Accuracy in Media

At all levels, it would appear that MSNBC has it out for Sarah Palin.

Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan had to apologize for using photoshopped images of Palin in a miniskirt and a bikini on November 13. His apology: “I want to apologize to Governor Palin and all of our viewers. On Friday, in a very misguided attempt to have some fun in advance of Sarah Palin’s upcoming book Going Rogue, our staff mistakenly used some clearly photoshopped images of Ms. Palin without any acknowledgment.” Yes, Ratigan apologized for using the photoshopped images “without any acknowledgement.” In other words, next time they use inappropriate and clearly faked images of the governor, they will mention that the images are fake.

On November 17, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer attacked Palin again, calling her attacks “fact-checking.” However, as the Media Research Center pointed out,

Much of the brief “fact checking” piece amounted to Brewer recounting how Palin said one thing and ex-McCain aides said something else: “In another part of the book, Palin claims she was pushed into risky network interviews including that rocky one-on-one with Katie Couric. McCain’s former campaign says that is a fabrication.” Brewer breathlessly explained that “McCain aides deny ever forcing Palin or her family to dress up in designer clothes.” These are not examples of “fact checking.” They are simply accusation swapping.

Of course, Brewer didn’t see her “fact-checking” that way. If someone knows Sarah Palin and also has it out for her, whatever they say must be fact!

Also this week, Chris Matthews of MSNBC teamed up with Jeanne Cummings of Politico and Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune to mock Palin on the air, calling her “delusional” for thinking she could have a career in writing.

When Palin’s book, Going Rogue, came out earlier this week, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell had a field day inviting fellow liberals Ruth Marcus and Susan Page to her show to discuss Palin’s book and her controversial picture on Newsweek magazine’s cover. The cover, which portrays Sarah Palin in very short running shorts, has been widely perceived as sexist.

“Well I think if you pose for a picture and you’re a public figure, you should probably expect that it’s going to show up wherever and not complain about when it shows up on the cover of Newsweek,” Marcus, of the Washington Post, said. Marcus’ implication?  That Palin is whiny. 

Page, of USA Today, agreed with Marcus: “You know, it wasn’t the kind of classic guy in a dark suit and a power tie that you’d see on a cover of news magazines. On the other hand, Sarah Palin says she’s anything but that kind of conventional politician,” she remarked of the sexist photo. “I guess I’m surprised [Palin] thinks this is a bad thing,” Page went on, noting that the portayal of a fit Palin in tiny shorts does send the message that she is not “a classic Washington politician.”

Andrea Mitchell agreed with these remarks, calling them “good” and “fair.” This was all while “Poll: 53% would definitely not vote for Palin in 2010” was flashing up on the screen. 

After the discussion of Palin’s Newsweek cover shot, Mitchell changed the subject to Palin’s Barbara Walters interview. “Is that her best approach, to go out and criticize the President?,” Mitchell asked her visitors. Susan Page jumped in: “I’m just about halfway through the book right now; I got it this morning. And it’s exactly the same language, it’s the same attitudes-if you think Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president, or to critique Barack Obama’s performance, this book will reinforce that sense,” she said. 

Mitchell then went on to defend sexism, asking if there is “something wrong” with people from a campaign asking a vice presidential candidate about her weight. Marcus claimed that this was about “stamina,” and mentioned that Hillary Clinton already had that stamina at the beginning of her campaign. “I don’t think I really see sexism in there,” Marcus said.

Mitchell ended the segment by discussing how Sarah Palin had “needed comfort” on the campaign trail–reinforcing Marcus’ insinuations that Palin merely didn’t have the stamina to match that of Hillary Clinton. We’re “only beginning to learn the worst” of Palin’s campaign experiences, Mitchell said. 

Meanwhile, Albert Oetgen, Managing Editor at NBC News Washington, was compelled to write this online article about how the “huge problem” with Palin’s book is “it has no index.” According to Oetgen, “that’s a huge problem here in the nation’s capital,” because all his fellow egotists like to see their names in the backs of books. “Mark Whitaker, our Washington Bureau Chief, suggested this morning that desperate Washingtonians can buy an electronic copy of the book, secure a wireless reading device like the Amazon Kindle, and use the search function to find their names,” Oetgen remarked. Sorry, Mark, Albert: I guess Palin doesn’t cater to Washington narcissists like you.

Commenter Harry Flashman had it right when he commented on Gateway Pundit: “[Palin] coudn’t raise enough money in 100 lifetimes to purchase the publicity she’s getting from the chump Left’s trained media hacks.” MSNBC’s treatment of Sarah Palin is just another symptom of their inescapable leftist bias.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

Comments are turned off for this article.