Showing posts with label anchorage daily news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anchorage daily news. Show all posts

Thursday, August 22, 2013

The overlooked, but very valuable book about Sarah Palin: "Unlikely Liberal" by former Alaskan journalist Matthew Zencey


By Patrick

First of all, let me apologize for not having put up a post during the last two weeks. We should have put up an open post, but I am not the biggest fan of open posts and always thought that I will write a new post very soon. However, due to "restraints" of real life, I didn't come round to do it in the end. Maybe it was also a case of "writer's block", I don't know.

While we entertain and educate ourselves by discussing a lot of diverse topics in the comments, I thought it would a be good idea to revisit our favorite subject, Sarah Palin - the woman who left Alaska to seek fame and fortune and who was lucky enough to find a group of hardcore fans who are themselves so detached from reality that they believe every word she says and apparently also believe that she is the new messiah. It is just too interesting to witness the demise of this woman whose tweets and facebook post used to keep the mainstream media busy for days, over and over again. It now seems like light-years ago, but of course that only happened "yesterday." Today, however, only a handful of usually minor internet outfits continue to care about what she does or says. Let's just say that the stock of "Palin Inc." is not exactly rising.

So why continue to write about her? Well, first of all, Sarah Palin loves to connect herself with other right-wingers who might be far more dangerous than she ever was (dangerous at some fleeting moment in the past, that is). In 2012 she pretended to support the old scoundrel and adulterer Newt Gingrich and his martian wife, and now she is in love with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. The good thing about all this is that one can be sure that anyone who Sarah picks or supports is either a rabble-rouser, liar, demagogue, extremist, adulterer, or all together. She has a real talent for picking the worst.


Regarding Rand Paul, let me add that I am absolutely disgusted about his very own and special brand of "libertarianism." He simply turns it into an ideology which wants to give all power to corporations, and demonizes anything positive a government could do, because this apparently would be "tyranny". Ever since I listened to an interview a long time ago, in which Rand's father Ron Paul said that the existing system of universal healthcare in the United Kingdom is "tyranny", I was thoroughly disgusted by those people who basically promote what could be called a system of "corporate anarchy." No rules, no protection, because don't you know, we want our "liberty." Unfortunately I can't find this interview with Ron Paul right now, but I clearly remember him saying that about healthcare in the United Kingdom. 

In addition, it's worth to continue to write about Sarah Palin simply because there is still so much to discover and to discuss. For the example the "official record" of her time as Governor of Alaska. Her fanatic fans still love to spam the blogs with lists of her glorious "accomplishments", but it's actually not easy to come across a fairly objective account about what really happened back then when Sarah was Governor and when Alaska still was the land of wine and honey, as her rabid fans apparently believe.

But in fact, such a detailed account exists, and it is the overlooked book "Unlikely Liberal" by former Alaskan journalist Matthew Zencey, who covered Alaskan politics for twenty years, for example as the editorial page editor of the Anchorage Daily News and who also knew Sarah Palin very well. 


The book's apparent lack of success in my view was probably caused by two main reasons: First of all, the book came far too late, which was unfortunate for the author. It was only published in September 2012, when the broader public simply wasn't interested any more in Sarah Palin's legacy as Governor of Alaska. Secondly, the choice of title for this book simply is awful. While it undoubtedly is one of the main premises of the book that Sarah Palin followed certain "liberal policies" while being the Governor of Alaska, the title of the book really should have reflected the fact that the author actually attempted to write an honest in-depth account of Sarah Palin's political actions while she was Governor. I just think that the title was a bad choice.

Matthew Zencey succeeds: The author soberly presents the facts, trying to be as objective as possible. The book is easy to read, well-written, nicely organized in smaller, precise chapters and contains a huge amount of facts. It is more than obvious that factual accuracy was of the utmost importance for the author. There are many fascinating facts to discover, even for "experts." The book clearly has no serious competitor in the ranks of the dozens of books which have been written about Palin, as no other book focuses on Sarah Palin's record as Governor in such detail. If the book had been published for example in early 2011, it probably would have been quite a big success, as far as sales are concerned.

As an example, let's mention the reasons for Sarah Palin's resignation. Sarah's fans spend much of their time screaming on the blogs that the evil liberals wanted to "bankrupt" Sarah and that she had no other choice than to resign. At Politicalgates, we also wrote about the fact that this claim has long been debunked. Matthew Zencey offers some addition insights and writes:

So why did Sarah Palin resign?

Was it because she spent so much time and personal money fighting ethics charges? Did being in the spotlight bring too much harsh scrutiny of her kids? Was it the chance to make real money, not her piddling $ 125,000-a-year salary as governor? Was it because she had accomplished the big things she'd set out to do? Was it her fading popularity? Her loss of political support in the legislature? The prospect of being stuck doing the boring work of passing a budget and other routine matters of state governance? Was it so she could have more time to burnish her national image? Did she think that being in office forced her to be "politically correct"? Was being the mom of a special needs kid too much while maintaining a full-time job far from her home? Did she simply hate the job?

In my humble opinion, the answer is all of the above.

Palin gave many of the above answers in public, and some of them in private. Here's what she told her Going Rogue writer, Lynn Vincent:

Created: 7/11/2009 7:36:23 AM
Subject: Re: Important dot-connecting

(By leaving I'm) "sending the message that 1) I'm not a professional politician; 2) I've accomplished the goals as Governor that I promised; ethics reform; mandated new clear and equitable share of Alaska's resource development for Alaskans; built vehicle to get gasline built; slowed the rate of growth of govt; eliminated personal luxuries the state used to fund for governors so we could set the example ... So handling the reins to Sean is just sensible and fair and efficient instead of suffering Alaskans through a lame duck session!" (Her emphasis.)

(...)

As is often the case with Palin, her complaints included exaggerations and problems of her own making. Instead of commuting from Wasilla, she could have chosen to spend her term living in state-paid housing - the governor's mansion in Juneau - just a couple of blocks from her office in the state capital. (Regaring her claim that she "can't afford to have security at my home"): She actually reduced her state trooper security detail, as documented in the Troopergate investigation. She could have had state-paid security at her home if needed - but it would have undercut her populist image as an ordinary Alaskan forgoing perks, accessible to the people.

The vast majority of Palin's legal fees were to defend herself in Troopergate, after she filed a formal ethics complaint against herself. It's unclear why she needed to pay her lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour, for example, to attack an ethics complaint filed under the pseudonym of a British TV character.

Palin complained that media scrutiny of her kids was grwoing intolerable, even though her status as a mother - a family-values hockey mom with a special needs kid - was an integral part of her political "brand", and she routinely displayed her children at political events.

Unfortunately, Matthew Zencey, as far as I could see, doesn't mention the additional detail we reported in February 2012, another fact which renders the usual claim that Sarah Palin was on the way to go "bankrupt" even more ludicrous:

+++

It it simply untrue that Sarah Palin was forced to pay the costs for her legal defense against the ethics complaints herself, was forced to "bankrupt her family" and was subsequently driven out of office, as Palin herself claims in an email from January 2, 2009. This often repeated myth can easily be debunked with hard evidence.



When Sarah Palin's first legal defense fund, the "Alaska Fund Trust", was declared unethical by the state-assigned investigator Tim Petumenos in June 2010 after an ethics complaint by Kim Chatman, Petumenos published an extensive report, and for the first time the following was revealed in public: The State of Alaska offered to pay for the defense against the ethics complaints, and even entered into a contract for legal services with Palin's lawyers, for an amount "up to $ 100,000 at public expense." This would have given Sarah Palin enough resources to mount a solid defense, but as investigator Petumenos notes: "No invoices were submitted."

The reasons for this untypical behaviour by Sarah Palin are completely unclear. The lawyers claim that it would have been "too difficult to separate the functions of representing Governor Palin in her official capacity in the pending state-related matters, and representing her in other related campaign or partisan matters beyond the scope of the state contract." This explanation is nonsensical, as every lawyer knows who has ever invoiced billable hours.

Screenshot from the Petumenos report:


Sarah Palin instead choose to set up her unethical "Alaska Fund Trust."

The meme that Sarah Palin was forced to bankrupt herself is therefore pure propaganda.

+++


Back to the current post:

Therefore Sarah Palin not only had by far the biggest expenses through filing an ethics complaint against herself as a tactical political move after the bipartisan Branchflower investigation concluded that she had abused her powers, but she also rejected a huge sum of money which was offered to her to defend herself against ethics complaints. This reminds us of the old Palin rule: Her version of reality has to be correct, because the rest of the world is always lying (and always hates her).

It is therefore only consequential that in her private emails and her resignation speech the subject of "bankruptcy" found little or no mention.

Well, there are many other interesting parts of this book which are worth quoting, but let's stop here. Matthew Zencey delivered a convincing and very valuable book, which unfortunately did not get the attention it deserved. But as I said, it simply came too late.

There seems to be virtually no serious person left in America who could imagine a political future for Sarah Palin. Even Bill Kristol is fed up with her.

But Sarah Palin still tries to influence the political discourse, and therefore her own record should not be forgotten. She was not the "hottest Governor", but certainly the "weirdest Governor."

Finally, you might ask whether Matthew Zencey mentions some of Sarah Palin's "private scandals", for example babygate, the desperately suppressed fact that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig (which virtually half of Alaska knows about).

The answer is: No, these "private" matters are not being discussed in the book. However, Matthew Zencey preferred an "honest" solution for this "problem", for which I give him credit. He writes in the preface of the book:

You'll have to look elsewhere if you care about Bristol's pregnancy, the feud with Levi, Trig's birth, the state of Palin's marriage to Todd, her career in high school basketball, Piper's progress in school, and other parts of Palin's personal life. In my view, a politician's personal life is a public issue only if it reveals hypocrisy on a political question or significantly compromises his or her ability to do the job.

Of course disagree with the second sentence, because the faked pregnancy definitely does question Sarah Palin's ability to do the job, but I also think it was a very good idea by Matthew Zencey to address those topics directly in this manner right at the beginning of the book.

(For us "insiders", the following sentence in the "acknowledgements" of the book is also pretty interesting: "I appreciate Elizabeth Demer's willingness to recommend publishing my work and her guidance on the manuscript.")

In conclusion, I can highly recommend Mathew Zencey's book. Together with "The Rogue" by Joe McGinniss, "The Lies of Sarah Palin" by Geoffrey Dunn and "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin" by Frank Bailey, it provides invaluable insights and facts. Also, concerning the topic of "Alaska, the oil and Sarah Palin" (as well as other topics), there is also the very detailed book "Crude Awakening: Money, Mavericks, and Mayhem in Alaska" by Tony Hopfinger and Amanda Coyne, which we have read and can also recommend.

Sarah Palin may fade from the spotlight, but a look at her botched legacy is always a good idea, especially now where she openly pals around with politicians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Hopefully they have heard about the famous Palin-curse...


+++

Bonus:

Many thanks to our wonderful reader JCos for this great variation of the above photo featuring Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin:


Sunday, May 15, 2011

Anchorage Daily News journalist Julia O'Malley: "Photoshopping", "lightened pictures" and "reading comprehension skills" - A journalistic failure

By Patrick

Yesterday I was on the little twitter thing upon which I dutifully tweeted out my last post to numerous receipients such as Julia O'Malley, journalist for the Anchorage Daily News, who is also on twitter (click on pictures to enlarge)

The reason for tweeting Julia O'Malley in particular was of course her "Make.It.Stop." article at the Anchorage Daily News dated April 14, 2011, in which she claimed that Sarah Palin was indeed pregnant. I published a detailed response to this article on April 17, 2011 in my "Shame.On.You." post. Curiously, Julia O'Malley presented as her main proof at the beginning of her article a picture from March 2008 in which Sarah Palin looks "obviously pregnant", according to Julia O'Malley.

Julia O'Malley chose to respond to my tweet, and the following twitter conversation proved to be a truly enlightening venture. Unfortunately, Julia O'Malley also chose to delete most of those tweets just several minutes after our twitter conversation had finished - and she did so for good reason as she made some very ill-thought comebacks to my questions. However, and fortunately for us, I do know how to make screenshots, and I make them very, very fast. It would have been a real shame if this conversation had been lost, because rarely has a journalist provided better proof for for his or her ineptitude as far as Sarah Palin's pregnancy with Trig is concerned.

Julia O'Malley's first response to my tweet is still online:

"Ghosts and aliens", sure. Oh yes, anyone questioning Sarah's account of her pregnancy can be officially designated as part of the craaazies and lumped in with all conspiracy theorists.

Julia didn't have to wait long for my response:


I was referring to this passage in her "Make.It.Stop." article in which she said:

I read Scharlott's piece. It contains lots of innuendo and some widely-circulated Photoshopped pictures. What is missing from his investigation: facts.

In my "Shame.On.You." reply at Politicalgates I point out that Professor Bradford Scharlott did not use any photoshopped pictures in his academic paper about the Trig pregnancy hoax at all.

It now turns out that Julia O'Malley apparently has a very different understanding of the word "photoshopped", because she explained in her response to my tweet:

So Julia O'Malley believes that "photoshopping" pictures is the same as "lightening" pictures. Interesting!

Let's take a look at what Wikipedia says about the term "photoshopping":

Photoshopping is slang for the digital editing of photos. The term originates from Adobe Photoshop, the image editor most commonly used by professionals for this purpose; however, other programs, such as Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photopaint, Pixelmator, Paint.NET, or GIMP, may be used. Adobe Systems, the publisher of Adobe Photoshop, discourages use of the term "photoshop" as a verb out of concern that it may undermine the company's trademark.

Despite this, photoshop is widely used as a verb, both colloquially and academically, to refer to retouching, compositing (or splicing), and color balancing carried out in the course of graphic design, commercial publishing, and image editing.

In popular culture, the term photoshopping is sometimes associated with montages in the form of visual jokes, such as those published on the fark.com website and in MAD Magazine. Images may be propagated memetically via e-mail as humor or passed as actual news. An example of the latter category is "Helicopter Shark," which was widely circulated as a so-called "National Geographic Photo of the Year" and was later revealed to be a hoax.

Excuse my, Julia, but from this explanation alone it is obvious that "photoshopping" is in general widely understood in the first place as a method to digitally manipulate photos in a way that they afterwards show something profoundly different than before. In your article, you deliberately left the impression that pictures which were used by Professor Scharlott were manipulated in such a dishonest way, an impression which is completely false. One can lighten digital pictures even with the smallest editing programs - and even if you for example develop colour photo negatives in a shop, they are usually lightened automatically for printing. No serious photographer would regard this as "photoshopping."

Interestingly, Julia O'Malley apparently believes that it's better to keep her interpretation of what constitutes "photoshopping" a secret, because she deleted her tweet shortly afterwards. Which is a shame, because a significant portion of her readership in Alaska will now continue to believe that Professer Scharlott dishonestly manipulated pictures.

I then gave what I considered to be a very appropriate reply to Julia O'Malley:


However, the ineptitude of Julia O'Malley didn't stop there. The conversation went on.

Kathleen then twittered her over Kathleen's "ScarahPlainUSA" twitter account:



To which Julia O'Malley responded:


"I can't be responsible for reading comprehension problems."

While it is regrettable that the readers of the Anchorage Daily News are apparently expected to interpret articles in the way that Julia O'Malley meant them to be interpreted despite her flawed use of technical terms, it is even more regrettable that Julia O'Malley then chose to delete this tweet as well. If it weren't for the mysterious procedure which we call "screenshotting", her readership would have never known.

As Julia O'Malley used her "own" picture in her article to prove that Sarah Palin was pregnant (a picture which cannot be reproduced without permission, as the Anchorage Daily News explicitly states), I thought that it was just fair to point Julia to a picture which showed Sarah Palin non-pregnant on March 26, 2008, three weeks before she officially gave birth to a baby weighing six pounds, two oz. on April 18, 2008:



I was talking of course about this picture from March 26, 2008, just about three weeks before officially giving birth to a six-pound baby (click to enlarge):




Sarah Palin on March 26, 2008, at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau. See our recent post about the ADN-article by Julia O'Malley for the extensive documentation regarding this picture.


Julia O'Malley was not shy and tweeted back:


Julia O'Malley apparently had forgotten that she herself used a picture in her article as one of her main pieces of evidence for the assertion that Sarah Palin was in fact pregnant.

I also thought it was just fair to remind her that a journalist should not put his reputation on the line for a serial, proven liar such as Sarah Palin:


To which Julia O'Malley responded:

Responded , blocked me and then deleted her tweets.

Which is a real shame, because I sent more tweets which contained hard and very inconvenient facts, for example:







It seems that a few simple tweets really got under Julia O'Malley's skin:

Was it because her answers were simply curiously illogical?

Just for the record here are Julia O'Malley's tweets to me that she has since "tweleted" (tweets that have been deleted because the tweeter realises that their responses make them look stupid):
Julia O'Malley was an almost embarrassingly lightweight sparring partner. I am quite shocked that journalistic standards at the Anchorage Daily News, the largest newspaper in Alaska, have fallen so low.

Julia O'Malley and other journalists such as Dave Weigel from Slate, Justin Elliott from Salon, Jason Linkins from Huffington Post and Megan Carpentier from Raw Story are unable to grasp the fact that it's not enough to brand the doubters of Sarah Palin pregnancy, called "Trig Truthers" by the Palin camp as some sort of mad conspiracy theorists. It's instead necessary for them to deal with facts in a rational, open and transparent way, and sadly, none of these people are willing to do that. This epic failure of journalism will make for a highly interesting case study one day, and I am sure that somebody is already busy taking notes.

+++

Please re-tweet:

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/69826379516088320

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/69825250690465792

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/69823018284761089

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/69818674072137728

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/69815216707346432

+++

"Babygate" has been covered in much more detail in previous posts. Far more pictures and other documentation exists. You can find all this information here:

Read all posts at Politicalgates about Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy with Trig - FOR THE COLLECTION, CLICK HEREHEREHEREHEREHEREHEREHERE,HERE AND HERE.

Read the old post at Palingates about the faked pregnancy with the pictures still intact HERE.

We break the "Spiral of Silence" - Read the details about the "biggest hoax in American political history!"

In addition, please don't hesitate to watch the excellent video-documentaries about "babygate" which our reader Lidia17 created - HERE, HERE and HERE.