New York’s Daily News: Targeting Palin
By Allie Duzett | November 18, 2009
New York’s Daily News is notable this week for nothing so much as its relentless attacks on Sarah Palin. There seems to be no end to the list of cruel articles meant to tear Palin apart this week.
Daily News writers Amy Diluna and Jacob E. Osterhout write about Palin’s interview with Oprah, criticizing her look (“We get that the RNC isn’t footing the bill for this one — but while you were in New York, might we have pointed you toward an H&M?” they ask), her voice (“a nasal nightmare”), and her family life. They even manage to diss Palin’s fashion AND about half of America in one fell swoop: “In a sharp blue power suit (hey, the red-staters are already going to buy her book), black stockings and artfully tousled hair, she locked eyes on Oprah and didn’t waver,” they write.
Michael Mcauliff had more to add: “In case all the publicity around her new book is going to her head, Sarah Palin is receiving some sobering news in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll: She's not all that popular,” he writes.
Daily News staff writer Sherryl Connelly used her platform as an ostensible reporter to call Palin the “complainer in chief” who is “a chronic complainer.” “The news from the book has already spilled, and it is essentially this: John McCain’s senior aides were mean to her. Katie Couric was mean to her. Her critics, who are by definition supposed to be mean, were mean to her… Palin has no insight whatsoever into the fact that to much of the nation, she was a natural joke, not a scripted one,” Sherryl writes.
Staff writer Lia Eustachewich takes apparent pleasure in quoting Levi Johnston, father of Palin’s grandchild:
"I think she's going out and talking, and she's just digging a bigger hole for herself," said Johnston, who claimed he was disgusted by Palin's interview. "It's almost funny, that she's like, 46 years old, and she's battling a 19 year old, and I'm winning. And I'm telling the truth. She's lying and losing."
Palin went on to publicly invite Johnston to Thanksgiving dinner, which he declined in his Playgirl interview, saying that it would be "awkward" and that Palin is "full of it."
Staff writer David Hinckley writes of Palin dripping with sarcasm and disdain:
As with Oprah Winfrey yesterday, Palin played the schoolgirl waiting by the phone when it comes to her future. Why, she hardly has any plans at all, she suggested, but so many wonderful opportunities have popped up in her life that gosh, nothing would surprise her. She could be asked to play point guard for the Lakers. She could be asked to run for President. Who knows?
Her interview with Walters, which is running in multiple parts, was in many ways a condensed and thus improved version of her hour with Oprah Winfrey yesterday.
Polite and balanced, don’t you think? Hinckley wrote another article about the Oprah interview calling Oprah a great hostess, essentially for putting up with Sarah Palin.
Richard Cohen writes that Palin has been “clearly seen as an empty vessel who could be controlled by her intellectual betters.” He calls Palin a “demagogue” who is “not…very responsible,” and accuses her supporters of being “irrational.”
The most balanced article by far was by Lauren Johnston, about Palin’s first day on tour with her book; another decent and relatively unbiased article was by David Saltonstall. A runner up for balance was by political correspondent Michael Saul, discussing Palin’s future. But Saul made up for this shocking balance by writing in another article that Palin was “continuing the feud” between herself and Levi Johnston. Of course, it was Palin who invited Johnston over for Thanksgiving, and Johnston who said that Palin was “full of it,” but Saul hardly points that out. Saul also includes multiple quotations in defense of Johnston’s nude poses for Playgirl, as if to imply that Palin is so stupid she doesn’t even understand that "Playgirl, Playboy, most of those magazines, they are not porn.” However, I know for a fact that many people in America consider Playboy a porn magazine.
The Daily News website also includes a fun “Palin-tology” quiz that asks such kind and unbiased questions as:
3. Which of the following colleges did Palin NOT attend?
a. University of Idaho
b. Hawaii Pacific University
c. North Idaho College
d. Harvey Mudd College
e. Matanuska-Susitna College
6. Which book did Palin ban from the Wasilla Library when she was mayor?
a. Huckleberry Finn
b. Lolita
c. Harry Potter
d. None
“D” is the answer to both of those questions, in case you were wondering.
The Daily News is responsible for some extreme bias when it comes to coverage of Sarah Palin—and the problem doesn’t appear to be with only one or two staff members. From the looks of it, many if not most of the staff on the paper is rabidly anti-Palin. This is interesting because many of the polls from the site show strong support for Palin. Why is the Daily News isolating its readers in this way?
Once again, there are two options here. Either the writers for the Daily News are unaware of their polls, which show that many of their readers support Palin, or they honestly don’t care about the leanings of their readers or their commitment to unbiased journalism, and are simply trying to stir up anti-Palin feelings. Either way, it doesn't say very good things about the Daily News.
Allie Duzett is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
4 Comments | Post a Comment
The Americans that matter clearly see Palin as a moronic bimbo with zero significance.
The small assortment of right wing lunatics that find her credible have no credibility or relevance to the Country.
It’s all nothing but comedy!
The more I actually see of Palin, the more I like and respect her, even see much hope in her, either as a future candidate or as a spokesperson fearlessly taking on the “Eastern Establishment” in order to expose the dangers of present-day liberalism and ultra-PC—who seem in their turn thorougly alarmed and afraid of her. We must remember that every politician goes through this baptism of fire, that nasty put-downs and invective of every sort has been poured upon every President, beginning with Geo Washington. Lincoln was our most vilified President while in office (the “obscene ape” of Illinois), Harry Truman (“an ignorant, uncouth man”), etc., for governors, congressmen, candidates, almost all public personalities. People conveniently forget how universally JFK was denigrated by much of the nation’s press (unitl his assassination, after which he became the nearest thing to a saint America has). Politicians are equally guilty. Ike was going to restore dignity to the White House, JFK disdained Ike, an extraordinary man many times greater than he could ever hope to be, Franklin Roosevelt, great man that he was, was a master at slandering his opponents. For some reason the public (which includes all of us on both sides—let’s be honest—note the immense following of the NYT columnists who revel almost exclusively in personal attacks of the most vile and vicious sort) often find ourselves stooping to ad hominem attacks against politicians—or even, God forbid, acquaintances and co-workers. The job of the liberal news media—as they honestly see their sacred duty—IS TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM ACTUALLY SEEING PALIN AND MAKING UP THEIR OWN MINDS BEFORE prejudging her, to smear her, to impugn her integrity and her motives, to attack her relentlessly, lie about her unconsciencionably—the end justifies the means to them, and the glaring contraditions in the equally dishonest way they treat those whom they support versus the obscene way they treat their political opponents does not faze them in the least. I always laugh at the term “journalistic integrity” as absurd. Another problem is that to all to many, all wisdom lies within the realm of the Ivy League and their ilk—and the Sarah Palin is certainly not-one-of-us syndrone is at the heart of the hatred exuded by Buckley, Jr, Meacham, etc. Perhaps part of it is even sour grapes, as more and more of the liberal media enterprises are declining and failing while Palin’s star is rising; is the terrible hurt here, the mental pain, reason enough to drive them to strike out and abuse someone, to throw any sense of fairness to the winds, to abandon any shade of decency? Meacham (whom I formerly admired and whose Newsweek I now send sailing directly into the trash bin unread) seems willing to let Newsweek shrink up until he has a small but absolutely loyal Leftist base or niche. If greatness can indeed be measured by the amount of invective and lies, the intensity of the fear factor her mere presence upon the scene engenders, then we can look forward to great things in Sarah Palin. God bless her! (and as the Good Book says, let her “fear no evil”!)
Well said ctr. Sarah Palin exhibits character and integrity, attributes that appeal to millions of regular Americans. She says what she means and means what she says. That is the stuff of leadership and I think our country is starving for leadership. We are suffering from politicians that don’t lead, they manage and manipulate.
November 19 at 12:22 am | #1 | Link
i just can not believe that american can’t see what palin is doing. what a hypocrite!