Party of inclusion finds prejudice a fuzzy warm blanket, Soledad can’t see or count, MooDoo’s latest dump and printing the rumor “because it’s news”

1)Today’s NY Daily News has a piece talking about the anti-Palin bias on the left. The article doesn’t offer new information or a jolt of outrage so much as some well-reasoned reminders of how prejudice is a human failing and not only the province of Republicans.

A well-to-do, middle-aged professional woman who identifies herself as very liberal casually declared at a recent social gathering that Palin was unqualified to be vice president. “Look at all those children; she would be neglecting them,” the woman said, before adding she herself has five grown daughters.

I could hardly contain myself. “How,” I managed to say relatively calmly, “would you feel if a man just said what you said?”

“Oh, I didn’t mean anything; I was just thinking of the children,” she said sheepishly.

Of course she was thinking of the children. And Jimmy the Greek was just talking history when he discussed slavery and black anatomy and Al Campanis was misunderstood when he said blacks lacked the “necessities” to be baseball executives.
———————-

A similar blind spot toward the political “other” explains much of the contempt for Palin.

If she were a Democrat, her unusual life would be spun into a compelling narrative that would make her the darling of the coastal elite.

How she’s raising that lovely brood of kids, her care for that severely handicapped baby, her relationship with that rugged hubby who often cares for the kids and is part native, her unlikely rise through the political minefields, her tough knocks and gutsy performance on the national stage – all would be testament to a breakthrough of historic proportions we would be ordered to celebrate in the name of diversity and equality.

Yes, I know there are many legitimate reasons to vote against her and McCain. And I am not arguing for a second they should be supported, least of all because of her gender.

But couldn’t we all at least acknowledge Palin’s moment and what it means for America?

Apparently not. She must lose, the liberal narrative goes, because she is unqualified, case closed.

Some day, we will look back with disgust at the abuse Palin has taken and wonder how it could happen in this great nation, circa 2008.

Spare me. We already know the answer.

Indeed.

2) The creativeminorityreport.com has a video of Soledad O’Brien’s inability to either see or count hands. She asked for her press-required panel of “average voters” to vote for whom they thought won the vp debate. The blogger counted 11 for Palin and 12 for Biden. O’Brien called that “overwhelming” for Biden and “small hands” for Palin. WTH?

Rant alert:::::

And while we’re on the subject, WHY do they do these stupid panels in the first place? What purpose do they serve? Inevitably, those on the panel sit there and just look half numb while the pontificating talker pretends to listen to the usual response to “who do you think made the better case?” If you’re real lucky, the panel is actually uncommitted. If not, it’s like watching an ice-skating competition. The the scores and judges make no sense.

And while I’m STILL on the subject, why can’t the networks do away with those absolutely horrid, train-wreck-can’t-watch-without-vomiting, post-debate “expert” panels? Really, those should be produced only to use in lieu of water-boarding, although it’s arguable which is more tortuous. Those panels are awful. First off, they are stocked with partisans whose only role is to spin and dig. Spin for their guy way past any logic and dig at the other guy in as lofty a manner as possible. They add absolutely nada to the discussion or understanding of what has happened. It’s just the snark patrol. And while I could deal with that in its proper context, I resent it being passed off as learned commentary. Everything they say is utterly predictable, utterly useless and boring as heck. The fact that these people say such things with straight faces and the expectation that we’ll take them seriously is beyond all understanding.

And the fact that they get paid to do this evokes in me almost the same visceral response as Wall Street golden parachutes.

And lastly (for now) WHY do networks feel “news analysis” means a thing? Analysis is only useful if the topic is very confusing – like the economy and the bailout. When it comes to a debate, I can watch as well as anyone and I’ll form my own opinion, thank you very much. They think they provide “context.” The nicest thing I can say they provide is time for the anchors to dash to the little boys’ room.

Aggravated much? Yeah, I guess so. Moving on.

3) MooDoo has a piece of something today that makes fun of Sarah Palin’s way of speaking. Seriously. MooDoo is frustrated that after years of putting up with Bush’s verbal flailings she now has to put up with the “folksy” speech of Palin. (And that completely begs the question of what she might think of me, with my slight southern accent. Wait, no, I KNOW what she’d say – nevermind.) While MooDoo pencil whips Palin for being a backwoods rube, she somehow missed that Palin actually spoke, according to a linguist, at a higher level than Biden did during the debate. Or maybe she did see this and decided to counter in the only way she knows how.

The sophisticated view of MooDoo seems to be that she is “deliciously snarky” and fun to read because she is sooooo mean. I think she thinks she’s Dorothy Parker, but everytime I have to read MooDoo, I have to ask “what fresh hell is this?” I like a little snark, but I want it attached to a useful point, some research or observation. MooDoo doesn’t do this, she’s a snot because she doesn’t like someone. Well, bully for her. We can all be jerks to someone we don’t like – it doesn’t take much time or energy to think of snotty things to write. (See? I’m not even half trying. Just think how mean I could be if it would net me a 6 figure salary.)

MooDoo is a longer, NYT published version of bathroom wall scribble. The same level of malice and the same level of truth, although she does use Bartlett’s and a thesaurus. She’s a female (?) version of Robert Novak, minus the sources. MooDoo only talks to herself. Must be a reason for that. (If you want to read her latest spew, google it. I cannot bear to provide a link.)

4) Since I’m clearly on a media rant here, let me include a story not directly related to the election but symptomatic of what is going on nevertheless. Apparently errant reporting by a “citizen journalist” (short for “some dude we don’t have to pay”) resulted in a very real drop in share prices for Apple computer. Now, this is not the first case we’ve seen of this, by any means, but the notion of the media not playing the observer but as an active participant certainly applies in this election.

This story emphasizes that the initial false report was by someone whose motives are not yet clear and who is not a “real journalist.” But “not real journalists” gave a pass to this story before it found its way to the CNN site.

What hasn’t been widely circulated yet is that iReport was not the first place the fake story was sent. Arnold Kim, who operates the blog, MacRumors.com, wrote Friday that someone submitted the same rumor to his site using an anonymous IP address. Kim did some research on the rumor and decided it was a fake. Later, he tracked the report and found it being circulated by members of online message board 4chan. Kim also discovered the item was circulating on Digg, a popular news aggregation site. Digg users, however, voted the story down, meaning they also were skeptical.

Kim was clearly doing a good job not being a real journalis.

The next place Kim saw the rumor was at SAI (Silicon Alley Insider – a trade pub).

At about 6:25 a.m. PDT, SAI published this headline: “Apple’s Steve Jobs Rushed To ER After Heart Attack, Says CNN Citizen Journalist.” Within the blog, SAI informed readers that the report hadn’t been substantiated but reporters were checking it out. To that point, no other mainstream media outlet had published anything about Jobs’ health, according to Henry Blodget, SAI’s founder and a former well-known tech analyst.

The editor of SAI justified this by saying:

“(The story) was highly relevant to anyone who cares about Steve or Apple…it was already getting notice when we heard about it…we knew our readers would want to evaluate it themselves.”
–Henry Blodget, founder, Silicon Alley Insider

Blodget told CNET News that his staff tried to contact Apple and CNN representatives to confirm the story prior to publishing but were unable to reach them. SAI decided to post the item–with all the disclosures about it being unconfirmed–anyway.

At 6:41 a.m. PDT, Apple’s stock price began to plummet.

Sounds like lipstick on a pig to me.