After petulantly shrugging off media fascination with Sarah Palin's new book two days ago -- "who cares?" -- Media Matters now features the book front and center on its homepage, and gloats:
AP fact-checks Palin's Going Rogue
Now: I've noted here before that it takes three (count 'em!) employees of the George Soros Steno Pool to tackle the exhausting, labor-intensive task of listening to Rush Limbaugh for three whole hours every day. Then writing down what he says. Then posting his "offensive" jokes on the Media Matters website. In bold type!
But the Associate Press outdoes Media Matters today. Who says traditional journalism has no future?
One man decoded the Rosetta Stone. Two guys with manual typewriters waded through "Watergate". But today, it apparently takes eleven "reporters" to read a book ("It was hardcover!"), unearth "errors" that aren't very important and in some cases aren't even "errors", then write a 700-word article about their epoch-making discoveries.
One "Calvin Woodward" (hmmm....) cops the byline, but assuming you read all the way down to the end of the story (which, come to think of it, is highly unlikely), you learn that:
AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.
A report about, for instance, the sorts of hotels Palin stayed in during her campaign -- a topic that's kept me awake many a night. Mark Steyn (I'm pretty sure all by himself) does the math:
That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn't "often" go for "high-end" hotels; they say she "usually opted for less-pricey hotels". That's gonna make one must-see edition of "Point/Counterpoint". Or is AP arguing "four nights" counts as "often"? Is that the point? AP assigned 11 reporters to demonstrate that four is a large number?
No word on whether or not Palin ate the mint on her pillow. Was it dark chocolate? Is that question "racist"? I await Media Matters' verdict. Assuming they have enough staffers on hand to deliver it.
As for AP: Might a Pulitzer be in the offing? And can they divide one eleven ways?
Comments
"Sarah Palin's book: eleven reporters find six 'errors'"
"Green Eggs And Ham" has zero errors, what does that prove?
A Book with lack of substance and filled with opinion won't have too many facts.
wtjis this article about?? Sorry I wasted my time and will try to keep your name on a blacklist of "do not read". You just created a headline to garner readers knowing you had absolutely nothing of substance to offer. You..you..:(
Excellent points ! Governor Palin continues to baffle her critics - she is a HUGE thorn to them - I love it - the snooty left gets what they deserve - a once little known hockey mom makes the elitist "smart" guys look like complete fools.
Given that it's AP, probably one of them was just looking up the big words :)
Jsmith says:
"Given that it's AP, probably one of them was just looking up the big words :)"
Sarah Palin using big words????
show me 5 from ALL her debates and speechs combined.
fake walrus is a mooncalf.
(f)walrus says:
"fake walrus is a mooncalf."
I don't know what a mooncalf is, but ok, you're a mooncalf
Dear Ms GOP
You never got around to telling us what the errors were ???
Nice move !!!!
If you read AP all the way to the bottom, you should have counted 12 errors, not six.
And AP has made clear that they had reporters covering specific beats check the statements on which they had the most knowledge - specifically so they could get out an accurate story on deadline.
For all the whining of the Palinists, they have yet to refute a single AP fact check.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!