Martin A. Knight's blog

The idea: A web based daily news review show openly challenging and refuting the "facts" presented to the American people by the Obamaphile MSM. Upload each show on YouTube, LiveLeak, GoogleVideo, etc. and have downloadable versions in all audiovisual formats (mpg, mp4, avi, wmv, etc.) hosted on johnmccain.com and mirror sites.

The concept is simple; for the next 40 to 50 days, selected members of the McCain/Palin campaign would present the "2008 Campaign News Review" where they would turn a brutally critical eye on the MSM campaign reportage and commentary that went on in the past twenty four hours (and beyond), naming names, issuing forceful corrections/refutations and putting the bias in the limelight; from misleading headlines and ledes to the citing of partisan "experts" posing as disinterested observers, omissions, "careless errors", etc.

At the end, of course, "brought to you by McCain/Palin 2008."

Without spending much more than what it would cost for a set of cameras and teleprompter, a fast internet connection and video/graphics editing software, and, at most, a few additional campaign (if even required) staff, the "Campaign News Review" would be a practical avenue to neutralize Obama and the Democrats' main advantage against McCain and the GOP.

I guarantee that there would be millions of views within hours of the first broadcast being uploaded to YouTube. And no, the Press Corps would not be able to ignore it.

I think Palin would do well to have her own cameraman openly recording in the room with Charlie Gibson's crew during the remaining interviews. From what I'm seeing, there's a lot of stuff on the cutting room floor that probably shouldn't be there ... including Gibson's condescending attitude.

Gibson would be spooked ... and that's a good thing. Because he'll know that whatever he cuts will definitely finds it way to YouTube.

When British reporter Martin Bashir (strangely enough, now of ABC just like Charlie Gibson) went to interview Michael Jackson in 2003, Jacko apparently had an inkling over the months that he hosted Bashir in his house that Bashir had already decided on the story he wanted to tell ... and he was perfectly willing to edit and cut untll it matched. So Michael - uncharacteristically - did something smart.

Regarding his 2003 dialogue with Michael Jackson, titled Living with Michael Jackson critics contend the documentary was yellow journalism, claiming Bashir edited the tapes in a sensational manner that only presented Jackson in an unflattering light. After seeing the edited version of the interview, Jackson released a rebuttal interview, filmed by his personal cameraman.

Granted, it didn't make Michael look much better, but it sure as heck made Bashir look like a sleazebag.

The Washington Post's front pager about Sarah Palin's per diem expenditure for her upkeep as Governor of Alaska demonstrates one of the Left-Wing news media's (especially print media) most disingenuous and corrupt practices - the use of newspaper headlines (and often, ledes) as a sort of push-poll mechanism against political foes.

If any set of people should know the power of words to convey deeper meanings than the mere literal, it is headline writers and the editors that sign off on them. More than anyone else, these people know that the bulk of the public does not do more than glance at the headlines on the front page and if time permits, read the lede paragraph of what they find interesting and shuffle on to the counter, leaving the newspaper still on the rack.

I believe it is with this knowledge that everyone involved with the production of this rather unremarkable article (except for the fact that Palin's expenditures are 20% that of her predecessor's) about a public official's entirely reasonable, legal, above-board and quite frankly frugal public expenditures somehow managed to get it on the Washington Post's front page under this particular headline:
"Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home"

One of Jonah Goldberg's readers asks; why wasn't the headline the far less eyebrow raising "Sarah Palin Followed Alaska's Per Diem Policy"?

Simple. Because the former allows the WaPo to strongly imply a breach of ethics on the part of Sarah Palin - the only reason such an article detailing absolutely no such breach or questionable act would earn a spot on the front page. The headline and its placement has no other purpose than to capitalize on the ignorance of the average American voter seeing the headline at the supermarket in favor of the Obama/Biden ticket.

Of course, every single editor and newsroom writer at the WaPo would argue that the headline is entirely accurate and point to the content of the article itself (fair enough in itself) as proof that they had no intention of suggesting that Sarah Palin was collecting money she should not have. They would, of course, claim that they can see no way in which any casual headline browser would see the headline and not automatically assume Sarah Palin was bilking Alaskan taxpayers of the nightly cost of a suite at the Ritz while she was sleeping at her own home.

They would also be lying. It's an old, dirty and malicious trick, they know it and when it comes to politicians they like (or worship - as they certainly do Obama) they're very careful to craft headlines and ledes that don't lead the casual headline skimmer to take away something negative about their subject.

Imagine a newspaper printing a story about a politician with a headline saying "Congressman Slept With Seventeen Year Old High School Student" and right there above the fold, on the front page, is a picture of the 41 year old Congressman side by side with the year book picture of a pretty high school sophomore smiling innocently at the camera.

Imagine, upon reading the article, you discover that the year book photo was from 23 years ago ... meaning that the congressman slept with the 17 year old school girl when he was 18. Would you believe any editor or writer at that newspaper who tries to convince you that there was no malice involved in choosing that particular headline and placing it on the front page - on account of the fact that the headline is literally true?

The scenario may be a bit too stark, but it is the exact same deal here. The only difference is in degree.

Okay ... so the new talking point making the rounds on the Left is that Sarah Palin is afraid of her lack of experience, knowledge, intelligence, accomplishment and basic humanity being exposed by those paragons and arbiters of honesty, courage, strength, fairness and objectivity. As evidence, they are pointing to Palin's absence from the Sunday morning talk shows. What is she (and John McCain) afraid of, they sneer? The Chicago Tribune's Mark Silva (H/T: Don Surber) offers this hopeful possibility for the Obama faithful;

So, maybe putting Sarah Palin out there in public where she has to answer questions from a reporter, as opposed to running circles around a fast-reeling TelePrompTer, isn’t in McCain’s “best interests?'’ Palin, conspicuous by her mere absence: This booking strategy may speak volumes about the McCain campaign’s confidence in the governor from Alaska.

Most of the Democratic Press have already convinced themselves that she is an airheaded lightweight who will collapse and fold like a cheap suit under tough questions designed to test her "knowledge" and "experience." They're so convinced that [H/T: Erick] Jonathan Alter of the strongly Democratic Newsweek [sic] is confident enough to offer us a window into his thoughts of what is likely to happen should Palin make the mistake of coming face to face with er ... "tough-minded" (read: in-the-tank-for-Obama) reporters;

Her lack of experience will only become an issue if it is manifested during the campaign. To decrease the odds of a gaffe, expect her to be carefully shielded from the questions of tough-minded reporters.

I'd imagine that Palin will dodge press conferences in favor of interviews with people like Sean Hannity, Larry King and Ellen DeGeneres. Then, when the media complain that she is being kept away, the McCain campaign will cite the half dozen or so interviews she has granted as proof that the campaign press is just bellyaching. Brief press "avails" on the plane will be useless, unless reporters ask open-ended queries designed to elicit proof of real knowledge.

Let us not be unmindful of the fact that the conventional wisdom in the Fourth Estate is that Sarah Palin has not been properly "vetted" - by them at least - for her ability to serve in the office to which she has been nominated. And as Roger Simon (not Roger L. Simon) of the Politico's more recent attempt at snark reveals, they honestly do believe that airing wild-eyed accusations that she is actually her son's grandmother, that she cheated on her husband, that her husband fathered her last born on their daughter, that she's - at best - a neglectful mother of her children, and that her husband is an alcoholic because of a DUI 22 years ago, is all part of evaluating whether or not she has the "knowledge" and "experience" to serve as Vice-President of the United States.

Note that, unlike Democratic politicians' children, who are free to appear on stage with them, actively campaign with them, and pose on magazine covers with no fear of having their lives gone over with a fine toothcomb and all the warts and bumps discovered put on national television, Republicans' children, according to this leading light at the AP are fair game should they be even mentioned by their parents - talk less of having the audacity of getting on stage with them.

This is not bias though, this is part of the essential vetting process for Sarah Palin's knowledge and experience for the Vice-Presidency.

Anyway, perhaps I digress ...

The real question I want to ask is if the Left (and their media cohort) really wants to go this route ... again? The attacks they launched against Palin before she unsheathed the sword on them and their "Community Organizer" (which makes him kinda like Jesus, you know) a few days ago led to a massive lowering of expectations that has dramatically altered the race's dynamics ... and it definitely wasn't in their favor.

I understand that the official line is that she employed the services of a speechwriter for that speech so the question of her intelligence, knowledge and other essential qualifications (such as whether or not she really is the mother of Trig Palin) remains as yet unanswered.

But ... lowering expectations after what happened on Wednesday just doesn't seem that smart to me. I mean, when you look at her here being interviewed by Maria Bartiromo on CNBC, I think they're in danger of setting, once again, a very low hurdle for her to clear when she's at last face to face with Charles Gibson of ABC.

Oh well ... I guess we'll see. Personally, I'm getting ear-muffs ... actually, scratch that - I think I'll get some popcorn instead. I think I'm actually looking forward to the caterwauling and whining ... 

PS: Found this CSPAN interview (Parts One, Two & Three here) of Sarah Palin from February ... where, I have on good authority, she also used a speechwriter and teleprompter. Yep ... she's obviously so dumb the McCain campaign is keeping her away from reporters so it won't come out. Yep yep yep ....