasts between a year and a half and two years. A coin lasts between 25 and 30 years. In the long run the coins costs less. But as long as the government keeps the dollar bill, no one will want or use the dollar coin...except maybe for commuters on certain public transit systems. (The 'T' in Boston uses dollar coins as change in its "Charlie Card" dispensers.)

The US taxpayer could save billions of dollars by getting rid of the dollar bill and switching to the dollar coin. But no one seems willing to make the switch, particularly when the vending machine companies start bitching about how reconfiguring their machines to accept the dollar coin will be expense. But expensive to whom, even if the claim is true? Why should the taxpayer subsidize that particular industry (for that's what it is if we stay with the dollar bill)? When Canada switched to Loonie (their dollar coin) and the UK switched to the pound coin, the vending machine companies did not fail. (Of course this part of the story is but a small part of the non-decision to stay with the bill.) All it takes is for someone in government to finally step up and say "Sorry folks, but it's costing everyone too much to keep printing this small denomination so we're switching over the the coin."

Oh, there will be the typical hew and cry by those who just don't like change of any kind (no pun intended). But eventually they'll use them just like everyone else.

The time to retire the dollar bill is long overdue.

Now that the media has entered into a feeding frenzy over yesterday's release of 25,000 pages of Sarah Palin's e-mails sent and received during her time in the Governor's office, I expect them to be reading all kinds of nuances and dark motives into trivial and meaningless bits and pieces that would otherwise be ignored, and ignoring things that paint her in a positive light.

I have to hand it to the state government folks in Alaska. While they made most of Palin's e-mails available (some weren't covered under the Freedom of Information Act because they were exempt under attorney-client privilege or revealed non-public deliberations not normally covered under FOIA), they didn't make it easy. All 25,000 pages were in hardcopy (no electronic versions were released) and those wanting them had to come pick them up in person (they wouldn't ship them).

Being in hardcopy meant there would be no easy way to search the documents. All 25,000 pages would need to be read by human beings in order find anything. (I'm sure somebody somewhere will scan them using OCR software and make them searchable, but even that will take a lot of time.) Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have asked readers for help delving through the thousands of pages of e-mails in search of dirt.

So far, the MSM has come up with...nothing. Or at least nothing they could use to discredit her in the eyes of the public.

Is this episode of media infected with PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) going to prove their undoing while boosting Palin's reputation and bona fides? So far it's looking that way.

A number of issues the MSM used to hammer Palin both during and after the 2008 elections have turned out to be much ado about nothing, with those already revealed showing Palin had been truthful about them all along. Among them Troopergate, predator reduction (the so-called 'hunting from helicopters' non-scandal), the media harassment of her family during the Presidential campaign (an unwritten rule that a candidate's family is off-limits the MSM chose to ignore this time around), ethics investigations, the oil and gas industry, and a whole host of other issues the media tried to turn into a scandal. But it turns out there was no "there" there.

Already some backpedaling has occurred with HuffPo opining "Like many other organizations that cover politics, we at The Huffington Post have made our arrangements to obtain the emails, have handed out assignments to reporters and are hopeful that a crowdsource army will help to pick up the slack. What are we expecting to find? Who knows? Maybe a lot of Comic Sans. Maybe some penetrating new story about Palin's Alaska reign. Maybe it will be a hot pile of nothing! Yeah, that's right: One possible outcome of this exercise is that it will be a complete bust." As their headline put it, "Sarah Palin Shall Have Her Revenge On The Mainstream Media." Indeed.

But even with all of these e-mails now made public and the truth being revealed, the Left will still do everything in its power to destroy this woman of whom they are so terrified.

Let the games begin!

Whether or not Sarah Palin decides to run for president the one thing I have to say she's got going for her is her disdain for the traditional courtship of the media. Even the liberal LA Times recognizes the fact and points out that it may actually work for her.

There is nothing the U.S. media wants more than something it thinks it can't have. Hence the power of news leaks that manipulate the thrust of their initial presentation. Hard-to-get is a rigid rule of human behavior. Ask any teenage boy or girl.

And there are few things more sweet to Palin and her fervent supporters cheering their TV sets this week than the image of a hungry know-it-all "lamestream media" caravan of 15 or more vehicles traipsing along behind her red-white-and-blue bus enroute to they-know-not-where to do they-know-not-what.

If nothing else this "I don't care what you want" attitude of Palin's towards the media is driving them to distraction and frustrating them to no end. Her refusal to play by their rules has them unable to function in their usual manner and they're confused (and perhaps not a little frightened) by the prospect that she will be but the first to find that she really doesn't need them to get her message out. She can bypass their "helpful" filtering and make appeals directly to the public without the media interpreting her utterances into something that in no way resembles what it she actually said (as compared to what they want her to have said). They will be relegated to actually reporting the news rather than creating it or disguising their not unbiased opinions as 'news'.

To read some of those commenting on the Times piece, Palin should be held responsible for the extra work the media will have to do and the higher risk they'll be taking to keep up with her. That's right, the higher risk.

She's an irresponsible, egotistical woman who gives no thought as to how she could be endangering others through her actions. The article mentions the media caravan, but doesn't talk about the chaos created, as in Philadelphia, when the reporters don't know where she's going to show up and run madly about trying to find her. If someone gets hurt, guess who's going to deny she's responsible for any of it and cast aspersions on anyone who tries to say she is--just as she did when Kathy Gifford was shot. Such behavior would not be entirely surprising from an immature, aspiring Hollywood star; it is disturbing from someone who makes any pretense of aspiring to a responsible position.

This California asshat has it exactly backwards. How is it she can in any way be held responsible for the actions of what are, to all intents and purposes, paparazzi? If she chooses not to clue them in as to her plans, it's her right to do so. The poor endangered media types don't have to follow her around, do they?

Too many of the other asshats who commented wondered why the media bothers giving Palin any coverage, and then they complain when the media has a more difficult time covering Palin. So I have to ask this question: Which one is it you really want - media coverage to report her every gaffe, real or perceived, or for the media to ignore her entirely? It has to be one or the other. You can't have both.

Of course we really know the answer to that question, don't we? Without Palin, the Left would have no one to complain about or to excoriate. I guess it must make them feel better to denigrate someone who refuses to fill the role they have decided she must play. Too bad for them.

And what would happen if she decides to run in 2012 and again chooses her own way of doing things without bothering to ask the media for their input, such as it is? I expect heads would explode in newsrooms around the country and the all-so-learned talking heads would be struck dumb by her unwillingness to consult with them.

One can only hope.

Usually you'll hear the Left disparage Fox News, calling it nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Right. Some leftist organizations have actually called for its destruction, and one, Media Matters For America (MMFA), is actively working to silence it.

But from the Left comes a voice defending Fox News and condemning MMFA for its unconstitutional and un-American actions.

Norman Horowitz writes:

Many take the position that if you do not approve of what someone's press is publishing that it is acceptable to somehow destroy the offending press.

In the "pretend spirit" of free speech Media Matters for America (MMFA) wants to stifle the free press rights of Fox News. MMFA is not at all pleased with Fox News and has chosen to find a way to stop Fox News from publishing.

It is both sad and objectionable that MMFA objects to press freedom.

Horowitz includes the letter from MMFA CEO Matt Butler, outlining MMFA's plans to silence Fox News by going after the advertisers supporting it. It almost sounds like mob tactics from past, inducing businesses to stop doing business with someone who has fallen out of favor with the mob bosses.

Why is the Left always falls back on tactics that are right out of the Mobster's Handbook if they feel they can't win support of the public based upon the merits of their arguments? Could it be because they realize they are losing public support for their morally and financially bankrupt political ideology and feel they must "Do Something!!" in order to prove their way is the right way, even though it isn't? It certainly seems that way to me.

Horowitz continues:

Media Matters of course can take issue with what Fox News promulgates and can publish opposing opinions of its own.

If you don't approve of it don't watch it, read it, or listen to it. Suggest that your friends and family might choose to do the same and that is fine.

But MMFA has crossed a line by trying to stifle a voice of which they don't approve. They suggest, in a manner of speaking, that the public destroy the Fox presses by removing the financial support of Fox News that comes from Madison Avenue.

What a horrid position it is for MMFA to take.

We all need to support the right to publish commentators such as Glenn Beck and many others at Fox News. I personally find what they are spewing noxious. But that's the point. As distasteful as it might be, we all need to defend speech we don't agree with as long as it's not inciting people to riot and things of that nature.

If MMFA doesn't like much of what is said on Fox News, they can say so, and they can say it quite LOUDLY.

But their shouting emits a foul odor when they are advocating the suppression of views expressed on Fox News along with the suppression of Fox News itself.

And wouldn't they scream loudly if someone were to try the same tactics against MMFA? Of course they would. But somehow only the anointed are allowed to advocate silencing dissent. And some of them would recommend using any means necessary to do so, just as has been done so many times over the past 100 years or so in places like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and a host of other nations around the world.

It seems they would like to add the United States to that list. But then far too many statists like the extreme Left in this country would see that as a Progressive paradise.

At least one "raging liberal" sees the danger in that.

Kudos to Norman Horowitz.

Ir appears that PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) knows no bounds. When such Leftist pundits like Bill Maher must resort to stating Sarah Palin is a "dumb t**t" in order to get a laugh, you know it's gone too far. On the other hand Palin takes it in stride, knowing the source of the remark, and knowing the feminist Left has no problem with her being disparaged. As she says, "I need NOW's defense like a fish needs a bicycle," borrowing a line from ardent feminist Gloria Steinem to illustrate her disdain for the organization.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of vitriol leveled towards Palin, or at her family. It shows how far manners and adherence to the unwritten rules of politics have fallen among the Left. This may end up coming back to bite them in the ass, as it should.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, both the Democrats and their bought-and-paid-for media went after Sarah's family, a long standing taboo. Candidates were always considered fair game. Their families were not. The Dems crossed that line and now they may never be able to step back across it. Even now they continue to hammer her and her family as if they are deathly afraid of her. Maybe it's because they are.

Apparently quite a few others feel the same way about how Sarah and her family are being treated. Others miss the point, like this person:

For example, when Bristol Palin said winning Dancing with the Stars, would be a middle finger to her and her mom's critics.

Try as I might, I can't see Chelsea Clinton saying that about her parents' critics (in public).

If people had been criticizing just Sarah, that's one thing. But they went after Bristol, her baby, and her baby brother. No one did that to Chelsea Clinton when Bill was in office. It's an apple and oranges comparison.

But for a lot of those slamming Palin, it comes down to this: The problem with our society in this media-soaked age is that we equate glibness with intelligence and cynicism with wisdom.* It certainly explains Bill Maher, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and the rest of the usual suspects.

*This is a composite of two different comments from Ann Althouse's post on the subject.

Will the intensity of PDS continue to increase as we approach the start of the 2012 presidential campaign season? Without a doubt. Will the invective aimed at Sarah Palin by the Left reach a level of hysteria not seen since Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds? Absolutely. Will any of it stop Sarah from moving forward, regardless of her plans or political ambitions. Absolutely not.

As if we need any more proof the progressives in America are hypocrites, there's this about eliminationist and racist rhetoric at a Common Cause rally.

They accuse conservatives and Tea party supporters of such rhetoric when it is the very thing they themselves are spouting. That sounds like projection to me.

How is it we never hear conservatives or Tea party supporters actually saying the things the progressives have accused us of saying? Because as a rule we don't. But the progressives sure as hell do, and they do it often and loudly.

[Christian Hartsock's] coverage of the rally opens with an ingenuous twentysomething white woman holding forth: "There's a devastating influence in our country, and it's coming from fear and anger and widespread misunderstanding of what's actually causing the problems in our society. And I think that the racist Tea Party is one example of that, and it makes me feel ashamed to be an American."

--snip--

That said, it appears from [Hartsock's] video that the violent and racist sentiments originate with the Common Cause supporters; Hartsock prompts them with relatively innocuous cues about [Clarence Thomas's] impeachment and Anita Hill. And there is no question that the Common Causers express their ugly sentiments with great relish.

So much for dialing back the intensity of the rhetoric and being more civil. I guess that call was meant just for the Tea partiers. For the progressives, anything goes and civility be damned. What's worse is that the MSM has been complicit with the progressive agenda, "reporting uncorroborated claims as if they were established fact."

One of my favorite quotes from the blogosphere this week comes from Don Surber by way of Glenn Reynolds:

"Yes, House Republicans have been in power for 5 hours and they have not passed their entire agenda. The New York Times thinks they should be canned and Democrats put back in charge."

I figured the Lame Stream Media would do something like that, so it's no surprise.

I couldn't resist posting just one more item about Governor Christie. Or in this case another video of him explaining to a media pinhead about his "confrontational tone" with the entrenched interests infesting the Garden State.


'Nuff said.

Watching the national news (specifically ABC News), one would think we're in the midst of a string of record breaking summers, with hot and humid temperatures across most of the US. They've attributed it to global warming all while ignoring a number of cyclical weather patterns (El Niño and La Niña) that are far more likely to be the cause of this summer's weather. We here in New England have managed to avoid much of what the rest of the nation has been dealing with (it's been warm but with mostly low humidity), but that doesn't mean we haven't noticed what's been going on. We've seen the reports from all over the nation about the never ending heat waves. But we've also been hearing about the Southern Hemisphere, which has been dealing with record cold temperatures.

This summer's weather has caused a bit of amnesia about the previous two summers, where the weather was mostly cooler and wetter than normal. During those summers, here in the northeast we didn't really experience summer weather until August. June and July were cold and very wet, seriously affecting the farm industry and the tourist trade. On the farms, crops ran late and some were drowned out altogether. And who wants to go to the beach or go hiking or boating or hit the tourist spots when it's in the 60's, cloudy, and damp?

If we have a string of summers like the one we've been experiencing this year, then we might be able to attribute it to global warming. But if it's just this summer, and the following summers are 'normal' then wouldn't we have to say it was just weather and not climate? If you're like most folks, I'd say the answer would be yes. But knowing the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans global warming folks they will ignore the normal summer pattern and focus intently on this summer as proof of AGW. Never mind there's been a decade long cooling trend.

And then of course, there's this. But let's not let facts get in the way of our opinions, right?

It seems Nicholas Kristof is confused about health care reform, thinking it's all about making sure everyone has access to health care. Obviously he has not been paying attention to the debate or the proposed legislation.

Poor Nicholas. Apparently he can't tell the difference between access to health care and health insurance.

Everyone in America has had access to health care by law since the the 1980's. No one needing care can be turned away, even if they can't pay for it. ObamaCare has nothing to do with access, at least not directly.

According to the Democrats ObamaCare is all about is health insurance, something entirely different. Of course once everyone has insurance there will be an effect on health care access, just not the one they expected - there will be less of it. Doctors will be unwilling or unable to take on new patients, just like in Massachusetts under RomneyCare. So even if you have insurance there's absolutely no guarantee you'll be able to find a doctor to take you as a patient.

See the difference now, Nicholas?

They did scoop the entire media on John Edwards's bastard illegitimate or "love" child.

At first I couldn't believe it.

ABC World News was going to do a story about ClimateGate.

I thought, "Gee, at least someone other than Fox is paying attention." But that thought faded away as I watched the report, a piece that covered the hacked files and the so-called "smoking gun". Call it a CBS-Lite version of the scandal.

The only part of ClimateGate they covered were the incriminating e-mails, something they tried to explain away. No mention was made about the FORTRAN source code used to create results the CRU crew wanted to see, or the Read Me text file accompanying the computer code. No mention was made of destroyed data nor machinations to prevent skeptics from being able to question CRU's conclusions or publish dissenting articles. Nor did they say anything about Jones stepping down as head of CRU or of the UK government investigating the affair. There was also no mention of Penn State University investigating another member of the CRU cabal, Michael Mann, he of the discredited Mann "hockey stick" graph.

Instead they tried to make AGW skeptics seem deranged, even more than the AlGoristas have tried to do.

From comments made to the ABC News blog post about the report, it appears few are buying ABC's attempt to minimize the story.

The White House war against Fox News has made it quite apparent the Obama Administration is channeling the late Richard Nixon.

Well now, these are strange times. However, I can't say I've ever come across anything quite like this...

Fox News is "operating basically as talk radio," President Obama suggested in an interview airing today.

So, he's saying now that Fox News isn't a news station? It's "operating as a talk radio", but not news? Last I knew, most of talk radio dealt directly with news and commentary on said news. Well now... Let's see if we can't dig a bit deeper into this interesting idea...

"I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama told NBC's Savannah Guthrie. "And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."

The folks over at COTErack have gathered a number of videos of Anita Dunn confessing to Obama's control and manipulation of the Lame Stream Media during his Presidential campaign, her disdain of Fox News, and her abiding love for "philosopher" Mao Zedong. (Scroll down)

I know I'm a bit late piling on to Ms. Dunn, but she hasn't received anywhere near the abuse she deserves.

It's been just shy of a year since the 2008 elections, Barack Obama has been in office for a little over nine months, and what are those on the Left and the Right talking about?

Sarah Palin.

For someone part of the losing presidential ticket last year, she's been getting a lot of attention.

The Left is still apoplectic about her, wishing nothing more that she'd go away and fade into obscurity. Their hatred of her is almost pathological, with so many of them trying their best to destroy her, as Bill Whittle sums up most eloquently is one of his latest video op-ed pieces:



For someone the Left sees as "stupid", "out of her depth", and a "Wasilla hillbilly", they're spending a lot of effort to crush her. If their characterizations were true, why would they need to expend so much time and energy to do so?

Because they fear her, seeing her as a threat to their Messiah, the Narcissist/Teleprompter/Apologist-In-Chief.

He's an empty suit. Sarah Palin is the real deal, someone just about everyone (except the elite in both parties) can relate to.

It doesn't matter that she doesn't speak eloquently. There are plenty of poseurs capable of doing that, including President Obama. But she gets to the heart of the matter, speaking plainly, something Obama seems to be incapable of doing. Instead, he speaks in broad, general terms, dancing around the issue, implying much but not actually saying anything. His followers hear what they want to hear, not what it is he actually said. With Sarah Palin you pretty well know she means what she says and says exactly what she means.

Despite the Left's machinations, Palin has survived manufactured scandal, personal attacks against her, personal attacks against her family, bogus ethics complaints (everyone was found to be without merit), disparaging remarks about her education (she didn't graduate from an Ivy League school, but at least her transcripts are open to the public), lack of experience (How many states did Obama run before he became President?), and an endless list of complaints from a number of less than honorable leftist organizations because she's not a neo-fascist feminist, baby-aborting, agnostic/atheist, hire-the-nanny-to-raise-the-kids, career comes first modern woman.

Palin's survival has frustrated the Left (and the inside-the-Beltway Right) to no end. It is a subtle form of revenge for her, for she is going forward, outlasting her enemies and living better than they are, which is one form of revenge most of us can relate to. She's been willing to make decisions most politicians would be afraid to even think about.

Well, just who is looking out of touch and foolish now? Hint: It isn't the Killa from Wasilla.

What is the real story here is that given a set of singularly difficult circumstances, Governor Palin made a counter-intuitive and gutsy decision that has already proven right for all parties involved. We call that brilliance. We call that effective leadership.

Perhaps inside the beltway, those measures of wisdom and intelligence and instinctive leadership are out of date. All too often in that world, decisions are made by what is the safe play and by what will play well with the pundits. Damn the consequences to others, just pull that focus group report and make sure we look good to the media.

That was not how Palin measured her decision. She was willing to look outside the box for a possibility, and when she found an idea that worked for everyone she grabbed it. Quickly. And she never looked back. Why Dan Rather might call that "...courage..."

She has that in spades, far more than a lot of other our so-called leaders could even dare to show.

Freed from the specious and endless ethics complaints being filed by a small but well supported group of Democrat activists in Alaska, she can now move about and speak freely about topics local, national, and international. Should she ever gain the White House (she hasn't announced or even hinted about any future political ambitions), she would be far better prepared to fill that office than the present occupant could ever dream of being.

That scares the hell out of the Left.

Too bad.

I've ceased to be amazed at how vicious the Left can be when it comes to Sarah Palin. In this piece by John Fund he explains why he believes she stepped down as governor of Alaska.

Contrary to most reports, her decision had been in the works for months, accelerating recently as it became clear that controversies and endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration," someone close to the governor told me. "She was fully aware she would be branded a 'quitter.' She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."

Many of the more negative comments to the piece did little more than label her a weakling, a hack, stupid, corrupt, and so on. It was merely a continuation of the hatchet job perpetrated by lefty blogger/reporter Shannon Moore. Others called her a lightweight because she didn't "tough it out." But almost all of them missed the point. The endless and frivolous ethics complaints made it impossible for her to govern, which was exactly the reason why the flood of complaints were filed. They couldn't get her at the ballot box (she's still quite popular in Alaska) so they used innuendo and a blizzard of paperwork instead.

One commenter, Kent Lyon, gives us an even more ominous view about who he thinks is behind it all.

One can only speculate how much of the vicious and frivolous attacks on Palin via the Alaska ethics laws were orchestrated out of the White House and the national Democratic party. This bears the finger-prints of a Chicago mob political hit job, just as much as the St. Valentine's Day massacre did those of the Chicago gangsters. This is gangster politics at its worst, and reflects a completely rotten political system. This smells of the kind of tactics Obama used in his Illinois State Senate campaign and his US senate campaign, e.g., destroy your opponent. Palin resonates with the heartland of America. The problem is that the attacks on her are perceived personally by a vast swath of the American Heartland. We see the message from the political elites, of both parties, that ordinary, decent, hard-working, honest, altruistic, talented, and dedicated Americans are not wanted in politics--leave it to the corrupt, crooked, prevaricating insiders who will govern us, against our wishes. The hostility of the political class toward ordinary Americans today, and their disdain for them, is far worse than the attitude of the French Aristocracy toward the peasants in 1789. The political class pursues these attack strategies at their peril. I don't believe the American people will tolerate their exclusion from governance, and the suppression of their interests to the political elite, who are extreme, incompetent, and in it for themselves and their cronies, forever.

If there are any investigations to be launched, perhaps they should be directed at those behind such an unethical and, in the end, an anti-democratic attack on an elected official.

I expect the attacks to continue on Sarah Plain over the next three years just to make sure the threat she apparently represents to the present occupant of the White House is minimized or eliminated. That is the kind of tactics I would expect, knowing the President is a firm believer (and beneficiary) of 'The Chicago Way' of politics.

Heaven help us all.

I knew the Left had a hatred of Sarah Palin the surpassed that of George W. Bush, but I didn't know it went so far that leftist bloggers as well as certain members of the MSM made knowingly false allegations that she was the subject of a federal embezzlement investigation and that her resignation was to head off some law enforcement actions.

The allegations were made by Alaskan reporter and sometimes blogger Shanon Moore on Bradblog. Her post also made it to Huffington Post, and from there the allegations spread to DailyKos, then to FireDogLake, and then spread like wildfire to other leftist blogs, eventually ending up being reported on MSNBC.

How do we know the allegations are false? Because the FBI says so.

A day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resigned, a federal official in her home state dismissed one potential explanation for her sudden and unexpected resignation: a rumored FBI investigation into the former Wasilla mayor on public corruption charges.

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true." He added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry.

Sarah Palin isn't taking this lying down, having her attorney issue a warning and letting the responsible parties know she's on the warpath.

"This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who republish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law," Van Flein warned, citing Alaska liberal blogger Shannyn Moore.

"Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact," the Anchorage attorney wrote.

It's time the Left realize that "words mean something."

Does this really surprise anyone?

Poll: 77% of Americans Blame the media for making the economic crisis worse.

How many times in the past have we seen media coverage make a marginally bad situation worse by hyping it to death? Quite a few, in my memory.

Does anyone remember Senator Chuck Schumer's declaration last year that West Coast bank Indy Mac was in trouble and was likely to fail? If the media hadn't played this up as they did, Indy Mac would likely have survived. But because the media gave it a full court press, customers of Indy Mac panicked and withdrew $1.8 billion (that's billion with a 'b') in cash, leaving the bank with little or no liquidity. The bank failed. Chuck Schumer and the media created a bank run that destroyed an otherwise healthy bank. If the media had been more responsible, Chuck's words would never have made it into the papers or on the air, the bank run would never have happened, and Indy Mac would have been just fine.

Of course the media always plays the old "The people have a right to know" card, even if that 'knowledge' is harmful, misleading, or even worse, false. They use it as a shield to deflect accusations that they themselves are the guilty party. The people may have a right to know, but who says they have to know right now? It seems that over the last couple of decades or so the media's need to be the first to break a story has replaced the need to be accurate, to check their facts, and not to report hearsay or second/third hand information as gospel.

Some of that push to be first may be blamed upon the advent of electronic news gathering, making breaking stories available instantly. The time available for fact checking and background has shrunk to almost nothing, meaning far too many reports are aired or put onto news websites before all the facts are available. This has lead to an increasing incidents of erroneous reporting.

But to get back to the main subject, it appears the media revels in the impending doom of economic downturns, massive job losses, and hardships brought to American families. Panic sells, and the media is very good at selling panic. Economic problems are the easiest to sell since they can affect everyone, rich and poor.

For the past two or three years they media has been trying to sell a recession, even though until recently there wasn't one, nor were there signs of one. But they kept making the claim, and eventually people started believing them. And once that happened, and the people started acting as if there was indeed a recession by cutting back on expenditures, lo and behold, a recession arrived. Why? Because people started cutting back on expenditures, which dropped sales, which in turn caused a cut back in orders from manufacturers, which in turn led to layoffs, which caused more people to cut back on expenditures. It was self-fulfilling prophecy made by the media.

Some may claim it was the meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led us to this point, but they were but one more symptom of the problem, not necessarily the problem itself. The media was also one of those in the cheering section for those supporting more loans to low-income families wanting to buy their own homes. But when those families started defaulting on the loans because they really couldn't afford them, the media acted surprised.

Is it any wonder most Americans don't trust the media and blame them for the economic problems we now face?

I used to have a lot of respect for ABC's Charlie Gibson, believing him to be one of the more level headed and impartial newscasters out there. But after his heavily edited interview with Sarah Palin aired, and transcripts if the entire interview became public, it showed him (or his editors) worked very hard to paint a picture of Sarah Palin that fit the narrative of the Democratic Party. They did not create an impartial vehicle as they should have. It will be very difficult for ABC to claim they didn't change the meaning of any of her responses with their editing.

It is "gotcha" interviews like this one that made Glenn Reynolds suggest to anyone being interviewed by the media , and specifically politicians or wannabe politicians, to bring their own camera. If nothing else it will keep the media honest because it will be possible to refute any creative editing they may perform. Out of context quotes will be able to be put back into context with the release of the interviewees own video.

More on the bring-your-own-camera meme at Instapundit.