Scared for the first amendment

[Farmer77]

Has the AP found a way to circumvent the 1st amendment?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/

I don't care nor do I want to hear about your feelings for Palin or Obama. This is not a left vs. right kinda post. This is all about freedom of speech and more specifically freedom of the press in America. No president can change the first amendment, neither can congress, but with the press being so biased untrustworthy in how they handle the different parties and even different stories in America they don't have to. This should be scary for all of us.

[Ryinrea]

Yes it is good to fact check what she says, because she is very well known to lie about things in her book. We are fighting the disinformation that spills out of the Fox News.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Ryinrea

[aquatus1]

Can you explain how this is a circumvention of the First Amendment?

[Splodgenessabounds]

Eleven reporters to fact check one book may seem excessive, but it's hardly restricting free speech. And yes if they're so passionate about fact checking Palin's book yet turned a blind eye to Biden's or T Kennedy's it is a little biased, but again not an attack on free speech.

If Palin has used her book and her freedom of speech to spout BS (I said IF, haven't read it), then the AP can use their freedom of the press to call her out on it.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Splodgenessabounds

[Farmer77]

A right wing New station and you shouldn't believe everything you hear on the station. He just called it out for what it really is.

HUH? Maybe the link I posted is bad, the point of the article and this post was that the AP did not have ANYONE fact check Obama's book while dedicating 11 souls to picking apart Palin's. This is a dangerous practice for the American press to be taking part in. If it were MSNBC or FOXNEWS this kind of bias would be expected, and tolerated for the most part. But the AP is supposed to be the standard for american media, not opinion makers.

[Ryinrea]

This is what I think about her. She feed the Conspiracy theorist.

[questionmark]

Well guys, the way I learned publishing is that you fact check first, then publish. Saves you embarrassments of this type.

[Startraveler]

HUH? Maybe the link I posted is bad, the point of the article and this post was that the AP did not have ANYONE fact check Obama's book while dedicating 11 souls to picking apart Palin's.

If you're talking about his last book, The Audacity of Hope, I don't recall there being all that much to fact check in it. It's been a long time since I've read it but I remember it being mostly Obama's thoughts on various things: faith, race, the Constitution, etc. It was more a set of user-friendly essays than an autobiography or chronicle of contemporary political events. But maybe there was more in there, I can't recall at this point.

[Farmer77]

Can you explain how this is a circumvention of the First Amendment?

This isnt necessarily a circumvention of the first amendment. However if the media is willing to attack and destroy the credibility of anyone who publishes information the party in power disagrees with we should all be concerned.

[questionmark]

This isnt necessarily a circumvention of the first amendment. However if the media is willing to attack and destroy the credibility of anyone who publishes information the party in power disagrees with we should all be concerned.

Happens to everybody who publishes anything but a novel. Why should Ms. Palin get a preferential treatment? The only surprising thing to me is that they need so many to take the thing apart. One fact checker generally gets the whole number pulled apart.

[Splodgenessabounds]

However if the media is willing to attack and destroy the credibility of anyone who publishes information the party in power disagrees with we should all be concerned.

Even if the info published is incorrect?

If she has lied in her book then her credibility deserves to be destroyed.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Splodgenessabounds

[Ryinrea]

This isnt necessarily a circumvention of the first amendment. However if the media is willing to attack and destroy the credibility of anyone who publishes information the party in power disagrees with we should all be concerned.

Even thought she does tell lies. She doesn't publish information, but Lies. I find it funny that YOU are defending "Sarah Death PANELS Plain."

[Farmer77]

Even if the info published is incorrect?

If she has lied in her book then her credibility deserves to be destroyed.

Absolutely agreed. It is not the fact that it is being fact checked that is concerning. It is the manner which it is being done and the blatant double standard for those on the opposite side of the aisle. If Palin is full of crap then tear her and her book apart, just take the time to discover if those who you agree with might be as well

[Farmer77]

Even thought she does tell lies. She doesn't publish information, but Lies. I find it funny that YOU are defending "Sarah Death PANELS Plain."

LMAO I'm not defending Palin, wouldent vote for her , don't especially like her. I'm defending free speech, we Americans get so caught up in the left vs right paradigm that we tend to completely ignore the values which make our nation great - if they get in the way of our particular political agenda.

For the record I am a registered non-partisan

[Splodgenessabounds]

Absolutely agreed. It is not the fact that it is being fact checked that is concerning. It is the manner which it is being done and the blatant double standard for those on the opposite side of the aisle. If Palin is full of crap then tear her and her book apart, just take the time to discover if those who you agree with might be as well

Agreed .

[Michelle]

Absolutely agreed. It is not the fact that it is being fact checked that is concerning. It is the manner which it is being done and the blatant double standard for those on the opposite side of the aisle. If Palin is full of crap then tear her and her book apart, just take the time to discover if those who you agree with might be as well

LMAO I'm not defending Palin, wouldent vote for her , don't especially like her. I'm defending free speech, we Americans get so caught up in the left vs right paradigm that we tend to completely ignore the values which make our nation great - if they get in the way of our particular political agenda.

For the record I am a registered non-partisan

Thank you very much!!!

It really becomes rather boring hearing the same crap from the same people every day, as if their party has nothing to hide and always follows the straight and narrow. Talk about having blinders on.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Ok, the website clearly says, and I quote:

"The attraction to Palin doesn't appear to be partisan, since AP didn't fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich."

If Fox news even says it doesn't appear to be partisan, then I have to bow my ahead and accept the fact that its not because she is a republican.

Sarah Palin is more than a political figure. She has forever etched herself into pop culture history. Unfortunately, its NOT because of too many good things, maybe more because she was just SO hilarious. She has gained herself the reputation of being a ditz and someone that may not remember things. . .factually. I'm sure they'd jump on the fact checking boat quick if, say, Paris Hilton were to write a book about some of the top political figures she's mingled with. Not to mention there have been some complaints from some of the people Sarah involves in her book that she was not being honest.

11 people fact checking part time does not seem too excessive to me. I think 1 fact checker is too few, because what if that fact checker gets some of his facts wrong or misses something? I would say at least 2 or 3 should be the minimal. Being in the political and cultural position she is in, and involving so many important people that are complaining about her honesty, I don't see how her book could have slipped by without being checked.

Her book has the potential to be read by people that normally don't give a crap about politicians or their books (because of her pop culture influence), but "oh, Sarah must be so funny because Tina Fey was just hilarious impersonating her, I've GOT to read that book. . ." Even I might read it and not only am I far from a fan of hers, but I've never read a book by any politician ever. . .I'm caught in the "Man, I bet its just going to be hilarious" circle.

[Farmer77]

Ok, the website clearly says, and I quote:

"The attraction to Palin doesn't appear to be partisan, since AP didn't fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich."

Gingrich and Giuliani are dead politicians. Their books pose as much threat to the political world as one written by carrot top , irrelevant. Palin however, like her or not is a real player in the 2012 election (my personal opinion is she will end up running third party), a threat to those in power. The fact that Giuliani and Gingrich's books weren't fact checked almost proves my point even more.

Edited November 19, 2009 by bigtroutak

[aquatus1]

Palin however, like her or not is a real player in the 2012 election (my personal opinion is she will end up running third party), a threat to those in power.

Seriously? How so? Where is her support coming from?

[Farmer77]

Seriously? How so? Where is her support coming from?

Man the walmart crowd LOVES Palin. Middle America is looking for a savior, someone who they perceive as thinking as them, coming from the same background as them, someone they can identify with. Palin is much more that person than any of the other currently known politicos. She is truly the anti-Obama. (in perception anyways)

[Splodgenessabounds]

Palin however, like her or not is a real player in the 2012 election (my personal opinion is she will end up running third party), a threat to those in power.

I don't think so, the republicans won't pick her (but then who else have they got left?) and if she goes third party then she'll be destroyed (rightly or wrongly) by the Dems and the GOP who will quickly forget about past ties if they see her as a threat.

It depends how desperate the GOP get in the next two years, Jindal, Romney and Huckerbee are all they have left and they'll have no chance against Obama, Lindsay Graham possibly from the outside?

Dare I say, a Sarah Palin/Michele Bachmann ticket?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Splodgenessabounds

[aquatus1]

Man the walmart crowd LOVES Palin. Middle America is looking for a savior, someone who they perceive as thinking as them, coming from the same background as them, someone they can identify with. Palin is much more that person than any of the other currently known politicos. She is truly the anti-Obama. (in perception anyways)

And I believe that last sentence is why she will never get the political support from the "Walmart" crowd (a term that I am hesitant to use, but which is Oh so accurate!).

In the same way that other fringe believers protect their belief systems, be it conspiracy theories, or religious theories, or what have you, by setting themselves up circularly, where they can never be shown to be wrong, so will these people not put themselves in a position where they will have to admit that "one of them" could actually effectively manage an entire country.

[Farmer77]

I don't think so, the republicans won't pick her (but then who else have they got left?) and if she goes third party then she'll be destroyed (rightly or wrongly) by the Dems and the GOP who will quickly forget about past ties if they see her as a threat.

It depends how desperate the GOP get in the next two years, Jindal, Romney and Huckerbee are all they have left and they'll have no chance against Obama, Lindsay Graham possibly from the outside?

Dare I say, a Sarah Palin/Michele Bachmann ticket?

I think 2012 will be a strong year for a third party. Even republicans are sick of republicans- they've essentially become a watered down version of the dems, or vice versa , whichever way you prefer and the dems are rapidly pile driving this economy beyond the point of no return ( yes I know its not all their fault BUT will the average american voter be able to remember that?) and if they don't get this health bill right there will be a HUGE backlash in the 2010 and 2012 elections. I think all of that leads to a moderately viable third party.

[Farmer77]

And I believe that last sentence is why she will never get the political support from the "Walmart" crowd (a term that I am hesitant to use, but which is Oh so accurate!).

In the same way that other fringe believers protect their belief systems, be it conspiracy theories, or religious theories, or what have you, by setting themselves up circularly, where they can never be shown to be wrong, so will these people not put themselves in a position where they will have to admit that "one of them" could actually effectively manage an entire country.

LOL that is some good insight! I have to believe though that the culture divide will lead them to find someone. Personally I am rooting for a third party with a brain!

[Paranormalcy]

The Big Two can choose whether to allow a third party any valid claim to run at all, whether they get into the debates, etc. so third parties, though I am registered as and vote for, are irrelevant while the Big Two continue to violate constitutional intent and exclude those who they feel are threats to their comfy binary competition which deprives the citizens of any true voice in government. I'm all for abolishing parties completely and allowing there to be true political freedom and representation.

But I also don't see first amendment violation going on - I presume you mean the media itself is preventing free speech, but I agree, just because they use multiple fact checkers is hardly a violation of anything - if anything, if I were the author, I'd be grateful they put such work into my book so I don't misrepresent anything. The only time you cry foul is when you've got something to hide, in my opinion.