Remember how everyone in the Old Media delighted in lambasting Governor Sarah Palin when the GOP bought all those clothes for her use during the McCain campaign? Remember how it was reported as nearly a foregone conclusion that these purchases must have somehow been illegal? It was even bigger news when the left-wing group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed an ethics complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the GOP. The whole thing was the talk of the Old Media, as you may recall.
Well, as of May 15, the FEC ruled that there was no ethics violation and the clothing spending was deemed legal. One would think that this news concluding the story would make as big of a splash with the Old Media as the beginning of the tale did. Naturally, crickets have been heard throughout the media establishment as little notice has been paid to this story.
Palin's spokesman couldn't help but make reference to the over-the-top media focus on the clothes issue. For Palin, spokesman Meghan Stapleton told reporters:
"It is difficult to reconcile the obsessive reference to clothing on the campaign trail with any legitimate political issue and that leaves the unsettling conclusion that Governor Palin is the single national political figure who is critiqued on policy, family and clothing," she said. "When people start asking details about the personal effects of other candidates, then maybe the double standard will be eliminated."
Indeed. But we have come to expect that Governor Palin is a favorite whipping boy... er, girl as the case may be.
The initial wall-to-wall coverage of charges that the clothing broke some laws or rules, the recently announced resolution of this in Palin's favor, and the subsequent lack of focus on that resolution by the Old Media is another prime example of bias by omission. This clothing issue was a big, big story for months after the election, but now that Palin has been cleared of any wrongdoing we get little by way of reports on the matter.
Its a common practice: make a big noise about any possible violations and perceived lapses in ethics but fairly ignore the story once those charges are disproved. This way the only memory the public has of the matter is the loud charges of ethics violations that were bandied about months ago while never being made aware that the charges were dropped as free of merit. It's that tired game where the Old Media attacks folks it doesn't like by damning them in the court of public opinion after which the true legal status of the case remains ignored once resolved -- unless the desired outcome conforms to the original conventional wisdom.
In this case Palin was exonerated, but we don't want anyone to know that, do we?
(Photo credit: thealaskastandard.com)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well I was going to
May 27, 2009 - 05:53 ET by motherbeltWell I was going to comment, but you "stole" my thought!
make a big noise about any possible violations and perceived
lapses in ethics but fairly ignore the story once those charges are
disproved. This way the only memory the public has of the matter is the
loud charges of ethics violations that were bandied about months ago
while never being made aware that the charges were dropped as free of
merit.
*****
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Yeah
May 27, 2009 - 06:14 ET by Warner Todd HustonGreat minds, and all that, eh?
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
If Sarah Palin is indeed as
May 27, 2009 - 06:21 ET by Tom PaineIf Sarah Palin is indeed as inconsequential as liberals want us to believe, then why does she scare them so much?
The answer is that she
May 27, 2009 - 06:59 ET by NewsbusterbrownThe answer is that she isn't inconsequential and anybody who thinks she is is either a fool or a liar.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Inconsequntial Indeed
May 27, 2009 - 13:29 ET by Mr.BohWhy? Simple. Palin is attractive, positive, logical, charasmatic, down to earth, smart, can think without a teleprompter, and has strong family values. That scares the hell out the Libs. And she is the exact total opposite of "Her Thighness" Hillary.
If...
May 27, 2009 - 06:44 ET by jdlybrand...they were to admit or publicize their errors, the eggs on their faces would make an omelet the size of Alaska. Now; we can't have that. What on earth would it do to their 'credibility'? chuckle, snort.
Palin was Borked in the
May 27, 2009 - 06:47 ET by nadadhimmiPalin was Borked in the worst way. Just ask Miss California how liberal fascist hatred works. She knows too. The msm are the little b@stards of 1969! The only way they can regain their lost youth (but not hair) is to somehow pretend they are not now "the man". They even state Obama isn't "the man". So to continue the "struggle" otherwise known as "Their Kamph" they must destroy the society that they benefit so much from. Disintegrate the military, Churches, Monetary system, the Republic itself. I know because I am their contemporary. I couldn't stand them then and they're even worse now.
Old Soviet Wisdom
May 27, 2009 - 07:11 ET by nadadhimmiTo Quote the Soviets: There is no Pravda in Investia, and no Isvestia in Pravda, comrades. The msm today in this country have willingly prostituted themselves to one party and to one individual in particular. They worship Obama as their Fuhrer. This is a dangerous Cult of Personality, led by someone his followers describe as "the one", and "the massiah". The Irony is this: just as the 1st "Fuhrer" wasn't a native of the nation he led to destruction, Obama has never proven he is a native of this nation.
didn't even make Drudge?
May 27, 2009 - 07:18 ET by mom_roxDid Drudge post a link? If so, I don't remember seeing it. I read about the FEC ruling on Politico's site.
~~save your tea, dump congress~~
Why would
May 27, 2009 - 08:02 ET by general companythe old media acknowledge this, when they were the one doing the accusing? We know they have no decency, so even an apology would be out of order for them. No doubt they still feel their efforts were justified.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Thank you, Warner
May 27, 2009 - 08:49 ET by needleIf it were not for this post, I would have never have known that this matter is settled.
What do you bet, if Governor Palin ever goes on a national campaign again, that this matter will be brought up and recycled ad nauseam without any reference to its invalidity?
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
The real story
May 27, 2009 - 09:01 ET by slickwillie2001The real message of the leaked clothing story was from the Bamster campaign elites to their fellow elite supporters in academia, the rich, government, entertainment, the black elite and the old media, —'Sarah Palin is a backwater rube that can't afford her own clothes. Her message is as much a put-on as the clothing. Someone else dresses her, someone else gives her the words she speaks.'
There's some irony there because if you look at the Chicago machine that built the Bamster, it's a bunch of greasy, creepy old white guys with bad combovers. They put him up to the job like Eddie Murphy in 'Trading Places'.
Warner
May 27, 2009 - 09:19 ET by shawn228Even though I agree that the expensive clothes were a non issue, I don't remember much about people saying it was illegal just hypocritical
He had my vote
uh...
May 27, 2009 - 10:28 ET by Warner Todd HustonIn what way is it "hypocritical"?
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
It was not hypocritical Warner
May 27, 2009 - 16:10 ET by shawn228I have said in the past the way the media treated her is shameful, I honestly do not remember many people saying it was illegal. I see some linked articles on this thread, but I remember the campaign well and the libs were using the hypocrisy angle.
He had my vote
Totally not a big deal to
May 27, 2009 - 16:15 ET by balboaTotally not a big deal to me, but I thought it was odd for someone who played the "aw shucks" down-home card so heavily to suddenly then wear such expensive outfits, even though there's nothing wrong with wearing such clothes. It seemed inconsistent -- not really hypocritical -- with the image that was being pushed.
Bal
May 27, 2009 - 16:27 ET by shawn228I did not think it was a big deal and I think it was more the Republican party than Palin that provided the clothes, my only problem with Palin were the interviews that were not heavily edited despite what some say.
He had my vote
C'mon 2 minutes from about 2 hours or more? Not heavily
May 27, 2009 - 16:44 ET by pahuberedited?
2 minutes?
May 27, 2009 - 17:00 ET by shawn228I do not remember a two minute interview pahuber. For the short amount of time you have been posting here, you have been awfully quick to point fingers and call people trolls but rarely lack substance, do you have anything to back this up?
He had my vote
The interview shown on CBS that I saw was around 2 minutes.
May 27, 2009 - 18:25 ET by pahuberThe entire interview was around 2 hours or more in toto. This was heavily redacted... of course, you want to play balboa so go figure.
"For the short amount of time you have been posting here, you have been
awfully quick to point fingers and call people trolls but rarely lack
substance, do you have anything to back this up?"
Yes you are correct Shawn, you of all people should know that I DO "rarely lack substance."
* I do back up my claims when making an accusation or it is self evident w/o the need to do so.
If you are refering to cacc or bal I will make no apologies in their treatment.
Your comments to me OTOH lacked any evidence other than you just saying another one of your pointless zingers.
pahuber
May 27, 2009 - 20:27 ET by shawn228I talked to many conservatives on this site and many of them admit that she did not do a very good job. There were many segments and the bailout question was one minute and 15 seconds, If you can tell me at what time the editing happened during that period, I would love to know.Most conservatives I talk to on this site including debate with facts instead of name calling.
He had my vote
I think pahuber is
May 27, 2009 - 20:31 ET by balboaI think pahuber is SportsPolitics.
shawn, if you consider calling a troll a troll then I guess you
May 27, 2009 - 20:58 ET by pahubercan say I name call.
Having considered many of your posts to me past and present I would say you are morphing into someone like balboa who makes asinine statements on a daily basis. Plain and simple.
When it comes to trolls I will not try and debate facts, shawn. I have made this very clear to you in the past and yet you keep trying to use the same old angry attempts to say I do not debate the facts. I have debated the facts very clearly with other liberals on this site when they did not even deserve the time of day and yet you get all pissy when I finally call out a troll like cacc and bal because of their obvious asinine statements in the face of facts.
Do you know how long the entire interview was shawn? In toto? Since that is what I was referring to, as well as the interview pieces that I saw in relation to the whole interview. Very redacted and the pieces they played were very selective.
IMHO shawn you are starting to take on bal's character traits in your line of questioning.
I guess I should not expect anything different from you shawn.
I actually believe your a liberal pahuber
May 27, 2009 - 21:09 ET by shawn228.....undercover to make conservatives look bad. I admit I brought up the interviews and this has nothing to do with WTH thread. You have a good night
He had my vote
That actually makes sense.
May 27, 2009 - 21:14 ET by balboaThat actually makes sense.
shawn ~ you never fail to keep going lower and lower down into
May 27, 2009 - 21:16 ET by pahuberirrelevancy.
When you get as low as bal please tell me what it's like will ya?
Thinking of calling you balboa2 or baltoo... which do you prefer?
Shawn I dont remember too
May 27, 2009 - 10:54 ET by Dan The Man 2Shawn I dont remember too many people say you beat your wife either. Its public perception and yes ther was a lot of talk about if it was legal. BTW the beat your wife thingy was "public perception".
The whole phoney scandal was asinine
May 27, 2009 - 09:20 ET by lgeubankSomehow the Democrats were outraged that the campaign would buy Palin some clothes -- like the Republican Party has no legitimate interest in how Palin looks? Why do TV networks buy David Letterman's clothes, and Alex Trebec's clothes, and everybody's clothes?
The feigned outrage was idiotic.
Actually, I believe that
May 27, 2009 - 09:23 ET by b4m4wyActually, I believe that they had to vote it was legal before someone filed suit against the Obamas for the same thing!!
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Ronald Reagan
Warner, My impression
May 27, 2009 - 10:49 ET by CacciatoWarner,
My impression during that whole hub bub was the the clothes were an issue because she was basing her entire campaign on an image of herself as the common man - an everyday joe just like everyone else.
So when it turned out she was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on clothing, people found it shocking based on the image she was trying to cultivate. It didn't fit.
I don't remember the potential violation being the big news.
cacc, can you at least try and be honest with yourself?
May 27, 2009 - 12:26 ET by pahuber"So when it turned out she was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars
on clothing, people found it shocking based on the image she was trying
to cultivate. It didn't fit."
- It was clothing paid for by the RNC for her (standard for GOP or DNC candidates).
* This story was pumped out by the MSM to create a characterization of her rather than being a true story.
"I don't remember the potential violation being the big news."
Of course not, it was only inferred in every story about the clothing you troll.
Like the MSM you are going to be dumping your brand of excrement all over NB . . .
Sorry pa, But you're
May 27, 2009 - 12:46 ET by CacciatoSorry pa,
But you're simply wrong. A simple google search will show you many articles in which the focus is the discrepency between her hocky mom joe six pack image and 150,000 dollars spent on clothing. No mention of violations.
Also, it's not standard for all candidates, in fact, Politico was unable to find any similar spending by Obama campaign or the DNC. Wrong again!
You speak about things you know nothing about, yet you call me a troll. It's very bizarre.
See for yourself:
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
No inference or direct comment on any violations in any of these articles.
In fact, even the initial article in Politico merely mentions that the purchases raised questions among campaign finance experts, but says nothing about violations.
Care to retort or back your claim up?
cacc the troll. Beware of TROLLERS!
May 27, 2009 - 12:51 ET by pahuberI'm not playing your game cacc.
You can link 'till hell freezes over, but you are a troll.
pa, Why do you come here
May 27, 2009 - 12:55 ET by Cacciatopa,
Why do you come here if you aren't interested in discussion?
What's the point?
I am engaging in debate, hence, not trolling. I challenged Warner's assertion concerning his perceived emphasis on violations in the initial articles, posted those articles showing that this was not the case, and thus, proved my point.
So continue to be rude and scream all you want but I think it's strange that you would waste your time to contribute absolutely nothing to the website.
I think you're PopularTech,
May 27, 2009 - 14:11 ET by bretzysdudeI think you're PopularTech, is what I think you are. Get off the Internet, you big dope!
No way
May 27, 2009 - 20:57 ET by general companyIt is not PT,, not enough links
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
also, my links directly
May 27, 2009 - 12:57 ET by Cacciatoalso, my links directly refute your only argument:
"Of course not, it was only inferred in every story about the clothing you troll."
You are wrong. Care to comment?
cacc, you are no different than other trolls who come here
May 27, 2009 - 13:03 ET by pahuberand state the same things over and over.
The only thing I will say to and about you is that you are a typical lefty troll and not worth anyones time.
You are going to have to deal with that.
If I'm not worth your time
May 27, 2009 - 13:06 ET by CacciatoIf I'm not worth your time why have you been following me around for two days responding to my posts?
You are wrong on this issue and the fact that you are unwilling to admit it makes any further discussion with you worthless.
You are clearly here to cause trouble, not engage in any meaningful discussion.
I wish you the best of luck but will not be replying to anymore of your posts.
Yeah, whatever. You'll go
May 27, 2009 - 14:14 ET by bretzysdudeYeah, whatever. You'll go under another name.
Welcome back to NewsBusters, PopTech!
May 27, 2009 - 14:19 ET by R D HelmHope you had a nice little vacation. I see you are tanned, rested and ready to resume your personal little war against Gov. Palin.
Funny how you just happened to gravitate to a Palin thread and then post this comment:
"...also, [my links directly refute] your only argument"
You could have just signed up as PopTech II.
-Dave
R D, Just curious. Why
May 27, 2009 - 15:08 ET by CacciatoR D,
Just curious. Why are you reading my posts as an attack on Palin?
Where did I say anything negative about her?
I merely commented on the media's focus when the clothing story broke. I didn't say anything about Palin.
Feel free to disagree with any examples of Palin bashing in my posts.
shaking head.... cacc you are a persistent little troll I'll
May 27, 2009 - 15:57 ET by pahubergive you that.
I thought I escorted you off the stage awhile ago. We allready have a resident troll and do not wish to have another one added.
This whole charge of
May 27, 2009 - 12:59 ET by AmaliaThis whole charge of hypocrisy is utterly ridiculous. Who cares if she's a hockey mom spending lots of money on clothes (SHE didn't spend any money, the RNC did)? Wearing expensive clothes doesn't make her any less of an 'ordinary' person, I am sure plenty of 'ordinary' people wear expensive clothes, especially for major events like the Republican National Convention. But people like you will always find fault with every little thing Republicans do.
Amalia, I am sorry that
May 27, 2009 - 13:04 ET by CacciatoAmalia,
I am sorry that you misunderstood my post.
I agree with you that the hypocrisy charge was ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with my post.
I was merely pointing about that the hypocrisy charge was the focus of the articles and not the potential violations as Warner put forth in his article.
Thanks for playing "catch the troll"... escorting cacc offstage
May 27, 2009 - 13:10 ET by pahuber"I was merely pointing about that the hypocrisy charge was the focus of
the articles and not the potential violations as Warner put forth in
his article."
LOL.... that was just as funny as your usual posts... well, lets see cacc... you got your butt handed to you yesterday by Cool Arrow and then split hastily until today... barely average for most trolls that come and grace the NB's pages.
We do not have any departing prizes, but thanks for playing "catch the troll"
how much news is big news?
May 27, 2009 - 13:18 ET by katainkentit made every major newspaper and news outlet.
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
No it didn't. As I
May 27, 2009 - 13:19 ET by CacciatoNo it didn't.
As I mentioned above, it wasn't even noted in the original Politico article.
See my above post for ample evidence that the perceived hypocrisy was the big news, not the potential violations.
cacc's "evidence" link 'em 'till they quit.
May 27, 2009 - 13:26 ET by pahuber"See my above post for ample evidence that the perceived hypocrisy was the big news, not the potential violations."
File this under: Huge waste of time and/or Trolls and their methods of confusion.
Yes, you wouldn't want facts
May 27, 2009 - 13:39 ET by balboaYes, you wouldn't want facts getting in your way, would you pahuber...
Bal, what would YOU know about FACTS?
May 27, 2009 - 13:41 ET by pahuberpray tell I'll bite.
What would I know about
May 27, 2009 - 13:51 ET by balboaWhat would I know about FACTS?
Lots.
I highly doubt that Bal. You seem to have facts pointed out to
May 27, 2009 - 13:56 ET by pahuberyou all the time... biting you on your bum and yet you seem to never have enough evidence to formulate an opinion.
You could not even bring yourself to admit the obvious that Obama's choice is a racist. You said you needed more time to look into it or something of that nature.
So I guess I just have a hard time believing you know alot of facts.
... pi, is that you?
May 27, 2009 - 13:54 ET by katainkentYou know the funny thing is... I didn't really like Palin all that much. I would much rather have someone like Liz Cheney out there in politics. I am sure Palin is far less naive about the press now, but that's spilled milk. But I thought the media skewering of her was the pinnacle of bias.
The CREW assumed she was guilty and the press went along for the ride.
there's several more but I got bored. Again, how much news is big news?
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
kata... I agree with
May 27, 2009 - 14:13 ET by bigtimerkata...
I agree with everything you said.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Kata, Thanks for the
May 27, 2009 - 15:09 ET by CacciatoKata,
Thanks for the links. Howevever, I don't think that indicates that my initial post was wrong.
Warner insinuated that the main focus of the initial coverage of the story was that there must have been something illegal, some sort of violation. I countered that the focus of the immediate coverage was not an potential violations, but rather the fact that the media felt it was hypocritical for a woman that styled herself a populist regular joe would spend 150,000 on clothing.
The links I provided showed that indeed the immediate media focus was on her hypocrisy and did not focus at all on any potential violations.
While your links do show that the media covered the CREW filing after the initial media storm, they do not discount my point that the main focus of the initial coverage of the story was the media's perceived Palin hypocrisy.
Thanks for the leg work nonetheless.
you should look into a good conditioner.
May 27, 2009 - 15:47 ET by katainkentyou're splitting hairs. Whether is was first or second tack. It existed. Both hit the news and both were used against her. It just depended on which demographic was desired to hit. I noticed that NBC exclusively stuck to the most simplistic approach.
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
Exactly, Cacciato.
May 27, 2009 - 13:24 ET by balboaExactly, Cacciato.
Here comes NB's very wacky, yet beloved, troll to assist cacc
May 27, 2009 - 13:28 ET by pahuberBal: Always the wrong choice.
See, even someone else
May 27, 2009 - 14:15 ET by bretzysdudeSee, even someone else thinks Bal is a troll!
Yes I do BD!
May 27, 2009 - 14:49 ET by pahuber: )
I personally think it's this simple
May 27, 2009 - 12:22 ET by Lord ErondAll the scumbag networks (and we know who they are) should be forced to run a retraction and an apology to Sarah Palin for their gross smears and distortions on this issue. It should run 5x/day for a month until people realize this whole issue was just another way the media had of rigging the election in favor of Obama.
Continued tactics like this will result in everyone in the MSM being bound, gagged and dropped in the Pacific Ocean.
This is why the campaign needs to not be against Obama, it needs to be against his media sucking whorefriends. They need to be destroyed utterly so there's a level playing field once and for all.
"Let him who would move the world, first move himself." -Socrates
"We sit together, the mountain and I, until only the mountain remains." -Li Po
Oh please
May 27, 2009 - 12:32 ET by Lord ErondEven the common 'everyman' wal-mart shlubs would completely see the importance of having to 'dress the part'. I think it's an idiotic point to say that Sarah had to go out there every day with the Wal-mart dresses or the tank top and the hooters ball cap to prove that she's like the common people.
"Let him who would move the world, first move himself." -Socrates
"We sit together, the mountain and I, until only the mountain remains." -Li Po
Actually, there was an
May 27, 2009 - 13:10 ET by CamelopardalisActually, there was an article on the Huffington Post a little over a week ago about this. It headlined the Politics section. Even though I am not that fond of Sarah Palin, I found myself defending her constantly from all the stupid comments people were making. Most of the commenters on HuffPo dismissed the FEC as unreliable and a farce for such a ruling.
In general, HuffPo readers LOVE articles about S. Palin (they always garner the most comments) as long as they are bad; any 'positive' news is automatically dismissed.
Anybody get the feeling that
May 27, 2009 - 13:28 ET by SickofLibsAnybody get the feeling that Pooptech is peering in here from behind a bush?
Sol,
May 27, 2009 - 16:14 ET by R D HelmLOL-Actually, I thing he is peeing in here from around the corner.
See above.
-Dave
Ethics complaints against Governor Palin are failing
May 27, 2009 - 20:00 ET by Free StinkerEthics complaints against Governor Palin are failing, like this new one "cleared" today.
Governor Palin's director of communications, Bill McAllister said it best; “It’s obvious that these ethics complaints – usually announced with great fanfare, violating the confidentiality provisions of the law – are intended solely for damaging publicity and not for true accountability in government."
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte