Journamalism
- Posted by ryan on September 1st, 2008 filed in In the News
Post headline: “Democrats Say Palin Initially Backed Bridge.”
The story opens:
Democrats accused Gov. Sarah Palin (R) on Sunday of misrepresenting her role in scuttling a controversial bridge project to a remote island in southeast Alaska.
But wait. Just a few paragraphs later we read:
While campaigning in Ketchikan in September 2006, Palin indicated support for the bridge project, assuming there was no better alternative. “This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper,” she told the local chamber of commerce, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News.
In other words, Democrats say Palin initially backed the bridge because Palin initially backed the bridge. Why isn’t that the substance of the headline? What kind of reporting is this?
September 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
It’s called “Washington Post reporting.” Just be glad they spelled everyone’s name right.
Why do you think I line my birdcage with City Paper? At least the Senegal parrot can get a decent read in, and not a bunch of marginally literate claptrap written for gullible morons who think the government is out to help them.
Flush twice.
September 1st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The WaPo has 11 pages of comments - many of them bashing Democrats for attacking a woman. Just a few asking if she did actually support the Bridge to Nowhere. WaPo has indeed become the Pravda on the Potomac!
September 1st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Let’s not insult Pravda like that, pgl.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Hey Ryan,
Good observation. May I recommend that you include the author of these pieces as you post them?