Import of Palin sticking to her lies

[Joanne98]

by Carl Nyberg, Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:54:37 PM EST

Sen. John McCain's VP nominee Gov. Sarah Palin continues to make her claim that she said, "Thanks, but no thanks," to the federal earmark for the Bridge To Nowhere. Palin's claims have been debunked by Talking Points Memo and Alaska TV news.

Why is it so important for the McCain campaign to manufacture their own reality on this matter?

How should activists respond to faulty coverage?

As Steven Benen (Washington Monthly) points out, the traditional media has found ways to dodge the fact that Palin and McCain are saying things that are objectively not true.


CNN had a segment this morning about Sarah Palin lying on her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere, but instead of delving into the McCain campaign's apparent inability to tell the truth, CNN's John Roberts asked why Barack Obama is having trouble making the truth "stick."....

At that point, Roberts did what CNN tends to do -- turn to a Republican to offer a competing side to the truth. In this case, Alex Castellanos said the media should be "a little gentle" with Sarah Palin's obviously false claims. "The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is when she became governor she actually stood up and said no" to federal pork, he said.




Why is it so important for the McCain campaign to manufacture their own reality on this matter?

Sarah "anti-pork" Palin is how the McCain campaign sold Palin to the public. And they can't switch to something else, because there's nothing else to switch to. Nothing in her background qualifies her to be VP. So, the McCain campaign has to double-down on something that isn't true.

The follow-up question is, why does the traditional media (to use Kos's label) go along?

I suspect there are two factors in play.

One, the traditional media is sympathetic to the Republican point of view. To avoid be cowed by the Right with accusations of "liberal bias" media outlets have gotten in the habit of allowing Republicans and Right Wing perspective generally to get time (often equal time) to make claims that are factually dubious. If there's a block of powerful people who claim global warming doesn't exist they get a shot to make their case whether their facts check or not.

The other factor (and it's arguably overlapping with the first factor) is that the media is reluctant to debunk Palin. If Palin isn't a credible candidate for VP this raises questions about McCain's selection and vetting process. And if McCain couldn't supervise selection and vetting process that produced a credible candidate, what's this say about his judgment and abilities to be POTUS?

And if the media is questioning McCain on this basic level, how will this affect the election results? The media is willing to do the things that help Republicans win elections, but reluctant to do the things that will make it less likely Republicans will win.

How should activists respond to the inadequate media coverage?

Organizations (e.g. Media Matters) and web sites (e.g. Talking Points Memo) should track how the media outlets are handling the bamboozling (the Jedi mind trick). Which outlets are doing better at calling out Palin and the McCain campaign and which are doing worse?

But there needs to be an active campaign to lean on media outlets, perhaps organized on Daily Kos to get media outlets to formally state how they are going to handle Palin's fabrications.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/9/9/195437/6833