Abuse of Power: Trying to Understand Media's Vile Assault Against Palin Family
Yesterday, I excoriated the media for their howling attempt to obliterate Governor Sarah Palin's viability as a candidate for vice president by giving credence to a vicious rumor--an actually, a malicious hoax intended to destroy Palin because she represents a strong cultural strain in American life--that she is really her son's grandmother. That lie has been thoroughly debunked, including in my post linked above.
But that apparently doesn't matter to the out-of-control media. Last night, I was appalled to hear the McCain Campaign chief tell CBS's Katie Couric that in background briefings media are demanding genetic testing of Trig and the family, and were asking whether Palin is still breast feeding her son. Can you imagine? This is an utter abuse of power. Disgraceful.
I believe this snarling behavior results from the media's smoldering hatred for people who hold traditional cultural views as so many troglodytes. Secondhand Smokette--a Republican opinion columnist--is covering both conventions for the San Francisco Chronicle. She had a slightly different take in today's column. To say the least, Debra doesn't share all of Palin's cultural views, but she is appalled nonetheless about the attitudes of some of her colleagues toward the Palin family. From her column:
Palin is a walking style crime. She was a beauty queen. She wears a beehive hairdo. She hails from a small town. She believes there should be debate about teaching creationism in public schools, but she opposes "explicit" sex education. She is so unlike the tolerant brainiacs who report America's news that they just have to comb through her personal life in search of all the details that shout that Palin would not fit in at their cocktail parties. You read it here first--she is a freak.In other words, the media are snobs.
Debra is certainly right about that. No question. But it doesn't quite explain the depth of bitterness we are witnessing. I hope I am wrong, and of course I cannot prove it, but I suspect that the ultimate cause of the liberal media's irrational loathing springs from the Palin family's joyful acceptance of Trig, a vivid rejection of the "quality of life" drive to wipe people with Down and other "defects" off the face of the earth. Such unconditional love stands in stark contrast to the pronounced lack of love that drives the new eugenics, burning the conscience like acid.Ironically, if Palin does not whither under this unprecedented smear campaign--and she hardly seems the type that will--she is going to thrive regardless of the outcome of the election. But the reputation of the media won't. That hurts everyone because a robust, fair, and professional fourth estate is essential to the success of democracy. Alas, the media isn't thriving these days precisely because it isn't fair.
Labels: Media Bias. Sarah Palin
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:35 AM
25 Comments
25 Comments:
Indeed, I agree. The unhinged, irrational reaction of the media has more to do with the new eugenics than simply politics.
This is surreal. Who would have thought that women and leftists would be wondering out loud whether a woman could handle a job and a family at the same time-no actually saying it? These people aren't hypocrites, they phonies and frauds.
Trig's continued existence is a smack in the face of all the parents out there who made a "different choice" in the face of a diagnosis like Down Syndrome. Of course there is no slap intended on the part of Trig or his parents, naturally, yet it is perceived as such by those haunted by their own consciences and dead children.
Unfortunately the problem runs much deeper then that Margret. Certain journalistic Witch Hunters are lobbying to destroy our right to every Political choice by poisoning the well. I am one of those anti abortion on demand folk to ,unless the life of the mother is at stake. However this poisoned well effect is meant to destroy political candidates by providing false information intentionally and feigning surprise after elections are over and the whole truth is revealed. I mentioned yesterday ,my disgust that a person on another blog that I am involved in and is pro choice first made the insinuation that Bristol's child is her daddy's child .She then commented that Palin would most likely support abortion in that case. Mighty sick how these political extremists will use any falsehood to gain their political goals while destroying the lives of people like Bristol And her family because they actually HATE what the Palins represent. Within the ranks of the media the same type of hate mongers exist and the editorialists support them.
BTW ,the piranha is a very reasonable imagery Wesley ,in light of the subject matter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wesley: I go on vacation and come back to this partisan bonfire? What gives?
(1) I thought this blog was about bioethics. What's with all the political posts?
(2)You do realize that many parents who already have one Down's child elect to abort the second if prenatal tests confirms the diagnosis, (mainly citing the financial & emotional stress of already caring for one disabled child)? Surely you have seen the literature on this. What do you say to these parents; that they're wrong? That they're taking the easy way out?
(3)To broadbrush Democrats and liberals with a hatred of handicapped children (or adults) is both unjustified and offensive. Do you possess any correlative hard data to support this kind of smear? I hope so, because I worked for ARC for many years and most of my clients were lower-middle class citizens (easily half of whom were Democrats) who worked their asses off to sacrifice for their special children. To sling this kind of slanderous generalization at Democrats is about as fair as liberals claiming the Klan, Timothy McVeigh, hate-crime offenders and abortion clinic bombers are representative of main-stream conservative thought.
(4) To cry "sexism" at those progressives who would question Palin's qualifications for high office is laughable. Here's just a small sample of GOP misogyny about Hillary Clinton... While discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's emotional response to a question, Dick Morris stated on Hannity & Colmes that "I believe that there could well come a time when there is such a serious threat to the United States that she breaks down like that." Morris added, "I don't think she ought to be president." On Fox & Friends, Laura Ingraham similarly asserted: "[R]emember we have Islamic jihadists, [Osama] bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and all these other freaks that want to come to the United States and wreak havoc upon our population. We can't have people who break down and start crying at the most difficult moments."
More examples of anti-Palin, sexist liberal media bias:
"I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative." –Sarah Palin's mother-in-law, Faye Palin, who said she may vote for Obama
"She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen." --John Harris, Alaska's Republican speaker of the house, when asked about Palin's qualifications for vice president
I guess they shouldn't even report this, right?
As for Palin's qualifications, you should be furious at Karl Rove who said the following about then-prospective Dem veep hopeful Gov. Tim Kaine:
ON CBS FACE THE NATION> "Will all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years," Rove told Bob Schieffer. "He's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done."
Rove even dragged Richmond into his sights. "[Kaine] was mayor of the 105th largest city in America," Rove said. "And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa, or Gilbert, Arizona; North Las Vegas, or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town."
Can only imagine what he's said about Palin off-mike. (Actually, in true Rovian fashion, he fully supported her and praised her experience and accomplishments. Take THAT, Gov. Kaine!)
Plenty of bulls**t on both sides of the political aisle, especially in an election year. To not admit this is to whistle in the dark. Thought the majority of your posters here were better than this.
Now, please...back to bioethics. There's plenty enough politics in those discussions already.
"Do you possess any correlative hard data to support this kind of smear?"
Other than that of them possibly opting to have a DS child killed?
bmmg39:Of course I don't, as I stated. But I will say, that it seems clear to me that given the same circumstances and a woman who had decided her family needs required the eugenic abortion, and with a different political philosophy, this woman would have been celebrated.
So, I tried to think: What could make her so upsetting? It was the action that so vividly and lovingly stands directly against the modernistic, anti-human exceptionalist winds. And I think that is the core cause of the irrational fury.
Just my opinion.
O: Welcome back.
This wasn't any more political than my happiness expressed over Obama's nomination as a blow for human exceptionalism.
I am well aware of the high rates of eugenic abortion and that there are many reasons for the same. I think that Palin's refusal to go that route, which is often pushed as the desired "choice" by doctors and "counselors," is one of the primary, if perhaps subliminal, reasons for the fury. And I wasn't upset about media dealing with her experience or whether she really stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.
I was furious that she was deemed so beyond the pale because she accepts the sanctity of human life that they would promote the lie of her being a grandmother of Trig rather than his mother, and breaching the "children are off limits" rule to go after her pregnant daughter.
Besides, bioethics IS political.
Notice, I am not commenting on her speech last night. That would be purely political, which I don't do.
But sometimes there is a nexus between human exceptionalism bioethics and politics. And when there are, we deal with it here, as to those who react--like you did.
O: Welcome back.
This wasn't any more political than my happiness expressed over Obama's nomination as a blow for human exceptionalism.
I am well aware of the high rates of eugenic abortion and that there are many reasons for the same. I think that Palin's refusal to go that route, which is often pushed as the desired "choice" by doctors and "counselors," is one of the primary, if perhaps subliminal, reasons for the fury. And I wasn't upset about media dealing with her experience or whether she really stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.
I was furious that she was deemed so beyond the pale because she accepts the sanctity of human life that they would promote the lie of her being a grandmother of Trig rather than his mother, and breaching the "children are off limits" rule to go after her pregnant daughter.
Besides, bioethics IS political.
Notice, I am not commenting on her speech last night. That would be purely political, which I don't do.
But sometimes there is a nexus between human exceptionalism bioethics and politics. And when there are, we deal with it here, as to those who react--like you did.
"bmmg39:Of course I don't, as I stated."
I wasn't the one who originally asked you a question about a "smear." I only offered a rejoinder to the question.
bmmg39: Ah. Sometimes it is hard to follow the threats, particularly since I read yours (from my e-mail) before I read O's.
bmmg39: Ah. Sometimes it is hard to follow the threats, particularly since I read yours (from my e-mail) before I read O's.
"So, I tried to think: What could make her so upsetting? It was the action that so vividly and lovingly stands directly against the modernistic, anti-human exceptionalist winds. And I think that is the core cause of the irrational fury."
Or maybe it's just paranoia talking.
How long will it be before this argument is used as a shield to deflect legitimate criticism towards Mrs Palin in future [My bet is it's already started]?
"Gosh, the only reason a moron attacked her like this and other morons grabbed onto this stupid conspiracy with both hands is because they hate her values! It can't possibly be for any other reason!"
If the original mental midget had not pulled a stunt like this ["She's not the mama--her daughter is!"], someone else would've had to invent it.
Tiger: Remember this bit of wisdom: Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean they are not really after you.
I can't imagine anyone "inventing" the media chasing Internet malicious fraud and demanding genetic testing and details about breast feeding. Nobody forced them: They lept head first! And there is a reason for that, or better put, reasons.
It's not that she let one of those -- hear the tacit "Ewwww! Yucky!" -- Down syndrome babies live. After all, that's a valid choice if you're a backwater hick who doesn't understand the complexity of life, yada yada yada. It's that she is wildly successful and achieved it without aborting ANY of her kids.
She's living proof that you don't have to eat your own young to get ahead in the world. And they can't stand that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
WS: "I think that Palin's refusal to go that route, which is often pushed as the desired "choice" by doctors and "counselors," is one of the primary, if perhaps subliminal, reasons for the fury."
Not arguing that this doesn't happen; I'm sure it does. But the more important questions are...
(1) How often does it happen (supprtive data please!), and;
(2) Is it immoral for clinicians to simply inform these patients of their various options in these cases or is it actually their professional responsibility? If it IS immoral, then aren't you in effect shooting the messenger and/or expecting a kind of 'jury nullification' by the docs? Is this fair?
granny: Who exactly is "they?" Sounds like another conservative-invented straw man: the liberal who thinks that all developmentally disabled children should be either aborted or abandoned.
If you honestly think that Republicans value their handicapped children any more than Democrats, simply support this contention with data, not anecdotes or singular exceptions.
Otherwise, you're simply spewing slander. Do you actually feel good about this?
ok: There has been a study, which found that, (off the top of my head) that 25% of women presenting with Down, were pushed toward the abortion option and not told about services for special needs kids, etc..I wrote about in the Weekly Standard. Here's the link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/915cuzel.asp
I think counselors should advise of options, but to be sure and present information about the positives, services, etc. For example, why not introduce a pregnant family to people who have actually lived the experience?
I think it is up to us to create a culture in which it is the social expectation and understanding that all people are to be accepted in life and accepted in life with love.
Worked with both developmentally disabled children and adults for years prior to my current occupation and couldn't agree more.
I especially appreciate the tone of your post; understanding & education trumps condemnation almost every time. At the same time, I can certainly appreciate and sympathize first-hand the anger this issue evokes.
Wesley: You still didn't answer my question, though. Research shows that many parents who already have one Down's child elect to abort the second if prenatal tests confirms the diagnosis, citing the financial & emotional toll from already caring for one disabled child. What would you say to these parents?
Ok: I think eugenic abortion is wrong. Period. I would not say anything to those parents directly because that is not what I do.
We are a rich enough society that such concerns should not come into play. Our job is to make that happen.
The nations that can not support the weakest among them ,are destined to become compassionless piranhas from the top of the food chain towards the less & less worthy. Already showing signs of that fall as the womb is invaded more and more & now the scales of support for the wounded living are down graded towards euthanasia plan. Wouldn't those less worthy mentally and yet physically fit make great organ donors though. I mean their brains are almost dead but they have working lungs, hearts, kidneys,livers and skin tissue. Yes my tongue is in my cheek but I am a cheeky guy to begin with and moral ethics are certainly not what they once were .
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home