Media Matters Blows One On Palin

I try to be an impartial observer of the media, especially now when so much of it has become juvenile name-calling with few truths behind it.

Media Matters is usually on point, despite what its critics say. It almost always backs its claims with video or audio that lets its readers decide for themselves. And, regardless of the fact that those criticized try to claim that they are taken out of context, the clips speak for themselves and, I believe, are accurate.

Not so with this criticism of Sarah Palin’s book. The Web site claims that Palin’s book sales are inflated because it is being sold at discount prices.

However, as one of the commentors points out: Many best sellers are sold at discount to bring people into the store, including Dan Brown’s latest.

Not a fair swipe, I think.

However, it’s still not as bad as some of the misrepresentations on the right about the book.

1. Someone please tell me why Rush Limbaugh and his ilk constantly refer to Palin as “Governor” Palin. Does a governor who hasn’t finished a term deserve the title? And even if you think she does, why don’t they call Jimmy Carter “President” or even “former President”? You don’t have to answer. It’s a rhetorical question.

2. How about this? Rush Limbaugh claims Palin’s book only has 10 pages or so of criticisms and campaign talk, but is mostly about policy….However FOX notes that the book only has about 10 pages of policy and is mostly personality? I admit: I don’t have the book.  Maybe one of you who has read it can enlighten us. Here are the two reports.

My local bookshop is selling Palin’s book this way, with nutz on the side. But what do you expect? I live in California. It once sold Richard Nixon’s biography by weight, as if it were bologna.

Share

4 Comments on "Media Matters Blows One On Palin"

  1. Not appearing to defend a guy like Rush, but the usual custom, as far as I’ve seen, is to refer to former presidents, Senators, governors, etc. by their former title. Yes, an “ex-” is often added, or “former” as a modifier, but it’s common shorthand to refer to former officeholders by just the name of their former office.

    Just to cite one example out of many thousands that are available, the LA Times refers to Bill Clinton in a headline as “President Clinton” (see http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-senate11-2009nov11,0,1556876.story).

    I’m not saying it should be done … I don’t see why adding an “ex-” isn’t possible … but it is nonetheless customary.

    • I read an article sometime within the past year that discussed the propriety of calling ex presidents etc. president. It said it’s improper to do so, they should be addressed as former, Mr., Ms. etc. I doubt this rule will ever be followed but there it is.

  2. Sarah Palin does have a rather large supporter base. Its hilarious when some of them are interviewed and cannot explain why they support her. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/palin-supporters-struggle_n_367800.html

  3. Media Matters is usually right on point….give me a break Brad. I will reiterate the point that I have made in response to several of your articles Brad, it is a slap in the face to the noble legacy of the Watchdog…… You go out of your way to bash anything conservative or family values oriented. I have no problem with you writing about culture or entertainment — I wish the politics would be off of this site. That’s the reason why I no longer visit every day and unsubscribed from the weekly e-mail.

Comments are closed.