Wednesday, July 13, 2011

NEWSWEEK: A Love Letter To Palin?

How bad is the American news media?

It's this bad.

Lawrence O'Donnell, on his MSNBC show, is accusing Newsweek Magazine of cutting a deal with Palin. He says Newsweek gets access to her and she gets the cover of their magazine. He says the story is "pathetic," "desperate" and "utterly absurdist."

Newsweek says O'Donnell's allegations are a "rant."

O'Donnell says their cover is a lie because they quote Palin saying, "I can win."

He says the magazine fills the story "with flattering photographs and a love letter to Palin."

As opposed to an MSNBC piece that might, what? Publish unflattering photos? And slander her?

Here's how O'Donnell knows the whole thing is rigged.

It's something Palin said.

How does O'Donnell know Newsweek cut a deal with Palin?

"As to why Newsweek decided to give Palin the softest treatment the lamestream media ever has", he says, "the answer actually lies at the end of the article, where Newsweek inadvertently confesses to the deal it obviously made to Palin for the cover, the flattering photography and the puff piece."

He says Palin said, "The mainstream press is becoming less and less relevant."

She also said she has no hesitation " \shunning media outlets" she does not trust.

That's it.

O' Donnell concludes, "That means Newsweek had to make promises to her to get her trust."

But Mr. O'Donnell, what if they didn't have to make promises to her? What if they just told the truth about her and let people draw their own conclusions?

Or is something more motivating Lawrence O'Donnell than merely getting to the bottom of all this?

He may be very close to the bottom now.

Back on the November 5, 2010 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, Lawrence O'Donnell described himself as a socialist.

He said, "I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals, okay?"

Okay, Mr. O'Donnell. We got it.

The reason Lawrence O'Donnell is slamming Newsweek is because Newsweek didn't slam Palin.

This episode further affirms things that were already quite clear.

That's why we always encourage you to--

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Prayerful.

6 comments:

  1. Oh, Gary. This is excellent. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. She clearly stated that she shuns news media that she cannot trust and she has avoided everything but fox news since Couric blindsided her that horrible gotcha question "What newspapers do you read?" (of course, it's only a gotcha question if you don't read any).

    It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that newsweek made made some journalistic concessions to get the interview.

    Also, keep in mind that we are all socialists, it's just the matter of degree that's different. If you pay taxes to support public roads and then drive on them, that's socialism in action and there's no other definition for it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If I don't pay taxes then I go to jail, must be socialism also, huh!

    Newsweek was under no obligation to give Palin anything. O'Donnell doesn't like her, hence the smear campaign.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  4. Craig,

    Couldn't dispute the fact that providing public roads is an act of socialism and that using them makes you a socialist, huh?

    If you don't want to pay any taxes, I might suggest Liberia.

    Thank you for clarifying the terms of the agreement between Palin & Newsweek. How fortunate we are to have direct information from an insider.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I suppose using the public restroom at the park instead of the nearest tree would make me a socialist? walking on the sidewalk? Watering my lawn? None of these is socialism, I choose to support them and pay for them, yes with my taxes.

    When the government forces me to buy or support something against my will, that's what I call socialism, or more accuratelly national socialism like health care, the slaughter of the unborn, the promotion of perversion.

    Liberia? Where's that?=)


    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's an interesting definition. It's only socialism if you have to pay taxes for something you don't support. I never supported the war in Iraq, so by your definition, that makes it socialism. I'm confused now, it's socialism if I disagree with it but am I personally a socialist if I disagree but still participate? Or am I a socialist only if I support the system that is socialist because I disagree with it?

    Personally, I thought socialism was when the public paid for, owned, and shared a service or entity. Like public roads, police and fire protection, public parks, etc. I didn't know you had to disagree with it.

    Google maps can show you where Liberia is.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.