blogwatch
1 Sep 2008
Grandma Goes to Washington?
Did McCain's surprise running mate Sarah Palin really give birth recently, or is she covering for her 16-year-old daughter by claiming the baby as her own?
John McCain has surprised almost all US political pundits by choosing Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to join the GOP 2008 ticket. Everyone, that is, except 21-year-old political science major Adam Brickley, whose blog, "Draft Sarah Palin for VP", has been promoting the idea for over 12 months — and proves that there really is a blog for just about everything.Sarah Palin is best described as a Feminist for Life, Gun-Owning, ex-Beauty Queen, Hockey Mom (of five kids) who enjoys moose burgers.
Since the announcement, bloggers have scrambled to understand more about Alaska's Governor. Palin is currently under investigation for Troopergate (is there a GOP member not under investigation?) but this may become irrelevant with a potentially much bigger scandal ... Babygate.
Blogosphere rumour has it that Palin is in fact a mother of four children — and a grandmother of one. ArcXIX At Daily Kos says:
While Alaskans had been giving her an 80 per cent approval rating, recently 87 per cent of Alaskans polled on the subject of TrooperGate believed she was lying.
Now, I've known liars in my life. Their single core problem is not with themselves, but those around them. If they're never called out on their twisting of truths and fabrications, they simply continue to make larger lies. Well, Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.
There is some pretty fascinating evidence to support this assertion — even if it turns out to be complete rubbish — such as photos of a supposedly seven-month pregnant Palin looking surprisingly slim.
Already McCain/Palin supporters are dismissing this as a beat-up. Particularly insightful is Little Miss Attila who writes:
Let's say this whole thing were true: Palin faked a pregnancy and offered, along with her husband, to raise her granddaughter as her own. This involved massive inconvenience, and some fibbing. Um ... so?
Yep, no big deal really. The US has done well so far with fibbers in the Administration.
Regardless, McCain has picked a fairly underqualified candidate as second-in-charge leader of the free world, although the choice may shore up support in some demographics — including the religious right, women and gun-owners. The Street Prophets blog is suggesting the choice wasn't even McCain's (who would have preferred Lieberman):
With time running out, and after a long meeting with his inner circle in Phoenix, Mr McCain finally picked up the phone last Sunday and reached Ms Palin at the Alaska State Fair. Although the campaign's polling on Mr. McCain's potential running mates was inconclusive on the selection of Ms Palin — virtually no one had heard of her, a McCain adviser said — the governor, who opposes abortion, had glowing reviews from influential social conservatives.
And as if all of these revelations — just 48 hours after the Republicans' announcement — weren't enough, you'll be pleased to know she owns her own seaplane. (What is it with conservatives and planes?)
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
There are at least hundred ways in which Palin could be legitimately attacked as a ridiculous VP choice and yet this writer chooses to focus on malicious nonsense that has absolutely no factual foundation.
If you want to believe this kind of tripe then you are no doubt easy meat for those who push the idea that 9/11 was a Bush/Cheney or Jewish conspiracy. Shame on Matilda for promoting such dunderheaded rubbish.
australiana, from my understanding of the term ‘Blogwatch’,this is more a look at what other outlets are saying on the web rather than trying to attack Palin. Calm down.
By definition you can find virtually anything on some blog somewhere. Inevitably there must be a process of selection by any ‘blogwatch’. Presumably that process of selection is based on some idea of what might be useful or interesting or in some way valid. This fake pregnancy stuff is none of those things unless you are an avid reader of Who magazine.
If you want to read any of the one hundred reasons why Palin is such a disastrous choice for McCain I suggest you steer clear of NewMatilda and its woeful editorial standards and head instead to The Huffington Post - not perfect but way better than this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
australiana - firstly, this is a US Presidential campaign so any pretense of classy standards should be saved for your next trip to Disneyland and secondly, Huffpo have some great pieces on Palin, such as ‘Palin Laughs As Opponent Is Called "Bitch," "Cancer"’ (opponent was a cancer survivor) OR Palin: ‘TV Sports Anchor To Vice Presidential Candidate’
Are these some of your 100 reasons to attack Palin?
Printing this article is in my opinion disgusting. As Australiana notes there are legitimate reasons to oppose Palin, but this article at best is just spreading rumours and at worst telling all out lies (DailyKos, source of this story is paid to support Barack Obama)
I dislike the Republicans and Neocons and Howardites for their warmongering, their outrageous distortions, and frankly their baldfaced lies. Now I see the Oz Labor + US Democrat and even the Oz Green movement going down the same path!!!
FOR SHAME NEW MATILDA.
Where does spin end and the lies begin? My vote is to remove this story from your site. There is no disclaimer it comes from a paid US Democrat site and also no author has the guts to put their name on this article … a sure sign even you know it’s wrong.
So disappointed…
Hi Australiana and Coconaut,
Ringo is right, blogwatch is intended to be a wrap up of what blogs are saying about the week’s hot topic - from the insightful to the wacko. It’s a snapshot of the blogosphere rather than a serious analysis of the issue at hand. We’ll be publishing an analysis of the choice of Palin for VP candidate tomorrow.
cheers
marni editor
Hi Marni,
Then newmatilda has been conned. The American political blog-o-sphere has morphed in the last 18 months from a geniune grassroots think-tank and commentariat into a tighly massaged message machine. But most major media outlets and even the readers still think of the blog-o-sphere as this cool counter-culture thing - sadly that is no longer the case.
The US Democratic party has co-opted their side of the blog-o-sphere to promote their partisan message through a system of patronage, promotion and of course, embedding bloggers within their own structure.
It was particularly apparent during the DNC when blogs I favour (lifestyle blogs) unrelated to politics started blogging live from the DNC and pushing a pro-Democrat line.
Whether you favour US Democrats over US Republicans or not, it is imperative critical thinkers maintain their objectivity on messages coming out of the blog-o-sphere, especially now spin-masters in the US have recognised that readers trust blogs.
Your trust of the blog-o-sphere as a wacky grassroots bazaar has just seen you co-opted by paid party political operatives in another country! Doesn’t that alarm you???
I just find it amazing that in 1999 when McCain was fighting Bush for the nomination, the Right disgustingly pushed out rumours that McCain had "adopted a black baby", and now when McCain is fighting Obama for the presidency the Left push out disgusting innuendo about McCain’s VP.
We fought Bush and the Neocons for so long we’re in danger of becoming them.
Firstly Ringo. The answer is yes. Those Huffpo stories are based on verifiable evidence.
Secondly marni. Your article does not treat the fake pregnancy story as "wacko". Rather the reverse, you seem to see it as "insightful" and "fascinating" and well worth following up. You also chose to give it the leading spot on your home page - without any hint that you were merely presenting wacko crud for our intellectual delectation
steer clear of NewMatilda and its woeful editorial standards and head instead to The Huffington Post …..if you want to see REALLY woeful standards, not to mention reams of celeb-ego fluff.
Someone claiming Huffpo as quality journalism, best laugh all day
I like NewMatilda. This story may be a bit suss …. I think the McCain camp would have checked every possibility for embarrassment before their candidate was chosen.
The real issue ( for me and the rest of the world ) is that no matter what gets claimed or dredged up … the woman is a republican and has republican values.
Hopefully the american voters will try not be swayed by ‘stories’, ‘personalities’ , endorsements by celebrities, promises, weasel words and the media and will vote for a president and a party which has ‘real’ human values. (for me that means a change at the top)
ü Reduce, replace, reuse, recycle - the environment is everybody’s business
Coconaut et al
We never claimed to "trust" the blogosphere as a reliable source of
information (and we know that newmatilda.com readers are smarter than
to believe everything the interweb tells them), but we do think it
offers some interesting nuggets of debate and every so often throws
up a gem that the mainstream media misses.
Blogwatch as an opportunity to sift through a lot of stuff, but we
don’t feel that we need to pre-digest that for our readers when it
gets weird, ambiguous or malicious, as it seems to have here. Our
readers tend to know what political blogs are all about - what
they’re for, who writes them and why. Yes, we could present the
material safely behind a screen or editorial warnings, but we think
our readers are mostly better than that. Meanwhile, blogwatch is also
supposed to be fun (at least sometimes) and has a lighter tone to
other newmatilda.com content.
This information IS on the blogosphere, and it IS arguably the most
interesting of the things about her that’s getting play out there.
We’re not going to hide that. A blogwatch that didn’t cover that
would be a pretty pointless blogwatch.
We also think discussions such as this one - about the sources of
information that gets circulated on the internet - are worth having.
So let’s have it.
Anyone wondering just how much credence WE gave to that theory might
re-read the comment that this could well turn out to be utter
rubbish, and the whole point of the piece which was that in just 48
hours since the announcement, these are the things that have already
emerged, in the hectic world of the US election lead-up and its crazy
media cycle.
The Editors
(NB: in the interests of transparency - this was originally posted by rod but actually written by NM editorial staff - marni and brendan)
MissnOmar, you will obviously never be an honest journalist yourself if you insist on misrepresenting what others say.
What I said is that if you want to see some decent arguments, and not total garbage as published in this story, for why Palin is a very poor choice for VP take a look at Huffpo.
In particular I suggest this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/brand-first-equivocate-la_b_12…
Dear Rod,
While it is true that you do allow that the story might be utter rubbish you also equally allow that the story has "fascinating evidence" that she looked "surprisingly slim" and may well be true because "the US has done well so far with fibbers in the Administration".
You place importance on the fact that "this information IS on the blogosphere". You really do have an odd idea of what constitutes "information" but leaving that aside I do doubt the editorial process involved in selecting and highlighting that information. "Information" that Mickey Mouse has sex with Minnie Mouse IS out there in the blogosphere but I would not choose to focus on that "information" unless I was the editor of Who Magazine (Comic Character Edition).
Leave out the overly defensive and patronising guff about not "pre-digest(ing) that for our readers" and focus on some honest journalism. The fact that she is on the ‘wrong’ political side does not entitle you to engage in malicious and idiotic slander.
I agree with australiana and I think newmatilda is being disingenuous claiming that the discussion of whether newmatilda is being unethical and dishonest by publishing malicious rumour is "worth having". You are literally saying you would give credence to ANY THING written on the internet, no matter how unfair, unscrupulous and dishonest it might be. That’s such a ridiculous position to have.
Fight a person on the battlefield of ideas, not with the tools of hate.
Some things really are as simple as right and wrong, and a media outlet, even one that wears its progressive heart on its sleeve, should strive to publish objective, fair and honest material. It’s as simple as that. This "article" fails on so many levels. The fact no author has attached their name to this article is very telling.
And I would add that I think newmatilda, which let’s face it is undeservingly underwhelming in its popularity, is trying to generate readership by resorting to this kind of gimmick.
I have to say, I think you have lost a reader here for a while.
PS. I really dislike Republicans, and Bush should be in jail for war crimes.
Read the story published in the Anchorage Daily News in April about the birth:
http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html
Eating all those mooseburgers must have given Sarah the super-human strength to deliver a speech then take 2 commercial airline flights after her water had broken. When she arrived in Anchorage she went straight to the hospital. Oh sorry, my mistake, after landing in Anchorage she drove for 1 hour to a small town called Wasilla (where Palin grew up and was Mayor) to have the baby. Makes perfect sense to me.
I have noticed a few articles have been written by "Newmatilda.com" - I would in general prefer to see a writer take public ownership for his/her work, unless there is a reason for the anonymity. Is there such a reason in this case or is there an editorial policy at work?
So many important, funny, weird and uplifting events happening across the world - this one was certainly a second class choice in which to invest time and effort.
The statement about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy should finally eliminate this preposterous and malicious story (ie because it makes it a physiological impossibility that this will be Bristol’s second child). As has been pointed out elsewhere carrying this story has been a stain on the few left/liberal blogs that pushed it along. That stain extends to NewMatilda as well.
There is every indication that the Obama campaign sensibly never wanted to have anything to do with it.
The pregnancy is however yet another piece of evidence that McCain’s ‘vetting’ of Palin was thin and adequate and casts yet more doubt on his ability to make even Republican-style sound decisions.
Sorry typo above: "adequate" should of course be "inadequate".
We never claimed to "trust" the blogosphere as a reliable source of
information (and we know that newmatilda.com readers are smarter than
to believe everything the interweb tells them), but we do think it
offers some interesting nuggets of debate and every so often throws
up a gem that the mainstream media misses.
The Fairfax papers would undoubtedly use a similar argument to defend their reliance on celebrity journalism nowadays. Scurrilous rumours, gossip, and innuendo about celebrities find their way into the SMH and The Age regularly because the journalists are just reporting on ‘the tabloid press’ and ‘the entertainment industry’. It’s a clever lie, because it allows the papers to cash in on entertainment gossip whenever they like.
Same pattern here: scurrilous rumours are repeated, which helps to up the readership numbers, and - as an added bonus - acts as a handy slur against the American right.
Nice one, folks!
After Joe Biden's announcement last week, our blogwatch section stated: 'We head to the blogs for some dirt on Barack Obama's preferred VP'
This week, we approached the announcement of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket in the same way, with particular interest in how blogs will react to a virtual unknown politician joining McCain. We looked at the information (the verifiable, slanderous and also the fairly uninteresting) to compile this blogwatch.
The Daily Kos blog suggestion that Palin's baby was not hers, was detailed, extensive, thought provoking and almost too ridiculous to believe. We didn't really believe it and acknowledged it may well turn out to be complete rubbish. However, and I think this is a critical point: in an election campaign, blog posts such as these gain momentum and become part of the campaign. As a reader suggested yesterday in US Presidential Elections - dirt peddling comes into its own. The purpose of blogwatch is to let readers know what is happening in the blogosphere.
The suggestion that we will publish anything is false. In the first paragraph of this week's blogwatch we comment 'that there really is a blog for just about everything'. Having participated in the compilation of this Blogwatch, I assure you there was plenty of outrageous and offensive statements and suggestions which were intentionally not included.
I would add to this that for newmatilda.com's editors, the Blogwatch section is not an article. It is not content we publish as our own - it is a selection of what others in the blogosphere are saying.
In reference to the contributors credit of 'newmatilda.com', this is used specifically for pieces which are compiled by a number of newmatilda.com staff and/or interns.
Finally, we note that Fairfax Online is asking today, 'Is Sarah Palin's baby really hers?' I do not mention this to dismiss the concerns or disagreement of some readers expressed here but to suggest, the blogosphere does play a role in the media cycle and it is stories just like this which filter through to the MSM. This has reinforced our belief in the value of the Blogwatch section.
Please keep telling us what you think: good and bad. It's 139 days until the first Tuesday in November.
Rod McGuinness Managing Editor newmatilda.com
Rod,
I think you have the duty to be be very careful what you publish, to ensure that you don’t simply push crap and rumours. It is too easy to just say that ‘The purpose of blogwatch is to let readers know what is happening in the blogosphere.’ Rumours can be so incredibly destructive. Let’s try a couple:
* I refuse to believe that there is any truth in the story that Xxx has been caught with a 12-year-old boy by his mother. After all, is he in jail yet ? No, so there must be absolutely no truth in this scurrilous story.
* Just because somebody that looked like Xxxxx was seen down in St Kilda early on Sunday morning soliciting, doesn’t mean that it was her. Xxxxx is gorgeous but that is no reason to believe that she might be selling herself.
See what I mean ? Put some names in there and see how it runs.
I don’t care a toss for Sarah Palin as a politician, she stands for everything I oppose, but I suggest respectfully that your reporters keep away from slander and unnuendo - make your case against what she stand for, especially her strong points: if your case is valid, then you should be able to demolish her arguments at their strongest points, so says Karl Popper. If her case is incorrect, then her strongest arguments will be incorrect, and falsifiable.
Leave the sensational stuff to trash like Who or New Idea or the Green Left Weekly.
Best wishes, Joe
Dear Rod,
Your pretence that you are neutrally presenting what is happening in the blogosphere is truly ridiculous. Any fair reading of the above article will see that the story is framed as a really interesting revelation and a "potentially much bigger scandal" that may well be true and is certainly worthy of investigating further. The juvenile ‘Juneau’ illustration that goes with it only confirms your delight in the story and the hope that it might be true.
I checked out the SMH story you linked to and it is not in the same league as yours. It simply points out that the Republican’s claim that the Bristol pregnancy statement was put out to counter the fake pregnancy story (this Republican claim is itself unlikely as the Bristol pregnancy story would have to come out anyway).
It doesn’t matter how you try to spin it the promotion of this story by NewMatilda was unethical and the editors ought to have the decency to apologise. However, as I value my continued existence, I am not holding my breath because unfortunately, for some lefties, being left means never having to say you’re sorry, especially to your opponents. But saying sorry to your readers shouldn’t be so hard should it?
Rod and Marni,
Check this story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_daughter
It seems that Palin’s daughter is currently five months pregnant, i.e. on September 1, so unless she can time-travel, she couldn’t have been the mother of that baby born in April.
So perhaps we can get back to citricising Palin for her policies and beliefs, which are fair game. She’s a conservative, Bible-bashing, anti-conservation, pro-oil drilling, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-feminist, with almost no public experience, and very much in line to be President if McCain is elected. And she will get a lot of the ‘radical’ feminists’ vote, and those of Hillary supporters who would never vote for a Black man.
Surely there’s meat enough there. Joe
Rather than mount our all very high horses here… it’s horses for courses really.
I find it fascinating what the blogosphere has to say about political figures, particularly women where it really gets down and dirty. Like to know what’s out there but also gave it the credence that it deserves… none.
Dear NM please do not allow yourself to be censored by blogbotherers.
New Matilda’s reporting of this issue is disgraceful and shameful. So much for respect for women in politics. Yeah- stupid me for thinking you thugs cared two hoots for women’s rightful place in the world of politics and work. And don’t dare go getting stuck into Palin or her daughter for their courageous response to the real grandchild’s expected arrival in a few months. This is not just blog watching. This is getting on board the vicious rumour mill of the snide and snooty set of the left. What is next for Palin? Pantsuit pillories?, hairstyle critiques? Perhaps it will be vilification of her family size - or will it be mockery of her husband? As of today, I have learned that nothing is too low for some who hold themselves up as responsible citizens of the third estate.
For one who has voted to the left most of my life, the escapades of the likes of New matilda, Michael Moore etc are turning my stomach, and leading me to re-appraise my politics.
Gee- to think I thought that journalists (or "blog watchers") wanting to earn respect actually had to go break a sweat to check some facts and ethics. So last century!
You could have written a thoughtful piece on her interesting politics but yeah- like I said- who does that anymore.
Actually Ally, I think New Matilda did write a thoughtful piece on Palin, today:
http://newmatilda.com/2008/09/02/gal-loves-god-and-guns
"In reference to the contributors credit of ‘newmatilda.com’, this is used specifically for pieces which are compiled by a number of newmatilda.com staff and/or interns."
I think this is a poor policy - one or more real people need to be publicaly accountable what is written, even if it is a collaboration. As readers get to know journalists, they learn to trust, dismiss or dislike their work on the basis of an accumulated history of their integrity, values and objectiveness. I dislike work that hides behind anonymity and hope NM reviews the policy.
In addition to being weakened by being anonymous, the story was weakened further by being a story about "news" written by others, rather than the news itself. The problem was that, regardless of the intent of NM, the story read as a news item rather than a critical review of a blog. You cant have it both ways and retain credibility as a serious news outlet - if the intent was to report on what is being said in blogs, then that should have been clearly demonstrated via the headline and the content. Instead, the story was run as a story, with an attempt to give it some semblance of journalistic value by calling it a blogwatch. The style, content and approach were all poor, and demonstrate that, just as a camel is a horse designed by committee, a blogwatch is a story designed by an anonymous "team". Media watch has its faults, but it never appears to be reporting a news item when it is in fact critiquing the journalist.
Maybe what is needed is more clarity about the purpose of your blogwatch and journos that follow that purpose with more integrity than was shown in this story.
So am i the only person who read the article and just laughed?
Do all you people actually take this seriously?
’ Yeah- stupid me for thinking you thugs cared two hoots for women’s rightful place in the world of politics and work.’
Two words, Ally. Margaret. Thatcher. Hang on, I want another two. Condoleezza. Rice.
No, I want a whole paragraph. The suggestion that the proposition of female candidate automatically entails a win for feminist interests is an empty one. Sure, it’s a heartening sign that a woman can run for political office. And sure, Sarah Palin with her moose-shootin’ and tough talkin’ trumps a whole lot of superannuated conventions about femininity. Great - but there’s no shortage of counterpoints to damsels in distress out there in The World. And I struggle to see how the anti-abortion, anti-heathcare reform Palin is acting for the interests of women. Honestly.
Hi Franbtc
If you’re a regular reader of newmatilda.com you’ll know that the Blogwatch section was launched a month ago. If not you can read about the launch of the section in this editorial:
http://newmatilda.com/2008/08/14/damn-hot-here
The idea was to give a round up of what the blogs are saying about the week’s hot topic. It was never intended to include original journalism. Just like in newspapers (where you wouldn’t expect to read original journalism in, say, the op-ed section) we have different sections with different purposes. We publish satire, which is not intended to be taken seriously, and we publish news analysis, which clearly is. As long as these different sections are labeled as such, we don’t think this should pose a problem for our readers.
Since launching Blogwatch we’ve covered Beijing, Doping in sport, the Georgia/Russia War, Joe Biden, and now Sarah Palin.
According to web stats all of these articles have been some of our most popular in the week they were published. We’ve taken this as a sign that the section is doing its job: providing a neat summary of what’s being talked about on the net, and saving readers the time consuming task of doing the trawling themselves.
If you want to know who “we” are, have a look at the “about us” section of the website. The three editorial staff listed there - me, brendan and catriona - plus our managing editor rod, are the people behind the name newmatilda.com. We are not hiding anyone, merely using it to denote co-authored pieces. Again, newspapers publish editorials that are clearly written by the editorial staff but are published with no author attached. This is a well accepted practice in publishing.
On the comments about our coverage of this and other issues – it’s actually been very enlightening to get all of this feedback on how newmatilda.com is perceived by our readership, so thanks for taking the time to weigh into this discussion.
Since I took over as editor in December last year, and especially since we launched our new website in January this year, there has been a shift in the tone of the content on newmatilda.com. We still publish predominantly hard-hitting coverage of politics and current affairs, but have also branched out into some lighter coverage and brought on more satirical writers.
We absolutely still see ourselves as a ‘journal of record’ and a reputable source of serious analysis, news and commentary. But we also try not to take ourselves too seriously, and think it’s ok to take the piss out of things and have a laugh sometimes.
As editor, I’d like to think that the light and the serious can sit by side by side at newmatilda.com, without one or the other becoming who we ARE. As rachelc102 has pointed out above, we published this blogwatch on the rumours circulating about Palin (Australiana, I fail to see how a “juvenile” illustration proves that we are taking a rumour seriously?? I think our use of the term “Babygate” is a pretty good indicator that we’re taking the piss), but we also published a serious analysis by Dr Michael O’Keefe: http://newmatilda.com/2008/09/02/gal-loves-god-and-guns.
Our hits have more than doubled since December last year, so I figure we’ve been doing something right in making this shift in tone and direction.
On the subject of hits: this blogwatch has had ten times as many reads as this (http://newmatilda.com/2008/09/01/its-your-move-nato) compelling piece of original journalism on Georgia from Tbilisi-based correspondent Terry Friel, which was published on the same day. Unlike some other sites, this fact won’t stop us publishing the serious stuff, because we think it’s vital and we’re not in the business of chasing hits at all costs. However, to all you readers who say you hate the trashy content of this article, I say to you: prove it to us.
Cheers
Marni editor
Good on you, Trixie ! But it’s not just in relation to women’s issues and feminism where you might find this witlessness. My wife Maria is fairly well-known down here in Aboriginal affairs, particularly education, and she was talking to a noted Aboriginal ‘leader’ (who shall remain nameless) who strongly advised her, at the last state elections, to vote for the Family First Party because, here in South Australia, it was headed by an Aboriginal woman. God help us.
Cheers, Joe
"If you want to know who “we” are, have a look at the “about us” section of the website. The three editorial staff listed there - me, brendan and catriona - plus our managing editor rod, are the people behind the name newmatilda.com. "
At the risk of sounding like Im carping, which Im not wanting to do, I assume then that author Newmatilda.com = accountability accepted by these 4 named people. So why not name them? I expect its not always all 4, and its not hard to write 2, 3 or even 4 names.
I appreciate your time in expressing the editors views and I am sympathetic to much of what has been written. I do, however, still believe that in the case of this article at least, the story came across as a sensation rather than a satire, a story rather than the humorous sharing of blog foolishness.
Its a good debate to have and one that points, as you say, to the standards sought by readers.
Perhaps we could also hear what New Matilda editors had for breakfast? Any vegans amongst you?
Seriously, this won’t be so amusing when we have another Republican Administration for four years. Somehow readers think everyone should play nice because ‘a lady’ has been nominated by McCain. All these Lefties should roll over and play dead because you can’t play politics?
Palin is running on a ticket in support of all sorts of policies including:
- Pregnant teenagers need to continue schooling or they lose their welfare entitlements
- Palin opposes abortion - cases of rape and incest included
- Palin rejects man made global warming
Then there’s McCain’s flip flop position on almost everything and acknowledged lack of understanding on the economy. (As mayor Palin ran her town into $20 million debt).
So let’s all say nice things because Palin is a woman, with a nice smile and has kids. I thought a grown up political debate was about the issues, not the symbolism. McCain’s choice is from a desparate GOP. Poor judgement but they can still win. I’d rather fight that on all fronts.
I’ve just had a chance to re-read the comments section. ‘Australiana’ should take her almost ‘racist’ efforts (by this I mean it’s the same hell-fire and brimstone wank that racists come out with) to support women, and bury those efforts in the sand. Women should use logic when it comes to politics. Also, although I love Huff Post, I have to say it’s as much to do with the fact that I happen to agree with a lot of the journos there, as it is for it’s content. I trust you’ve read the comments section on this issue? There are an awful lot of those being printed from women who support Klondike Klogs Palin, just because she is a woman; because she works, because she’s a ‘mom’, and sundry other nauseating qualities. It would appear that these women are incapable of imagining how Sarah Palin would guide America’s future when the Barbarian McCain trips over his microphone cord and falls stone dead into the orchestra pit? As an Australian who is apparently doomed to the thinking of the Howard Doctrine of lurve the gringos; it is appalling to think of the ‘free(?) world’ being exposed to the thoughts of an inexperienced hick from Saskatoon, or wherever, trying to deal with Vladimir Putin, Georgia, the environment, the human population explosion and sundry other assorted possible disasters. Personally, If the dreaded McCain gets elected I think I’ll take off to The Faulkland Islands, or somewhere like Puerto Madryn, or Rîo Gallegos in Argentina. very cold, but hopefully the last refuge before Bush blows up the world. And fundamentalist religions persuing the idea of populate and perish ideals, who’ve done more than anyone, or anything to really fuck up the planet.
Venise ! Saskatoon is in Canada ! And last I heard, the US has not actually invaded Canda (although etc. etc.) or even unilaterally offered citizenship to the citizens in oil-rich provinces, and thereby had an excuse to invade.
I don’t care if Palin is stone-deaf, one-eyed or has fourteen illegitimate kids to fourteen different seamen: what are the principles that someone called Palin, who might one day be President, stands for ? Let’s get away from who and focus on what:
* anti-abortion,
* pro-gun,
* pro-oil,
* anti-conservation,
* ratbag Christian,
* pro-business,
* probably in favour of lowering tax rates ?
* probably in favour of segregated schooling ?
* anti-same-sex marriage,
* pro-war,
* pro-bilateral free trade agreements,
* in favour of invading Canada for its oil ?
I don’t know about the last one, but I wouldn’t be surprised. After all, it worked for Russia, and it might even get the Left vote on those grounds.
So let the debates over her PRINCIPLES begin. On NM ? Fat chance. Joe
On the topic of stories by "newmatilda" not being credited to a specific author, most papers I read seem to do this every day under the category of "editorials" without being accused of having something to hide.
I strongly agree with Barack Obama that Sarah Palin’s private life should be exactly that - PRIVATE.
However Sarah Palin has supported enough really BAD causes - war, oil, anti-science, environmental vandalism - to warrant severe censure on these substantive, public policy matters.
Racist Religious Right Republican (R4), pro-Gun, climate sceptic, anti-Science, anti-abortion (even when incest, rape and severe disability are involved) , anti-Asian, anti-Polar Bear, anti-Wolf, anti-Wilderness, pro-War, pro-Zionist, anti-Gay, anti-Environment, pro-Oil, pro-Coal, pro-Nuclear Terrorism, pro-Creationism teaching, pro-Intelligent Design teaching, climate criminal, terracidal Bush-ite warmonger Sarah Palin represents a major threat to India, South Asia, Humanity and the Biosphere and is unfit for public office - and ditto her child-bombing, "war hero" running mate John McCain.
Sarah Palin has an appalling record that is summarized in the following detailed and documented analyses:
“Sarah Palin - an awful record. Why Sarah Palin is unfit to be Vice President”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/24987/42/ .
“Top Ten most disturbing facts and impressions about Sarah Palin”: http://www.alternet.org/election08/97198/top_ten_most_disturbing_facts_a… .
“Sarah Palin’s awful environmental record”: http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/01/sarah-palins-awful-environmental-re… .
“20 reasons why Sarah Palin is unfit to be vice president of US”: http://gpolya.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/31/1810314-20-reasons-why-sarah… ).
“US nuclear terrorism, Global Warming, Genocide – Why Sarah Palin is UNFIT for office”: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article17291 .
McCain & Palin unfit to rule & threaten India with Poverty, Death, Global Warming & US state terrorism: http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/09/mccain-palin-unfit-to-rule-t… .
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
Thank you, Dr Polya, a focus on principles at last ! Joe
If it is Sarah Palin’s baby, she should be at home looking after him.
Otherwise once her daughter’s baby is born, he will probably be left to play with this new nephew or neice (while his mother negotiates a political minefield) and may well begin to think the daughter really is his mother, growing up quite confused as to who his real mother is!
On this link:
http://au.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=ek95nea3nahip
the story is about Palin slashing more than 20 % off the Alaskan State budget for single mothers’ support, initialled and all. Cleary, away from the hoopla and glitz, the governor is just as much a hypocrite as any other US politician. Joe
Anti-Wolf? That’s going to piss off the pro-wolf lobby no end.
‘A focus on principles at last’ ? Still waiting. What’s the Bush/Bush policy on taking over/bailing out the major mortgage guarantors, the FNMA and the FRMC ? How do they intend - over the next four, or (Christ help us) eight years -to bring down the national debt (well, to stop it rising first-off), will they introduce a more progressive tax system and soak the ultra-rich, will they ban biofuel production, will they subsidise the switch to wind and solar power, will they do anything useful for the great majority of citizens ? Or will they look after their mates, as usual ?
Do we discuss these issues ? Or will we compare Sarah Palin to Britney or LLohan or JLo or our Nicole or otherwise trivialise a crucial election ? If any dirt is to be dug that may be remotely relevant, what about McCain’s son walking away from yet another bank gone bust, the Silver State in Arizona ? What about Palin slashing the budget for single mothers, while her own example is going to be comfortably cared for in the Governor’s mansion ? What about her sacking a senior public servant because he wouldn’t go along with her abusing her powers ? And the Bridge to Nowhere ?
Or is this all above the heads of NM readers ? Is one of them going to compare Palin to Edna Everage before too long ? Are we going to get in-depth satire in place of analysis ? Joe
rmg - do you have a sense of humour? Could you be more patronising? Do you understand that a non-stop wonk-fest might bore all but a minority of readers. Are you arguing that New Matilda doesn’t ever feature policy analysis?
Tell you what, why don’t you write something yourself? You’ve got more than enough for an article in this comment thread.
Like your logic Marni - you say that the only way we can show our dislike of provocative stupid slanders is by never clicking on them. This is the classic tactic of malicious gossip-mongerers everywhere.
Their comeback when challenged is to say that you want to hear what they are saying, ignoring the fact that you only wanted to hear it so that you could refute their evil nonsense.
The original point stands. There is plenty to dislike and criticise about Palin that is legitimate and not nonsensical. There is plenty of evidence that the propagation of this story by the ‘left’ has done Palin an immense amount of good. She has been able to successfully present herself as the victim of a nasty and unprincipled hate campaign.
Thanks Jason-a-w, I thought my throwaway about Edna Everage might demonstrate a heightened sense of humour, but clearly I’ll have to practice a bit more. But being patronising hasn’t done me any harm so far: I guess it depends whether or not one has reason to be patronising. Sorry, I can’t really help that.
Yeah, I might think about writing something, but I might have to come down a bit for many NM readers, throw in a bit of NOW and OK and DOLLY to get their attention.
Now perhaps we can get back to what respective principles Bush/Bush and Obama/Biden stand for ? Joe
Patronising rmg1859? That’s a big word for you.
No, australiana, I wasn’t saying don’t click on the provocative stuff - i was saying DO click on the serious, original journalism, since that’s what you say you want more of.
cheers
marni editor
Well, the rumour wasn’t just provocative, it was an underhanded lie that was put out by Palin’s paid political enemies to which you gave credence in a cynical attempt to drive more traffic to your site, but way to miss the point, ed.
Thanks, Coconaut,
So what do four more years of Bush/Bush have to offer that is ‘change’ from theeight years already of Bush/Cheney, and what can Obama/Biden offer to remedy the massive economic disasters and political dilemmas confronting the US ?
Perhaps it is somewhat patronising to expect concrete thinkers to up-scale to more abstract notions of ‘what do they actually stand for?’ and ‘why should anybody vote for them over the other guys?’
I guess this is what I am trying to get across by using a big word like ‘principle’. Get your mother to explain it to you. Joe
yeah, i think we got that the seventh time you said it coconaut
Ha ha whoosh rmg1859 … I was making a joke for you. You wrote:
"I thought my throwaway about Edna Everage might demonstrate a heightened sense of humour, but clearly I’ll have to practice a bit more. But being patronising hasn’t done me any harm so far."
… and so I made a joke (the joke being to patronisingly say "patronising, that’s a big word for you") in response to how nobody else was getting your jokes. Oh well, back to the drawing board for my heightened sense of humour too!!!
Nice and snide Jasmine, well done.
Hi Coconaut,
Yeah, I sort of got it, and I’m sorry for the crack about your mother, who has raised a fine young man, no doubt about it.
Now to principles: how will the US rule the world for the next four years - in the same old way, or in nearly the same old way ? Actually, no, I don’t think the US will have anywhere near the same clout in the future as it has had up to now. I think it has really stuffed itself over Iraq and the sub-prime mortgage crisis, which both have a lot of legs yet.
So will Obama tax therich to pay for the national debt - will he bring in a much more progressive tax syste ? Will he nationalise the FNMA and FDMC or whatever the hell they are ? Will he pull all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009 ? Will he abandon Afghanistan and the women there to the feudalists ? Will he really, really try to catch bin Laden ? ‘Obama nets Osama’ ? I’d like to see that.
Which party will cater for the poor and unemployed, and find ways to get them back into the workforce ? Will either party bring in universal and free education right up to university level, like in Ireland ? Will Obama reform the health system ? Will he develop a far more generous policy towards illegal immigrants, who are doing so much of the shitty jobs across the US ? Will he leave South America alone, to get on with building their societies and economies ?
This is one of the most crucial elections in history, and I do believe that Obama can, just maybe, bring about observable change on behalf of the ‘bottom half’, not the top. The other lot of course will bring about positive change for the oil companies and for the wealthy, and negative change for almost everybody else.
So it is vitally important to know what they intend to really do, besides the rhetoric, and how they intend to do it, and how they expect to overcome the multitude of obstacles in the way of doing anything useful. Joe
Well, I firmly believe the US would be vastly improved by preferential voting. It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you are in a debate when the fence is in the wrong place.
But seriously, Trig? What’s up with that?
At the end of the day, a lot of the people who post an entry here or read this article may believe it word-for-word. Or, on the other hand, they may not. I believe in the right of a woman to choose. Full stop. Maybe I don’t agree with Sarah Palin on this point. So what? It doesn’t mean to say that she is the out-and-out scumbag that a lot of those of you south of the Tropic of Capricorn seem to think. I don’t necessarily think that she is A1 standard, either, though you shouldn’t forget your own country’s history. She does have principles, and don’t forget, no politician is perfect.
Obama may well be the choice of the well-meaning leftie; personally, my choice was Hillary Clinton with Pat Richardson as running-mate. La Clinton, simply put, has more bollocks than Obama without spouting same. Also, she and Bill have already done more for Northern Ireland (for example)than Barrack Obama ever will.
Judge McCain and Palin not..at least not yet; Australia has still plenty of its own problems left to solve, as do we. Racism, for example, not to mention religion. (By the way, I am Irish. Don’t talk to me about discrimination.)
Doubtless my humble little contribution will raise a few heckles from amongst the vultures in the back row, both left- and right-leaning. Remember, mis buitres, there are those of us who are still free-thinkers, and, even though we don’t always agree with what is published by New Matilda, we - and they - will stick our heads above the parapet. And, we will not just rely on the Internet as our only source of worldly information..
Yeah, just sticking my head above the parapet as well, Patman, I’m not so sure that the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ was such a bad idea: check out the area on Google Maps, satellite version - there isn’t just one little town, as we hear about, but a string of decent-sized towns all along the strait between the mainland and a string of islands, and the one common airport - which looked pretty busy to me, mainly with dozens of light planes, which probably makes sense in that part of Alaska - across about 300-400 metres of waterway. Currently, there seem to be many ferries going up and down that strait, and the ferry runs from Ketchikan across to the airport, which would seem to be pretty dangerous in times of fog and winter blackness. From a completely ignorant point of view, my consistent position, a bridge doesn’t seem like such a terrible proposal. $ 300 million might be a bit much but.
Apart from that, I would oppose McCain/Palin with every cell in my old, ravaged body. Joe
I’ve found a nice site to keep up with the latest Palin gossip: http://mudflats.wordpress.com/
Yes wowsers, it’s a blog and it contains gossip!
If it’s all too much for your precious sanctity, switch the webgoogle thing off and have a lie down. Go Barack!
Patman is right. The reasons for Sarah Palin being an out-and-out scumbag are vastly more numerous.
"Tob shebe goyyim harog".
For more dambning evidence of Palin’s anti-Native rights:
http://au.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=61mni99uhbed8
Even Huffpo is running personal stuff on Palin (thanks for the suggestion coconaut)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/brad-hanson-sarah-palins_n_1293…
Bristol Palin’s pregnancy has created lots of controversy in their family. Now, once again Bristol drags her family name because her mother-in-law Sherrie Johnston was arrested on several felony drug charges, for possession of the narcotic prescription painkiller Oxycontin.
Oxycontin, a form of the drug oxycodone, has been in the media’s eye for the last few years as there has been a near epidemic abuse and black market trafficking of the drug.
However, an Oxycontin bust normally barely makes headlines, but Sherrie Johnston isn’t getting headlines because she was using or selling it – oh no, she is getting attention because she is mother to Levi Johnston. Levi has a name in the press because he is engaged to Bristol Palin, pregnant teenage daughter of Sarah Palin, former Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States, and subject of more media attention than the Apocalypse will get.
Sarah Palin seems to be playing it smart, and is staying out of this one, because she may not have enough extra cash laying around to pay off Sherrie’s legal bills.