"60 Minutes" Hit Job On Palin Was Truly A Joke

JohnZiegler.com ^ | January 11, 2010 | John Ziegler

[militanttoby]

As cynical as I have become about the news media, even I never thought I would see the day where "60 Minutes" provided far more comedy than "Saturday Night Live," but Sunday’s edition of the formerly respected news magazine gave the educated viewer infinitely more laughs than SNL delivered (although Charles Barkley’s pathetic performance may have still somehow been even worse than that of Anderson Cooper).

Specifically I am referring to the segment that was allegedly devoted to the new book “Game Change” about the 2008 Presidential election. Quite simply, (partly because it dealt with subjects about which I have devoted much of the last two years of my life and fortune) this was the worst piece of “journalism” I have ever witnessed on 60 Minutes.

Here are just some of the many outrages in the story that forced those who care about the truth to choose between laughter and tears.

The segment on the book was just under thirteen minutes long. About eleven of those were spent discussing the losing side’s Vice Presidential candidate. About seven minutes were used interviewing the strategist for the losing the campaign and allowing him to take unsubstantiated pot shots at the aforementioned VP candidate. Less than two minutes was used on the current Secretary of State’s bid to be the actual President. Virtually zero seconds were given to the campaign of the current President. Literally zero seconds were devoted to brand new and startling revelations in “Game Change” regarding scandals involving John and Elizabeth Edwards and Harry Reid.

[Republic of Texas]

A lot of people are going to be mighty shocked when she’s the President.

[happygrl]

I haven't watched 60 Minutes in a long time, but happened to be at a house that had it on last night.

Everything JZ stateds here is accurate; not one word about 0bama & co.

Complete smear.

What was Anderson Cooper doing on 60 Minutes, anyway ?

[molybdenum]

When will Juan McCain speak out denouncing this creep Schmidt? Itt would be nice of him to return a favor...if not for Palin, his defeat would have been legendary .

Maybe he's too busy right now helping the elite OP remake Schmitt Romney's image.

[Diogenesis]

One wonders why McCain and Romney have not spoke up aginst this.
Click below to find out why Mitt is silent.

“Steve Schmidt, campaign manager for John McCain had this to say on last night’s Hugh
Hewitt show talking about the 2012 Presidential campaign:
‘If I had to bet money on it, if I had to bet money on it today, you’d have to say that the
people that I think look very good, very strong right now are Governor Romney,
Governor Huntsman. I think Newt Gingrich, should he run, is going to be a very
formidable, very formidable candidate. But the history of the Republican Party
nominating process is that it almost always goes to someone who’s been around the track
once before. And in that instance, in this instance, it would be Governor Romney. I
thought he was a very scary opponent looking from the other side of the table in that he
was almost like a learning organism at the end. He just kept getting better week by week
by week, and kept becoming stronger. And I think these national campaigns are very
unique, and I think most people learn a great deal with they go through them. And I think
one of the reasons that President Bush was able to make it through the process the first
time, unlike most people on the Republican side, is because he had been up close and
personal through a couple of national races. And I think Mitt Romney is a candidate, is a
far stronger candidate, prospectively, for the ’12 race because of his experience in ’08
than he was heading into the ’08 race.’”

[Eleutheria5]

Of course they’d devote 11 minutes to Sara Palin. She’s a threat to the liberals, even if she never runs for anything again, because people listen to her, and she pulls no punches. Journalism? 60 Minutes? They never were real journalists. Real journalists don’t film the rehearsal of your answers to lists of questions, then only ask selected questions from that list and insist that you stick with your prior answers, even if they sound totally different in their new context. The people who refuse to talk to them are smart. Those that do talk to them have a death wish.

[Sunshine54]

I was flipping through the channels that night and came upon the story, but when I saw Anderson Cooper as the interviewer I quickly realized it was a “hit job” and turned back to watching a rerun of “Two & A Half Men”.

Anderson Cooper has no place in Journalism and should probably look for work in a gossip rag.(Sorry to offend any gossip rags out there.) If CBS wants to tie that anchor around their necks, they are going to sink at a faster rate than ever. Have they gotten any of the stimulus money yet?

[onyx]

Speaks volumes that 60 Minutes farmed out the hit piece to Anderson Cooper. It’s the type of piece that’s right up his ...alley.

[happygrl]

hee hee, you said it was “up his ...alley”...

[onyx]

LOL. Yeah, is that an incorrect term?
:)

[UCANSEE2]

I haven’t watched 60 minutes in years,

60 Minutes?

Does that come on before, or after Lawrence Welk?

[UCANSEE2]

"CBKATY chicken wire screen protector"

Is that held on with plastic clips, or suction cups?

[UCANSEE2]

A little proofreading would help his journalistic image.

But these days, being FIRST is more important than being RIGHT.

[UCANSEE2]

I found it and just emailed him about his spelling mistake.

Reply to email: Mr Ridgerunner:

"I don't no watch you are talking about."

[UCANSEE2]

What was Anderson Cooper doing on 60 Minutes, anyway ?

Looking for a new boyfriend.

[Chode]

and you were expecting???

[molybdenum]

Leopards no not change their spots. Snakes only change their skins.

[Finny]

I'm a person who has made a living by writing for a couple of decades. Those spelling errors and typos you found in Ziegler's piece make me cringe ... but I wonder, have any of you three made a living writing and NOT turned in pieces (plural) with similar ridiculously stupid and lame-brained goofs? ESPECIALLY when you were on a hard deadline and had to get the story out in a timely way?

You don't have to answer -- if you are professional writers, we ALL already know that the answer is NO, you have not. That's why publications have proofreaders and editors. I wrote a beautiful little feature once on cooking and every instance of the word "flour," wrote "flower." My editor was as perplexed as me ... it was just Freudian or something. He made fun of me for it -- he didn't write me off as a decent feature writer, journalist and reporter. NEITHER SHOULD YOU WRITE OFF JOHN ZIEGLER, especially if you're not familiar with his work.

Here's the deal: John Ziegler is one of the BEST, most THOROUGH, and HARD-HITTING good conservative radio guys (he had a great show on KFI for awhile) and journalists out there.

Maybe you guys could offer your services to him as proofreaders. But GOD HELP YOU when (not if, but when) one of those typos or goofs gets past you and into print.

Priorities, people.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

I wonder, have any of you three made a living writing...

Yes.

[Drawsing]

You are right. I should not have mentioned the misspellings.

[happygrl]

Looking for a new boyfriend.

Yeah, let's roll the tape on the interactions between him and Steve Schmidt.

Think we can see any evidence of "leg tingling" ?

I wonder if any of their interchanges were in "code ?"