By author, lizpolaris. Originally posted at Alegre’s Corner on September 09, 2008. Reposted with author’s permission.

When it’s printed in a newspaper.

Our media is so deranged, I can’t resist writing about it today. Someone needs to invent a new tool – a Snopes translator. You could take any online article you read and run it through the Snopes translator to see if any facts were inadvertently printed but discounted by the author or if, in fact, the article contains no facts at all but is 100% spin and conjecture and belongs on the editorial page.

I wish I’d been online during the election of 2000. I could have written a similarly bemused diary about the Al Gore ‘I invented the Internet’ lie. In 2000, the media had a nervous breakdown about Al Gore and couldn’t resist smearing, berating, and denigrating him at every opportunity. I’ve always wondered what set off the mass hysteria. Regardless of the unknown cause, it seems to be making a comeback in the case of Sarah Palin.

I don’t even agree with this woman on policy issues. I’m not a Republican. But the media derangement is just over the top. Here’s two examples this morning.

1. An AP story on the bridge to nowhere.

This is quite comical because the article is supposed to be a ‘fact-check.’ LOL Let’s take a look at the facts and how the article spins them. Here’s a quote from the article:

THE FACTS: Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport.

OK, so the fact is that the McCain/Palin ad saying that Palin ’stopped the bridge to nowhere’ is true, right?

Not if you can spin the fact away successfully! The article oddly follows with this:

But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor.

I recall from another article on this subject that the federal dollars were originally earmarked by Congress for the bridge, but that money was later rolled into a larger Congressional package of money for Alaska infrastructure improvements – which could be spent on the bridge but didn’t have to be spent on it (as the earmark said). So – who was it who pulled back and diverted the federal dollars to other uses in Alaska? Sarah Palin, since it was her job as governor to determine how the infrastructure funds would be spent. Which is also what the AP indicates in its original FACTS sentence.

What about the issue of her appearance of support for the bridge? The article states:

…she called the bridge design “grandiose” during her campaign and said something more modest might be appropriate.

Gee, that doesn’t sound like a statement of support to me.

In conclusion of dissecting this curious AP spinfest, another quote:

That’s not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money.

“It’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Palin said then.

Where in Palin’s quote does she ever indicate that she had any plan to persuade Congress to ‘come up with money’? She doesn’t. Does the AP present any evidence that she wanted more money for the bridge? No. Her statement that Congress was not in favor of spending money on the bridge was an obvious statement of fact, since Congress moved the bridge earmark money to the larger Alaska infrastructure allotment. Which Palin then redirected away from the bridge.

What does the article conclude?

Her self-description as a leader who “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress” is harder to square with the facts.

If you ignore the facts presented in the AP article itself, you might be able to conclude that.

2. A WAPO article on the governor’s travel spending.

This piece is really a classic version of the modern analysis piece. The form is – bold assertion of wrong-doing in the title. Write the first couple paragraphs with damning ‘evidence.’ Put inconvenienct context or contrary facts as far at the bottom of the piece as possible, so as not to destroy your headline.

The alarming headline:

Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home

The inconvenient context:
The capital of Alaska, Juneau, is not accessible by road. Alaska has about 700,000 people in it and is 4 times the size of Texas.

The facts, from the article itself:

Flights topped the list for the most expensive items…

(I wonder why?)

Gubernatorial spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Monday that Palin’s expenses are not unusual and that, under state policy, the first family could have claimed per diem expenses for each child taken on official business but has not done so.

She noted that she sold a state-owned plane used by the former governor. “While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for,” she said…

…also trimmed other expenses, including forgoing a chef in the governor’s mansion …

Palin moved her family to the capital during the legislative session last year, but prefers to stay in Wasilla and drive 45 miles to Anchorage to a state office building where she conducts most of her business, aides have said.

Palin rarely sought reimbursement for meals while staying in Anchorage or Wasilla, the reports show.

under state policy, all of the governor’s children are entitled to per diem expenses, even her infant son. “The first family declined the per diem [for] the children,” Leighow said.

Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski.

“She flies coach and encourages her cabinet to fly coach as well,” said Garnero, whose job is equivalent to state controller.

So the governor has been trying to save the state money and not claiming all the expenses she’s entitled to – according to the WAPO article.

And the expenses discussed in the article are in line with state guidelines for spending:

The first family’s travel is an expected part of the job…

Said Leighow: “The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it.”

Not to be dissuaded by the facts, the WAPO talks about another Alaska scandal at the end, in an apparent attempt to paint Palin with it.

In 1988, the head of the state Commerce Department was pilloried for collecting a per diem charge of $50 while staying in his Anchorage home…

With enough spin, you can write any headline. And people like Jeralyn at TalkLeft lap it up.