An angry reader phoned the office the other day, demanding to speak to "somebody important." Not that I am all that important, but I wasn't around my desk at the time, so the call went to another editor, who listened patiently but was unable to get a word in before the caller hung up.
Basically, the complaint was about the front-page article on Monday about Sarah Palin and the favors she had received as mayor of her Alaskan town. We are out to get her and never write anything positive about her, the editor was told.
The gifts and favors Palin received as mayor were typical of small-town politics - perhaps sleazy, but hardly criminal. These ethical lapses were no big deal at the time they happened and would be no big deal now, and the article by the Associated Press would never have been written, if it were not for Palin's own claim to be the champion of ethics in Alaskan politics. The Republican campaign advertisements have gone even farther, claiming she "saved" Alaska from oil company villains and crooked politicians.
The press has an obligation to hold all politicians to their word, and just because she is a woman and a highly popular candidate does not excuse her from scrutiny.
5 comments:
I'm guessing we didn't hear from this person when we had the big, highly favorable, front-page spread on the McCain-Palin visit to Falconi Field. When you portray yourself as someone who is above the usual dirt of politics, you're just inviting someone to look in your closet. Remember Gary Hart?
ARE YOU KIDDING BRANT? YOU WANT CREDIT FOR COVERING THAT VISIT AS THE ONLY PAPER IN TOWN? PERHAPS WE CAN DO A STORY WITH PHOTOS OF YOU IN FRONT OF OBAMA ON YOUR KNEES WHEN HE VISITS WASHINGTON.
A free facial is sleazy? After years of writing nothing about Pettit and the courthouse, you actually say that the AP article was fair? Give everyone a break.
I'm not seeking any credit for the paper covering the McCain-Palin experience. It's standard. What I am saying is that over the course of a long, long election campaign, there will be stories that put candidates in a bad light (remember Obama's ex-pastor) and those that put them in a totally favorable light (the McCain-Palin visit, complete with preview and follow-up stories). Are personal attacks on me and paper really the best you can do? Would you like to actually address the Palin story, itself? We don't run stories harping on McCain's misdeeds in his first marriage or give credence to the claims that Obama is a Muslim. But when a candidate presents herself as a squeeky-clean reformist "maverick" who is above the hand-greasing element of politics, and the AP digs around and finds there are a few chinks in that armor, that would appear to be a legitimate news story. Palin is still a fresh story in politics, and the media legitimately is trying to find out more about her and her background.
Anonymous personal sleaze attacks with no basis in fact?
Sounds like vintage Cody Knotts to me...
Post a Comment