******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Pigs Fly: Media Matters Gets It Right On Palin Newsweek Cover

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am not a fan of Media Matters. All too often, Media Matters spends way too much time staring at videos of the latest O'Reilly show or speech by a Republican politician, or listening to every syllable uttered by Rush Limbaugh, trying to find a sentence which can be taken out of context and used to attack conservatives and Republicans.

But Media Matters gets it right on the sexist nature of the Sarah Palin Newsweek cover: Newsweek should worry more about how to solve its problem with sexism. Media Matters also does a good job at analyzing the contents of the issue to further amplify the point, as well as other sexist treatment of Palin.

Of course, Media Matters is not completely disinterested. Media Matters makes sure to point out that Hillary received similar sexist treatment (although the sexist treatment of Hillary was not sexualized as it is with Palin).

I do disagree with Media Matter's post in one respect. Media Matters writes that "Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine." Depends on what the meaning of "supposed to be" is. A decade ago, maybe Newsweek was serious. Now it is mostly a publicity hound starving for readers who have moved on to internet sources and blogs. Newsweek's specialty is in provocative covers, as when it declared the "The Decline and Fall of Christian America".

But give credit where credit is due. Media Matters got it right this time.

UPDATE: Never Missing An Excuse To Attack Trig Palin

Related Posts:
The "Section 246 Proves Joe Wilson Is A Liar" Lie
Looking At Tea Parties Through Binoculars, Like On Safari
Sarah Palin Too Sexy?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. Both Hillary and Sarah have been discriminated against by the anti-woman bigots in the media. Including many of the female talking heads ... as well as the men.

    But... there is one big difference.

    Sarah is gonna take 'em down. (grin)

  2. Another difference is that Hillary received bad treatment in the media ONLY when she was against Obama, a candidate the MSM perceived as more liberal in the primary and wanted to help.

  3. We most definitely have to give them credit when they actually point out bias. However, I agree with you. Newsweek stopped being a "serious news magazine" quite some time ago.

    Back in 1985/86 when I was in speech and debate we had to use news sources for extemporaneous speeches. Judges HATED it when the only info on a topic we could find was in Newsweek because it was almost impossible to find objective info on any topic in that magazine. In order to give an opinion speech with YOUR opinion in it, you have to be able to find supporting information. And even back then you could not find non-lefty slanted anything in that magazine.

    So here we are, 20+ years later and the left has been given a pass so long news organizations (I use that term VERY loosely) no longer even TRY to be objective. In fact, if they can, they WILL slip outright lies into their coverage and nine times out of ten refuse to correct it or put corrections in where the random public will never see them.

    It's diabolical and pathetic all in one. But it's something I've schooled my children in so they know NOT to count on the news for information without ensuring they've checked for bias first. And we do it with FoxNews, too, for all the angry lefties out there.

    You have to be a skeptic when reading the news anymore. And you have to use your head when you read something outrageous or you'll wind up looking like a clueless idiot in the end. Which is what many Sarah Haters have done. And I've kind of enjoyed watching them look stupid along the way.

  4. Sarah Palin is the replacement for Bush: The (New) Evil One. As Bush the Younger fades from the news and from the consciousness of progressives – there is a palpable hate gap that needs to be filled. Since the Republicans haven’t found a central leader yet, Sinister Sarah has been preemptively appointed by the Liberal Media.

    Therefore, all progressives and lefties everywhere have been given official license by Evan Thomas, Katie Couric, Maureen Dowd and other Liberal absolutists to make full use of sexism along with the usual lies, derogatory remarks and dark assertions to destroy her. Official Liberal Policy also targets Palin supporters for similar repudiation and personal destruction.

    The problem they have with Sinister Sarah is how can she also be portrayed as Simple Sarah? She can’t be both a diabolical doyenne and a dumb bimbo too. I’m sure they’ll figure it out though.