News-Record.com

One thing that is for sure, the press and others from New York, Washington, and the West Coast look down their nose on Alaska, small towns and people out in Middle America. They seem to not be able to help it. Abe Lincoln would not have made it in todays environment.

You are exactly right, Joe.

I don't get the disdain the mainstream press and elites have for Palin's small-town roots. To hear some people talk, you would think that McCain nominated Forrest Gump's sister, rather than one of only 50 Governors in the United States. Don't they realize that millions of Americans live in small communities?

And if the McCain/Palin ticket prevails in November, I'm sure these same critics will blame Middle America for being "dumb" or "naive."

Allen are you part of the taskforce that has been mobilized to uncover the dirt on Ms. Palin? You better hurry before the tundra starts to freeze over until next May.

There's only 700,000 people up there so how hard could it be?

Any background on Joe Biden's plagiarism in law school? Obama's yeoman work with the Annenberg Challenge? His resistance to bipartisan good-government legislation that threatened the Daley machine?

Or does the N&R just offer this service for Republicans?

I'm not offering this information with any agenda. Just thought it might be useful, since most of us are still learning about Palin.

I'm not offering this information with any agenda.

**************

And next, you'll be asking us to invest in beachfront property in Kansas.

Oh come on. Is there not an agenda--if not yours, then certainly Mark Binker's--staring us in the face when the highlighted item is an ill-considered remark on teaching creationism? Why THAT remark and not this, from the same article?

"In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to."

Why that topic, and not her battles with the old-boy network? Do you still not see the agenda? If not, the agenda is this: to find the most embarrassing quotation and put it front and center.

Do you see the agenda in THIS website (a hypothetical one, since this apparently is a Republican-only service)?

Click here for a cache of articles dealing with Obama. Click here for Obama's thoughts on bitter people in small towns "cling[ing] to guns and religion."

Allen, of course by now you understand that it's impossible to prove a negative by arguing with these people. The other commenters are absolutely certain that there's a liberal media conspiracy against conservatives, and that's that. It's practically a religious belief that no amount of reasoning or fact will alter, because no conspiracy theorist has ever let his/her mind be changed by mere facts.

What these guys don't understand is that what the media really and truly want is a big juicy story, regardless of ideology. They don't realize that the media are in a feeding frenzy about Sarah Palin, not because she's a conservative, not because she's a small-town girl, but because no one knew anything about her until just a few days ago. They'd rather you accept the McCain campaign's claims that everything about her is wonderful. The fact that you're not is extremely rude.

In a way, the media feeding frenzy is just fine with these guys, because it allows them to continue to play the role of media victim. Oh, woe is them! Those poor Republicans! All they do is win election after election!

If you were a decent man, Allen, you'd at least shed a tear for them.

Andrew:

That's an astonishingly ignorant claim from someone with an academic background. How much empirical data do you need before you'll concede that media bias is something other than a "religious belief"?

Almost every major polling organization (Harris, Pew, Gallup, Zogby) has shown that Americans tend to perceive a liberal bias in the media. A 1996 Harris poll shows that even liberal believe this. A 2006 Gallup poll shows that 44% believe the media to be "too liberal," while only 19% believe that it is "too conservative." A 2007 Zogby poll found that "While 97 percent of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same....Just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right — and 17 percent said the bias favored the left." Is the gap here due to conservative "religiosity"?

It's well established that journalists are overwhelmingly self-identified liberals. Are you so naive as to believe that they simply check their liberal bias--that is, a predisposition to view the world in a certain way--at the door when they enter the newsroom and become, as they say, "fair and balanced"?

Do you believe that Fox News (which skews conservative) and MSNBC (which skews liberal) are equally--and only?--interested in the "juicy story"?

There's any number of academic studies of the subject, including this one,

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

debating whether liberal bias exists. There are two answers: yes and maybe. There are no studies showing that conservative bias exists.

Allen: straight-up question: do you believe the selection of the Palin quotation I criticize above to be "straight down the middle" or slanted?

brian444, thanks for making my case for me.

And by the way, I may be wrong (though I don't believe I am), but that doesn't make me ignorant.

Andrew, your "case" is an opinion that media bias is a delusion of conspiratorially minded conservatives. Grounding a counter-opinion in data does nothing to support your "case." Claiming so suggests that you, not me, are unwilling to subject your opinion to critical analysis.

True enough on the ignorant comment; I revise to assert that you are wrong.

More data, from Rasmussen, shows that 51% of likely voters believe that the media's coverage of Palin is trying "to hurt her." More:

"In the new survey, although 85% say they are following news stories about Palin at least somewhat closely, just five percent (5%) think reporters are trying to help her with their coverage, while 35% believe reporters are providing unbiased coverage.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans say reporters are trying to hurt the GOP vice presidential nominee, and 28% of Democrats agree. Only six percent (6%) of Republicans – and even fewer Democrats (4%)– think the reporting is intended to help her. Most Democrats (57%) think the reporters are being unbiased, but just nine percent (9%) of Republicans concur.

Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.

Voters are more ambivalent about whether the media coverage of Palin and her family reflects a double standard that treats women worse than men. Forty-six percent (46%) say it does, but 35% disagree. Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the stories show the media’s double standard against women, but a majority of Democrats disagree."

Brian,
I agree with Andy that part of the media's hunger for all things Palin is her relative obscurity.
She was a surprise pick and relatively little is known about her still.
As for the bias study you cite, I'd love to see the methodology used. Bias is a hard thing to measure.
The Rasmussen study is just downright strange as it cites perceptions, not empirical content analyses. The goal of news reporting isn't ot help or hurt a candidate; it's to report the facts.

As for the Palin quote you cite, I agree. It's worth hearing the fuller explanation.

By the way, Brian, do you agree with the UCLA study's assessment of NPR?

But which facts? Precisely because it is subjective and hard to measure, I'd argue, perceptions of bias matter. Here's a scenario: local coverage of the TRC. If you queried self-identified conservatives and liberals, you'd find, I suspect, that the former would deem the matter much less newsworthy than the latter. (In fact, you may have received comments on this blog to that effect.) But say, for the purposes of argument, that conservatives believe that the TRC should receive 0 coverage and liberals believe it should receive 100 coverage. If it actually receives 25 coverage, conservatives will see less bias than liberals. At 50, the perception of bias will be the same. If it receives 75 coverage, conservatives will see more bias. This scenario, I suggest, has played itself out in actual recent history, with the N&R practicing around an 85. So you heard more complaints from conservatives.

Your response, I suspect, will be that "newsworthiness" is an objective matter best left to journalists. But I would argue (a) the journalists bring their personal judgments about what's newsworthy to the matter, (b) there is no objective standard for what's newsworthy or not, since any group of people will disagree about it, and (c) the perceptual dispositions brought to bear by the mainstream media are liberal dispositions.

Hence the culling of THAT Palin quotation; hence my (conservative) perception of liberal bias. You'll get few complaints from liberals about your culling of Obama or Biden quotations.

What the survey data shows is that conservatives perceive a larger gap, in comparison with liberals, between how they think the news ought to be reported--that is, the newsworthy world as selected and filtered through their subjective predispositions--and how it actually is. Unless you posit a platonic, value-free conception of how the news ought to be reported (you're free to do so), this proves liberal bias.

Of course, objective content analysis (insofar as it's possible) tends to show similar patterns: recall the spring study showing Obama with 80% favorable stories, with poor Hillary and McCain lagging far behind. (McCain lagging behind Hillary.)

Rasmussen's wording is strange, to be sure, and it's pretty obviously a poll with an agenda. (In fact, it does with "data" pretty much what the liberal media does with "facts.") Also strange is the fact that non-aligned voters agree that the media is more concerned with hurting her than with "straight news." The public, in other words, believes that the media is failing in the role you describe. I guess that's because they don't understand how objective you guys are.

As for NPR being normally (instead of notably) liberal, I'll have to take their word for it. I jam to AC/DC when I ride.

I was about to cite the recent Rassmussen survey, but Brian444 beat me to it. Here's the part of the survey that got me:

"Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her. "

Note: these are unaffiliated voters, not the "Republican conspiracy theorists" that Mr. Brod holds in such disdain. And the numbers are overwhelming.

Of course, bias is impossible to prove empirically. But that doesn't mean it isn't real. If that many people believe the media is biased in this instance, doesn't that indicate a problem? Isn't there at least some smoke to this fire?

Of course Gov. Palin needs to be scrutinized, as does every candidate for national office. But such scrutiny needs to be fair, accurate and impartial -- and so far, the coverage of Palin has largely been none of the above.

As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on Sarah Palin, Senator McCain's choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I
know more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that he picked her.

While the political posturing inherent in the choice of Palin is obvious, the more serious issue is the fact that the VP is, literally, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Sarah Palin is totally and unequivocally unqualified to be Vice President, let alone President.

She is a life time member of the NRA and has worked tirelessly to allow indiscriminate hunting of wildlife in Alaska, She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial hunting from helicopters and airplanes, dollars that should have been spent, for example, on Alaska's failing school system.We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the country.

She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels, yet the McCain campaign has the nerve to say she has "green" policies.
The only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has consistently supported drilling in ANWR, use of coal-burning
power plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home town of Wasilla), strip mining, and almost anything else that will unnecessarily exploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy its environment.

Prior to her one year as governor of Alaska, she was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage.The average maximum education level of parents of junior high school kids in Wasilla is 10th grade.

Unfortunately, I have to go to Wasilla every week to get groceries and other supplies, so I have continual contact with the people who
put Palin in office in the first place. I know what I'm talking about. These people don't have a concept of the world around them or of the serious issues facing the US. Furthermore, they don't care. So long as they can go out and hunt their moose every fall, kill wolves and bears and drive their snow mobiles and ATVs through every corner of the wilderness, they're happy. I wish I were exaggerating.

Sarah Palin is currently involved in a political corruption scandal. She fired an individual in law enforcement here because she didn't
like how he treated one of her relatives during a divorce. The man's performance and ability weren't considered; it was a totally personal
firing and is currently under investigation. While the issue isn't close to the scandal of Ted Steven's corruption, it shows that Palin
isn't "squeaky clean" and causes me to think there may be more issues that could come to light. Clearly McCain doesn't care.

When you line Palin up with Biden, the comparison would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Sarah Palin knows nothing of economics (admittedly a weak area for McCain), or of international affairs, knows nothing of national government, Social Security, unemployment, health care systems - you name it. The idea of her meeting with heads of foreign governments around the world truly frightens me. In an increasingly dangerous world, with the economy in shambles in
the US, Sarah Palin is uniquely UNqualified to be Vice President. John McCain is not a young man. Should something happen to him such
that the Vice President had to step in, it would destroy our country and possibly the world to have someone as inexperienced and
inappropriate as Sarah Palin. The choice of Palin is a cheap shot by McCain to try to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. when McCain
introduced her, Palin had the nerve to compare herself with Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro. Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton.
To those of you who, like me, supported Hillary and were upset that she did not get the nomination, please don't think that Sarah Palin
is a worthy substitute. If you supported Hillary, the person to support now is Obama, not Sarah
Palin. To those of you who are independent or undecided, don't let the choice of Palin sway you in favor of McCain. Choosing her shows
how unqualified McCain is to be President. To those of you who are conservative, please
try to see how the poor choice of Palin tells us a great deal about McCain's judgment.

I thought it might help for all of you, regardless of political affiliation, to know something about Palin from someone who has to live with her administration in Alaska on a daily basis.

Jackie S.

Thanks for the form letter, available at thousands of websites throughout the U.S.

Yeah, you're right. It's all over the place. Some guy who calls himself Ike Conoclast has even posted it on the New York Times Web site.
Such foolishness.

When you vote 95.6% of the time to support laws, policies and acts that you now say "must CHANGE"; when you sponsor major legislation that "you won't even vote for"; when you lead the charge to WASTE some $2-3 TRILLION in an UNJUSTIFIED INVASION (only Congress can declare war--which they never did); When you say your "opponent will do and say ANYTHING to get elected--but you will always PUT COUNTRY FIRST" (THEN, AS IF THERE ARE NOT VASTLY QUALIFIED REPUBLICAN MEN OR WOMEN--YOU pick a running made AIMED at the "Clinton Women" and women votes--instead of what is best for the country); when you have been a major part of a party and politics that has led this nation to RECORD DEFICITS $450,000,000,000.00 PLUS; AND DEBT, OVER $9.3 TRILLION); When you tell the American people at large that you will put "securing our borders FIRST"; while at the SAME TIME running radio and TV ads in the Southwest (heavy Mexican and illiegal population) referring to Mexicans and illegals as "God's People" in search of a better life (AREN'T WE ALL?!!); When you were one of the last Senators to vote to recognize Dr. King as deserving of a National Holiday--yet have the audacity to show up in Memphis on the anniversary of his assassination and "apologize" (to who for what?); when you TWICE vote against an independent investigation {& additional funding for victims) of the NATIONAL TRAVESTY concerning the response to Katrina; yet send your kids down 2 wks before you show up to declare, "NEVER AGAIN"; When you cannot even remember how many luxury homes you have--but tell people facing foreclosure to "fen for themselves--it'll work out"; when AMERICAN SOLDIERS who you have sent to fight in an unjustified INVASION ARE DONATING $6 TO OBAMA FOR EVERY $1 FOR McBUSH; When your WAR POLICIES & LACK OF PREPARATION OR CONCERN ABOUT VETS HAVE LED TO RECORD NUMBER OF VET SUICIDES; WHEN YOU VOTE "AGAINST" VET BENEFITS FOR THE VERY PEOPLE YOU "CALL" HEROES! You SIR, are a "SNAKE OIL SALESMAN". They usually start all their statements with "MY FRIENDS.." also.

Larry Mangum and THIS IS NOT A FORM LETTER! FACTS (not soundbites) are VERIFIABLE.

I dont think democrats even have to worry about Palin here is why:

(electoral map picture)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/08/28/kr_map0827081_2.jpg

Looking at Karl Rove's electoral map which was done by polling in all the states, Obama currently has 260 electoral votes based on states that are solidly in the democratic column. You need 270 to be president. The biggest changes since 2004 so far is that Obama now leads by double digits in two states that Bush won solidly in 2004. Those two states are New Mexico and Iowa which combined is an additional 12 points for the democrats and minus 12 for the republicans. Obama only needs 10 electorial votes out of the remaing 7 battle ground states which combined is 57 electoral votes.

looking at the electoral map, I would put most of my resources in Ohio, Virginia and Colorado if I were Obama. I say Colorado because if Obama some how lost both Ohio and Virginia, Colorado combined with any one of the remaining states would put Obama over 270. We all know Nevada is leaning democratic so Colorado and Nevada would do it. Colorado has to be in that state "combination mix" if Obama loses Ohio and Virginia because Colorado has 9 electoral votes. (just looking at the worst case scenario) If Obama wins either Ohio or Virginia, it would put Obama over 270. There are other combinations of Obama winning but it would require him to win alot more states which may be difficult to do. But because of Obama picked up Iowa and New Mexico, it has allowed him to be able to win the presidency without Ohio and Florida.

Keep in mind in most polls Virginia is tied. The state hasnt been this close in turning blue since the 1960s. Its a state in which the black vote could put Obama over the top in Virginia which would then give Obama the presidency.

with less than two month til the election we can now get a clearer sense who is likely to win. I tell people dont focus so much on national polls. Both the campaigns are focusing on the electoral map and where they are up in each state. The map favors Obama which is why McCain made such a bold move by picking Sarah Palin to energize the republican base. But I think its too little to late. Obama has a strong foundation laid in these battleground states and he has a good chance in taking Ohio. John Kerry loss Ohio in 2004 by 200,000 votes. If John Kerry had won Ohio, hed be president now. The Obama campaign has registered almost a million new voters in Ohio while republican voter registration has declined in the state. Do the math. Kerry lost by 200,000 votes and Obama has gain almost a million voters through a kind of aggressive voter registration campaign which won him his seat in the US Senate. But even though Colorado, Nevada and North Dakota are toss up states in the margin of error, all three are slightly leaning towards Obama. So this is a good sign for the Obama campaign.