Palinisms

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Update: Listening now.I think I would end up agreeing with this guy a lot, but Jesus Christ, this is why I can't listen to radio. It takes people like 20 minutes to make a point that they could make in 1. Just cut down the elongated metaphors and make your point, we're smart, we follow your logic. Okay, I'm being harsh, but reading is just so much faster. Still listening, though.

I like his history podcast alot more. But yeah, the guy comes from a radio background, so he has a very talk radio-y style.

[brvheart 1,752]

Update: Listening now.I think I would end up agreeing with this guy a lot, but Jesus Christ, this is why I can't listen to radio. It takes people like 20 minutes to make a point that they could make in 1. Just cut down the elongated metaphors and make your point, we're smart, we follow your logic. Okay, I'm being harsh, but reading is just so much faster. Still listening, though.

I like his history podcast alot more. But yeah, the guy comes from a radio background, so he has a very talk radio-y style.

I agree LLY, but the guy is really really good. Keep listening.

[custom36 4]

Vanity Fair's October 2010 profile on Sarah Palin is a fantastic piece of journalism. The writer spent this spring and summer with Palin and her campaign for the story. Nothing I say could do it justice though. I highly suggest you guys read the entire thing, though you may not have time to finish it...http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...currentPage=allAnd can we please not use the "liberal media" fallback? Kthxbye.

[hblask 1]

Vanity Fair's October 2010 profile on Sarah Palin is a fantastic piece of journalism. The writer spent this spring and summer with Palin and her campaign for the story. Nothing I say could do it justice though. I highly suggest you guys read the entire thing, though you may not have time to finish it...http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...currentPage=allAnd can we please not use the "liberal media" fallback? Kthxbye.

Who cares about her enough to read all that? I read a bunch of it, and it seems to be just typical slanted journalism, short on facts and long on dire omens. Any claims that are specific are "off the record" and "anonymous", apparently out of fear that Sarah will send thugs to break their legs (or some other random, non-specified threat).Yeah, I'm not a fan of Sarah's, but I'm even less a fan of really really bad ideologically motivated "journalism".

[CaneBrain 95]

And can we please not use the "liberal media" fallback? Kthxbye.

lol, you new to politics?

[custom36 4]

Who cares about her enough to read all that? I read a bunch of it, and it seems to be just typical slanted journalism, short on facts and long on dire omens. Any claims that are specific are "off the record" and "anonymous", apparently out of fear that Sarah will send thugs to break their legs (or some other random, non-specified threat).Yeah, I'm not a fan of Sarah's, but I'm even less a fan of really really bad ideologically motivated "journalism".

Negative isn't slanted, it's just negative. The author has quotes from her husband, has clearly researched most of the claims in the story, and gets most people on the record. You should really try reading it before burning it.

After one local Republican delivers 90 minutes of uninterrupted praise for Palin, I ask whom else I should talk to, and the answer comes so fast it’s like a cry for help—which is how, the next day, I end up in the living room of Colleen Cottle, who is the matriarch of one of Wasilla’s oldest families, and who served on the city council when Palin was mayor. She says she and her husband, Rodney, will pay a price for speaking candidly about Palin. Their son is one of Todd Palin’s best friends. “But it is time for people to start telling the truth,” Colleen says. She describes the frustrations of trying to do city business with a mayor who “had no attention span—with Sarah it was always ‘What’s the flavor of the day?’ ”; who was unable to take part meaningfully in conversations about budgets because she “does not understand math or accounting—she only knows buzzwords, like ‘balanced budget’ ”; and who clocked out after four hours on most days, delegating her duties to an aide—“but he’ll never talk to you, because he has a state job and doesn’t want to lose it.” This type of conversation is repeated so often that Wasilla starts to feel like something from The Twilight Zone or a Shirley Jackson short story—a place populated entirely by abuse survivors.

[custom36 4]

lol, you new to politics?

Lol. I know it's a pipe dream. But if I can get one republican to respond without saying it's liberal journalism, I'll consider it a moderate success.

[CaneBrain 95]

Negative isn't slanted, it's just negative. The author has quotes from her husband, has clearly researched most of the claims in the story, and gets most people on the record. You should really try reading it before burning it.

No, criticism of a Democrat is patriotic, criticism of a conservative is evidence of a biased media conglomerate that treats all Republican leaders like bogeymen.At least, that's the story on FoxCP.

[hblask 1]

No, criticism of a Democrat is patriotic, criticism of a conservative is evidence of a biased media conglomerate that treats all Republican leaders like bogeymen.At least, that's the story on FoxCP.

Criticism of either side is fine if it's well documented and presented honestly. The Palin story fails horribly on both counts.

[custom36 4]

Criticism of either side is fine if it's well documented and presented honestly. The Palin story fails horribly on both counts.

Where? How could this information be presented to you in a way that's "well documented and honest", outside of a statement from Palin herself?

Sometimes the children rebelled. A campaign aide remembers that one of the Palin children found her mother’s public displays of piety especially grating. Though Palin prayed and read the Bible every night, aides never saw the family join her for devotionals. “You’re just putting on a show. You’re so fake,” one of the children said when Palin made a point of praying in front of other people. “This is not who you are. Why are you pretending to be something you’re not?”

[CaneBrain 95]

Criticism of either side is fine if it's well documented and presented honestly. The Palin story fails horribly on both counts.

And all the other criticism of Palin?By the way, I just read the article. If you take out all the anonymous quotes, it's still a pretty damning piece with plenty of on the record things. Not sure what your problem is.....anonymous sources are pretty standard in the twitter era anyway. For this day and age, it seemed both honest and well-documented.

[hblask 1]

Where? How could this information be presented to you in a way that's "well documented and honest", outside of a statement from Palin herself?

Compare this:Spending increased under Palin

She may have fired the governor's chef and sold the state jet, but Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has also presided over a dramatic increase in state spending in the last two years.Still, she can accurately claim that her state is in good fiscal health, thanks to an explosion of revenues from state taxes on oil industry profits.Indeed, in her 20 months in office, Palin's toughest financial decisions involved dickering with the Legislature on creative ways to spend and salt away the billions of dollars in oil revenues pouring into the state treasury.

with the nonsense you posted: "a source we know nothing about said that one of Palin's kids talked back to her mom one time..."If you can't see the difference in value between those two accounts, this country is in bigger trouble than I thought.

[custom36 4]

with the nonsense you posted: "a source we know nothing about said that one of Palin's kids talked back to her mom one time..."If you can't see the difference in value between those two accounts, this country is in bigger trouble than I thought.

This is a foolish post. He clearly knows who his source is and, while he doesn't name the aide or the child, logic and reasoning easily works out which child it was while a little knowledge of her campaign would give us a pretty good idea of who the aide was. Not using names doesn't mean the journalist doesn't know, and no journalist who spent 6 months working on this story is going to just make thing up out of thin air.

[CaneBrain 95]

Compare this:Spending increased under Palinwith the nonsense you posted: "a source we know nothing about said that one of Palin's kids talked back to her mom one time..."If you can't see the difference in value between those two accounts, this country is in bigger trouble than I thought.

this is basically tantamount to declaring any journalism character piece to be useless. A source who lives in Palin's town told the reporter something she heard. This is not court with hearsay rules; that is a valid journalistic source. That's how you do a character piece; you ask people who have lived near here and know her best. The idea that anything the reporter says about her character is invalid unless he has Palin on tape doing it is absurd. That does not mean you have to take it as gospel; but, since she always seems like a phony and misquotes Reagan and talks about being one of the average Americans (while making outrageous demands in her large figure speaking contracts) and says one thing about retard but then defends saying the word ni--er.....well, to me the evidence starts to add up that Palin is a woman who says one thing and does another and if she was completely full of crap about how devout she is I would not be surprised in the slightest. I can't know that (pretty hard to know conclusively) but the circumstantial evidence that she is a giant phony is stacking up.

[hblask 1]

this is basically tantamount to declaring any journalism character piece to be useless. A source who lives in Palin's town told the reporter something she heard. This is not court with hearsay rules; that is a valid journalistic source. That's how you do a character piece; you ask people who have lived near here and know her best. The idea that anything the reporter says about her character is invalid unless he has Palin on tape doing it is absurd. That does not mean you have to take it as gospel; but, since she always seems like a phony and misquotes Reagan and talks about being one of the average Americans (while making outrageous demands in her large figure speaking contracts) and says one thing about retard but then defends saying the word ni--er.....well, to me the evidence starts to add up that Palin is a woman who says one thing and does another and if she was completely full of crap about how devout she is I would not be surprised in the slightest. I can't know that (pretty hard to know conclusively) but the circumstantial evidence that she is a giant phony is stacking up.

This is funny from someone who dismissed all the 'character pieces' about Obama prior to the election as right-wing stupidity.

[hblask 1]

This is a foolish post. He clearly knows who his source is and, while he doesn't name the aide or the child, logic and reasoning easily works out which child it was while a little knowledge of her campaign would give us a pretty good idea of who the aide was. Not using names doesn't mean the journalist doesn't know, and no journalist who spent 6 months working on this story is going to just make thing up out of thin air.

Yes, they would make stuff up. The entire tone of the article is "look at how nasty Palin is", even when it doesn't deserve it. They are pandering to a very narrow audience. That's the opposite of good journalism. Which is too bad, because there are certainly plenty of legitimate reasons to dismiss her, why use National Enquirer tactics?

[custom36 4]

Yes, they would make stuff up. The entire tone of the article is "look at how nasty Palin is", even when it doesn't deserve it. They are pandering to a very narrow audience. That's the opposite of good journalism. Which is too bad, because there are certainly plenty of legitimate reasons to dismiss her, why use National Enquirer tactics?

If you're this paranoid about journalists, there's clearly no discussion to be had with you about journalism of any sort unless the information in the article lines up with your views. That's a shame, honestly.

[brvheart 1,752]

[hblask 1]

If you're this paranoid about journalists, there's clearly no discussion to be had with you about journalism of any sort unless the information in the article lines up with your views. That's a shame, honestly.

Yes, this is all about me. It was a high-quality, well-researched and well-documented article.Nice try.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

This is funny from someone who dismissed all the 'character pieces' about Obama prior to the election as right-wing stupidity.

The "character" pieces you're referring to were never about Obama, they were about people around him, such as his minister. Character pieces actually about Obama focused on his childhood, his living with his grandparents, or in Indonesia, or the like.

[custom36 4]

That's awesome.

[hblask 1]

The "character" pieces you're referring to were never about Obama, they were about people around him, such as his minister.

And this is different from the above article how?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

And this is different from the above article how?

From what little I read, the article is about Sarah Palin's temper. It's not about her minister's temper, for example.

[hblask 1]

From what little I read, the article is about Sarah Palin's temper. It's not about her minister's temper, for example.

From the part I read, it seemed to be more about the people who don't like Sarah and various political enemies. The Obama articles were about the people closest to him. Hmmm, which gives a better read on a person's character?

[custom36 4]

From the part I read, it seemed to be more about the people who don't like Sarah and various political enemies.

Then you didn't read anywhere near enough to form a valid opinion on the article.