Washington Post under Fire for running Palin Op-ed:Calls for media boycott

[HipChick]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/sarah-palin-wapo-faces-he_n_385070.html

Wednesday's edition of the Washington Post features an op-ed by Sarah Palin, who reprises her call -- first made in a Facebook post last week -- for President Obama to "boycott" the major climate talks in Copenhagen due to the "Climate-gate" controversy (actually a non-controversy).

"Policy decisions require real science and real solutions," Palin argued on Facebook, "not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public's worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a 'sin' against the planet."

The reaction to Palin's latest piece, however, is focused not on what she wrote, but on the fact that the Washington Post chose to run it in the first place.

Shortly after the op-ed was published online, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz tweeted that his paper was being "ripped for running Palin op-ed." Kurtz highlighted a blog post whose author refused to link to the op-ed because "hey shouldn't be rewarded with the clicks, which is pretty much what this is about, I figure."

Politico's Ben Smith wrote on Twitter that it "struck me as slightly odd published an expanded version of her Facebook piece." He added later, "I agree she's relevant and boycott call is news."

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder begged to differ with Smith's latter point. "Her boycott call is like a video press release," he wrote. "She's looking for a way to inject herself into this and found it." Ambinder published a critical "annotated" version of Palin's piece, noting at the onset, "Once again, the Washington Post has given Sarah Palin the chance to harness herself to the political story of the hour."

The response to the op-ed was even more critical from science writers. ScienceBlogs.com's Tim Lambert chose to headline his piece on Palin's op-ed: "The Washington Post can't go out of business fast enough." He pointed out that the Post's own reporting contradicted claims made by Palin in the op-ed. "The Washington Post simply does not care about the accuracy of the columns it publishes," he concluded.

[Contrary1]

1. Oh noes! Palin will have to resort to Playgirl for reading material in her "microcosm of America".

"Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. OK, let me get this straight.

I'm supposed to care about what somebody on Huffington Post wrote about what somebody from Politico wrote, on twitter no less, about what some idiot snowbilly wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post, and also the responses to said op-ed from other bloggers on other websites. This is about fifteen levels of meta too much for me. How many man-hours have been wasted in pursuit of this nonsense?

I hate the internet. I hate Politico and the Washington Post. And I definitely hate the Huffington Post. I'm going back to playing videogames.

[parasim]

3. I agree with you. And I'm goin back to reading books. nt

[Winterblues]

5. Good to know you want to keep informed

See ya!!!!!!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. I don't define "keeping informed" as...

...ensuring that I know what somebody said about what somebody else said about what somebody somebody else said. The only reason pieces like this get published is because they require very little research and therefore very little money to produce.

[mod mom]

4. I expect this of the Moonie Times, but not WaPo. What ever happened to fact checking?

Giving space to a failed governor who misrepresents the truth on such a serious issue is dereliction of duty!

[EFerrari]

6. The WaHo is the Moonie Times with slightly better diction, imo. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Do they fact check op-eds?

I confess complete ignorance on that particular subject.

[mod mom]

9. Not sure, but since the editorial staff is giving air to a particular person, I would hope they

would not allow dangerous misrepresentations of science on such an important issue to see the light of day, regardless of who wrote the piece.

[spanone]

10. k&r