Is the Associated Press trying to manufacture a controversy? John Hinderaker (PowerLineBlog.com) has uncovered the facts but at the crux is a single issue, an omission that slants the whole story titled “Palin supports $600 million ‘other’ bridge project.”
So what did Governor Palin do wrong? AP writer (Whatever happened to reporters?) Garance Burke makes his case in the third sentence.
A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska’s largest city to Palin’s town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead.”
Did the “Bridge to Nowhere” die while the “Bridge to Wasilla” lives? You’d think the good Governor was doing something unethical but according to Hinderaker
the proposed bridge would supply a more direct route to Anchorage from Fairbanks and other points north.”
Wasilla stands to benefit from the bridge but only because the proposed highway would go through the town. It is not a bridge to link Anchorage to Wasilla. If anything it is a bridge that links Anchorage to Fairbanks. Nowhere in the AP article is this fine point explained.
Such contrived reporting and the ensuing manipulation of public opinion have become all too common. This isn’t about Governor Palin, Senator McCain or even the election. It’s about integrity and accountability or lack thereof on the part of the AP and its staff.
Freedom of the press is one thing. Freedom to abuse the public’s trust it quite another.
Despite the MSM-Olbermann-Matthews-lefty blogosphere hissy fit, Sarah Palin is here to stay. Of course, the longer coverage is on the is-she-ready-to-lead issue the better for Republicans from the top of the ticket to the candidates running for Congress. Any Democrat whipped into a frenzy over McCain/Palin is on board the Dem wagon already but if the media want to alienate the undecided voters, hey, go right ahead with the current game plan since it’s working so well for you.
Is anyone else finding it challenging to find coverage of the real issues? Hint to the media: Sarah Palin is not THE issue or even AN issue. Energy, jobs and the economy, terrorism, border security, pork, the list goes on, are issues. The candidates probably cover many of these subjects daily in speeches, press releases, ads, and interviews but unless one is addicted to reading dozens of websites per day, it’s frigging hard to find out what the candidates are saying though it is easy to find out what the pundits are saying/spewing/regurgitating.
To complicate matters further, readers have to overcome media bias to get to the too oft-obscured facts. Life was a whole lot easier when you could read the local newspaper or the Sunday edition of the NY Times and get a fair sense of all the news. You know, back in the day when revenues weren’t declining and “We report-You decide” was the unspoken mantra of the press rather than just a slogan for a single outlet.
Frankly, reading the candidates’ websites would be a more accurate way to learn what each believes and would do if elected. What a sorry reflection on the state of the media that is!