Posted on 07/19/2010 7:51:53 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
OK, so what's going on here? Why would the New York Post print a story stating as a fact that Sarah Palin's daughter was pitching a TV show without bothering to get confirmation from any of the alleged stars of such a show? They certainly must have trusted their sources. And who would those sources be?
One online commenter said of their reunion, "When you have no way to come up with $1,700 a month in child support . . . and there aren't any other jobs out there . . . options are limited."
Hmmm. "One online commenter"? Better make that one anonymous commenter at a notorious anti-Palin blog:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XDLnpGlOHFU/TET7pYF_AqI/AAAAAAAAFy4/TRsOaGoNFlY/s1600/BristolLevi.JPG
I'm reproducing the screen-capture of that comment because I don't want to link the blog -- which is the same blog that pushed the "Palin divorce" hoax in August 2009!
Yes, that's right. A mere anonymous commenter at the "Immoral Minority" blog (operated by a disgraced former kindergarten teacher) qualifies as an authoritative source for the New York Post. How so? Apparently, after posting that blog comment, the commenter was quoted at the Gawker gossip site last week.
As I remarked last week, some reporters seem to have added a special clause to their ethical code for all stories relating to Sarah Palin: Any "source" is acceptable, so long as the source is anti-Palin.
t
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
tmz lied then... remember that next time you read any of their tainted words.
LLS
LLS
Like I told somebody, if one has questions about Sarah’s mettle... that is find and legitimate, If they think there might be someone better than Sarah to beat Obama that’s find with me as well....but when they attack Sarah by MSM lies and hit jobs....I question them!
There are a few FReepers who act like libs on this board, they even attacking Sarah more than they ever will attack Obama
Believe me, I wish and hope that is the case. But more likely the Post was just going out of their way not to give credit to TMZ as their entertainment gossip competitor. Here’s today’s denial in the Post— http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/palin_family_refutes_talk_bristol_PwQHpBw8yENbig67GKkadO —which is almost Obama-esque in denying that they had signed to do a reality show (the actual stories were that they were talking about various possibilities) and saying that the networks had pitched to Bristol. (Which means she was talking with them.) The good news seems to be that she’s been reeled in and is back on the reservation at least as far as not having signed a deal at this time.
But the fact that Griffin knows “nothing” about the Palin’s and is a Palin-hater blogger who lied about Todd/Sarah getting a divorce....I’m sure that the networks push a reality show and Levi/Tank Johnson probably saw a money scheme but the truth as a whole is suspect...we don’t know
Griffin is undoubtedly foul and isn’t going to miss a chance to broadcast as much embarrassing news as possible about the Palins—whether it is true or not.
But that’s not the same as the TMZ story which said that multiple network sources had told them about Bristol and Levi pitching various possible shows to them. Yes, most everyone who works at TMZ is likely to dislike Palin and want to sensationalize whatever tidbits they get. But because Griffin has a version of it doesn’t mean there isn’t something to a regular media outlet’s reporting.
There ARE some liberals on FR... always have been.
LLS
Newsweek has a piece on parenting tips for Sarah, no doubt in response to the “reality show” lie.
You're right. Had I posted the comment, I would have only called them trolls.
That will work!
LLS
How was that *anonymous* thing taken as reliable in the first place? The snarky line “(with Trig and the nannies kept carefully out of sight.)” the immediate tip-off as to how non-reliable this *source* is — Trig is Bristol’s brother, not her son. Duh.
Looks like some got snookered.
Sad that he can get away at destroying Sarah all in the name of trying to build up a candidate who only got .05% of the vote in the 2008 primaries; I saw last night he has an on-going interview session with Hunter he is posting here now...
If he would spend his time trying to tell us why we should support Hunter, instead of trying to tear down our favorites, maybe Hunter could pick up more than .05%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.