Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Book Excerpt: ‘Bring Her Down’: How the American Media Tried to Destroy Sarah Palin
conservatives4palin.com ^ | June 01 2011 | Nicole Coulter

Posted on 06/01/2011 9:53:32 AM PDT by curth

Conservative writer and Palinista Gina Dalfonzo has published an intriguing new book that offers a well-researched (250-page) commentary on continued media efforts to annihilate Sarah Palin. She has provided us with a sneak peak below. We at C4P applaud Gina on her efforts to document media corruption and wish her all the best success with the book. You can purchase the paperback version on Amazon here http://amzn.to/jvgsw2 or order it digitally instantly for your Kindle by clicking here.

Enjoy …

No one would deny that the media have a right, indeed a duty, to inquire into and report extensively on the lives of political candidates. But it was unprecedented that the media would focus with laserlike intensity on one vice presidential candidate, almost to the exclusion of the other three candidates in the election, including the two running for the presidency.

It is arguable that the media’s obsession with every detail of Sarah Palin’s life and career—and many details that existed only in the imaginations of her detractors—led directly to their neglecting to pay attention on any significant level to crucial details of then-Senator Barack Obama’s life and career.

If that assertion seems unfair, consider these excerpts from a conversation between NBC’s Tom Brokaw and PBS’s Charlie Rose on Rose’s show, five days before the presidential election:

Rose: Barack Obama . . . is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational speeches. Brokaw: Two of them. Rose: Exactly, two books. . . . Brokaw: He’s a very smart guy. I love this phrase postmodern, even though I don’t know what it means. Rose: I know what it means in architecture but not in politics. Brokaw: Right. Exactly. And he may be our first postmodern presidential candidate. . . . Brokaw: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all, which is astonishing. . . . Rose: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is. Really don’t know. Brokaw: No, no, I don’t either. Rose: I don’t know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure. Or John McCain either.

We did know, however, exactly how much Sarah Palin’s campaign wardrobe cost (or we thought we did). Brokaw’s own network had been chasing that vital story all along.

And in that light, two veteran journalists’ ignorance of the leading presidential candidate’s views on some of the most fundamental issues any president has to face—during a war, no less—reveals a truly unnerving erosion of journalistic standards. If, instead of covering the most critical issues of our time during the 2008 election, our most respected and trusted reporters were busy jockeying to be the next Liz Smith or Hedda Hopper, where exactly does that leave the American electorate?

There are those, as we’ll see, who blame this one-sided obsession with the trivial on the continuing decentralization of the media through the blogosphere, or the blurring of the lines between the news and entertainment media. It’s true that both elements played their part in the election—to put it exceedingly mildly. You don’t even have to have seen an election-related episode of Saturday Night Live, or followed high-profile journalist/blogger Andrew Sullivan’s increasingly unhinged pursuit of the secrets of Palin’s infant son, to know just how big a part they played.

In fact, one could even argue that the ground had been prepared for them by the mainstream news media itself, which for years had been losing viewer trust to the point where statements like “I get all my news from Jon Stewart” had become a point of pride with young adults. (As PBS’s Bill Moyers once remarked to Stewart in a 2003 interview, “When I report the news on this broadcast, people say I’m making it up. When you make it up, they say you’re telling the truth.”) This was a situation that the news media didn’t usually relish.

Nonetheless, when the media as a whole discovered a new favorite whipping girl, the various branches of the industry discovered an unprecedented interest in working together— and suddenly the blogs and the comedians weren’t just providers of commentary on the news; they were the news. The proverbial Martian arriving here in the middle of the 2008 election and taking a good look around could have been pardoned for thinking, at least at first, that Barack Obama was running for president against Tina Fey.

But the purpose of this book is not to make Sarah Palin out to be some sort of hapless victim of the political press, entertainment media, and bloggers. Nor is it to portray the media as a collective Snidely Whiplash. Although the coverage took a particularly ugly tone in Palin’s case, she is hardly the first politician to be treated badly by the press. And like any candidate, she made mistakes—although unlike many candidates, she handled brutal treatment from the press with both toughness and grace.

Nor is my purpose to blame the nastiness on conspiracy theories. There was a time when I would have said that accusations of vast conspiracies, made by the left or the right, are rarely credible, and for good reason. That was before the correspondence among the members of JournoList, the left-leaning e-mail list for high-profile media figures, was published, with all its revelations about various anti-Palin members egging each other on to greater levels of hostility. And yet that kind of deliberate cooperation was hardly even necessary, given that so many of the press’s reactions to the candidate were so strikingly similar.

As journalist Mika Brzezinski—no right-winger—would later recall on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

Members of the network media elite as well as members and people who worked for the New York Times, when Sarah Palin first came on the scene and this is what they knew about her: She was a woman, she was pro-life, and she had some very, very conservative views on other issues. And all I could hear from my friends in the network media elite was, “Let’s bring her down. I hope these rumors bring her down.” And at a party where there were people from the New York Times, all they would talk about is the rumors that they hoped would bring her down. They did not know her. They didn’t know anything about her. But they wanted to bring her down.

The question that this sort of monolithic reaction raised for many observers was, simply: Why? Why did the majority of the members of the press respond to Palin with such visceral dislike, and act on that dislike to an extent unprecedented in recent history? Why was it that, as a report from the Culture and Media Institute noted in October, “ABC, NBC and CBS news shows . . . are running 18 negative stories [on Palin] for every positive one?” It’s doubtful that Saddam Hussein ever found himself on the receiving end of that much negativity from the American press. Was it truly the candidate’s flaws that brought out reporters’ bloodlust, as they would have us believe—or was it something in themselves and their own worldview? As Brzezinski hinted, it’s far more likely to have been the latter.

Though Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose professed to know nothing about postmodernism in theory, they and their fellow journalists—along with their counterparts in the entertainment industry and the amateurs who joined in the coverage from the blogosphere—may have understood it better than they realized. For one tenet of postmodernism is that history is made up largely of battles over who gets to control the narrative of events, and in this election the journalists of America showed an instinctive grasp of that idea. More than with any other presidential election in living memory, the members of the press seized control of the narrative of the 2008 election and held onto it. At first, in their minds, the story of the election was supposed to be the story of Barack Obama, who for many reasons had become their candidate of choice early in the process. But when Sarah Palin, coming out of nowhere with (in their eyes) inexplicable popularity, threatened their vision of Obama’s triumphal march to the White House, she had to be stopped, plain and simple. If the story now had to include her, they would simply have to ensure that her part of the story was told on their terms—and that it was the ugliest, most vicious, most damning story they could possibly dream up.

The purpose of this book is to show why and how they created that story—and why so much of America, on so little evidence, was ready to believe it.

From ‘Bring Her Down’: How the American Media Tried to Destroy Sarah Palin by Gina Dalfonzo. Copyright 2011. All rights reserved.

Gina Dalfonzo is editor of BreakPoint.org and Dickensblog. Her work has appeared in National Review, the Weekly Standard, Christianity Today, Books & Culture, Guideposts, and various journals and newspapers. She lives in Springfield, Virginia.


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2012; journolist; loyalamerican; palin; president; sarahpalin

1 posted on 06/01/2011 9:53:38 AM PDT by curth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: curth

When are conservatives going to start bringing down “the media?” They are not public officials. They are private capital. They exist as part of the CAPITALIST SYSTEM. They are NOT exempt from market forces.


2 posted on 06/01/2011 9:57:59 AM PDT by April Lexington (Study the Constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curth
"If it keeps on raining, Levee's gonna break"

This book shows that the media tried to destroy a political candidate.
A movie about Palin is coming out, and it's very positive.
Palin is on a bus tour, and it's masterful.
Corsi shows that Obama isn't eligible.
Everything Obama has touched has turned to Shiite.

At some point -- one would hope -- people will open their eyes and say "I think I've been lied to". Lincoln said you can't fool all the people all the time. Perhaps that notion is about to be tested.

3 posted on 06/01/2011 9:59:17 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curth
They did not know her. They didn’t know anything about her. But they wanted to bring her down. The question that this sort of monolithic reaction raised for many observers was, simply: Why?

Yes, she did threaten the success of their messiah, Obama. But it was also more visceral than that. Sarah's chose not murder her child, and the event of her child's birth threatened the validity their god's sacrament, abortion.

4 posted on 06/01/2011 10:02:40 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.' - Homer Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

This is from American Thinker (I think) from another post today...this is what it will take for us to bring down the media:

“Although the right has plenty of media outlets, as long as we merely react to the news that the left creates and shy from making news on our own, we lose the debate.””


5 posted on 06/01/2011 10:08:53 AM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Virginia Ridgerunner; Clyde5445; 2ndDivisionVet; Bigtigermike
Interesting intro to the book.

I remember the day after her first speech they would try to do this.

She's getting her revenge now, whatever she decides, she's won.

6 posted on 06/01/2011 10:09:55 AM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
Absolutely correct. As the faggot poet Allen Ginsberg once said (quoting, I believe, Lenin) “Control the media. Control the culture.” Trust me, the Left controls and media and the culture and the message and the news and the publishing and the universities and the law schools and the libraries and the teachers unions and the k-12 establishment and pop radio and on and on and on. They OWN the message and we react. Until we unwind this mess and bust up their power, we are slaves to socialism. Social revolution is happening before our very eyes. We just can't see it because the control the message. We will be pillaged, plundered and dead before we ever knew that we had been had...
7 posted on 06/01/2011 10:14:09 AM PDT by April Lexington (Study the Constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Sarah Palin believes in God, family and country. Sarah Palin knows that a financially strong and prosperous America not only benefits all Americans, but even the whole world. Those thoughts and ideas are labeled by the left as ‘controversial’, and anyone attempting to reverse the current path into socialism must be stopped at all costs.
8 posted on 06/01/2011 10:16:08 AM PDT by JPG (Sarah Palin, driving the MSM crazy one day at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: curth

bookmark


9 posted on 06/01/2011 10:21:06 AM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curth
Why did the majority of the members of the press respond to Palin with such visceral dislike, ...

One word, and one word only: abortion.

There is nothing more sacred to the liberal leftists than their supposed "right" to slaughter the unborn. It is pure bloodlust, nothing less. Anyone they perceive as opposed to their insatiable thirst for the killing of innocent children they believe they must utterly destroy. That is the sole reason why Palin is so reviled by the leftists. Anything else they might be able to see past, but not the central pillar of their beliefs, that they have the "right" to kill unborn persons.

10 posted on 06/01/2011 10:26:34 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington
When are conservatives going to start bringing down “the media?”

That's the ticket!

11 posted on 06/01/2011 10:27:50 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: curth
Palin,Palin
12 posted on 06/01/2011 10:31:23 AM PDT by FrankR (A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curth

“Tried”??? They’ve never stopped. It’s going on right now as a matter of fact...


13 posted on 06/01/2011 10:32:39 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Yes,

He is their perceived messiah. They think he has/will save them from their unconscious guilt, but they have only been driven deeper into it. The longing of the human soul for the messiah is an archetype that goes deep. They have the longing, but have fallen for the trick. The big trickster himself has them hook line and sinker.

Sarah knows who the messiah is and lives there in her heart and mind. This battle, Sarah vs. LSM and their false messiah is much bigger than politics or even the future of this country. My prayers go up for Sarah to stay her course and for her safety. I pray to the real Messiah.


14 posted on 06/01/2011 10:36:04 AM PDT by CPO retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jersey117; Liz
There's a way to bring down the media.

Follow the money. Find out how John Podesta pays some no-name blogger to sit all day and type BS all over the internet, or the tools at MSNBC who report the "news".

How does Soros money get into their pockets?

Paypal? Gift cards? Direct deposit in their bank acccounts?

Money leaves a trail. If enough of us keep an eye out for it, we'll see the money changing owners, we'll have them just where we want them.

Because I'm willing to bet that they're not paying taxes on that boolah. Ka*ching. They're done.

15 posted on 06/01/2011 10:38:11 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
...as long as we merely react to the news that the left creates and shy from making news on our own, we lose the debate.””

Sarah is making news right now, and we can see how the MSM is reacting to her!

16 posted on 06/01/2011 11:11:50 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

“Trust me, the Left controls and media and the culture and the message and the news and the publishing and the universities and the law schools and the libraries and the teachers unions and the k-12 establishment and pop radio and on and on and on.”

Yes, totally true. Sadly, it’s no coincidence that Satan is the ruler of this world.


17 posted on 06/01/2011 12:00:38 PM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

[ When are conservatives going to start bringing down “the media?” They are not public officials. They are private capital. They exist as part of the CAPITALIST SYSTEM. They are NOT exempt from market forces. ]

The way to kill the MSM as it exists today is not to scream while standing in front of their tanks, the way is to build build more tanks (ie. Fox News) and bring the attack to them and bleed them financially to death.


18 posted on 06/01/2011 12:43:28 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
How does Soros money get into their pockets? Paypal? Gift cards? Direct deposit in their bank accounts? Money leaves a trail. If enough of us keep an eye out for it, we'll see the money changing hands..........

Here's a good, clean way he might pay off people ---- untraceable casino chips. Easily bought, easily exchanged, easily used.

AND--if any one of them enrolls in casino "high roller" plans, the casino keeps detailed records of every bet and every win, etc etc etc.

NOTE High roller plans are seductive b/c the person gets treated like a potentate----with lavish "perks" to lure them onto the gambling floors, free private jet transfers, limousine use and use of the casinos' best suites. Casinos may also extend credit to a player to continue betting, offer rebates on betting turnover or losses, and salaries of employees may also contain incentive arrangements to bring in high rollers.

In suspected wrong-doing cases, casino personnel are very, very cooperative w/ law enforcement---b/c they do want to lose their gambling licenses.

19 posted on 06/01/2011 1:08:44 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All

20 posted on 06/01/2011 1:11:28 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All

Fillet of Caribou with Wild Game Sauce / authentic Alaska recipe

Marinate 4-24 hours: 2 lbs caribou tenderloin, 2 to 3 cups of red wine, 1-2 sprigs fresh rosemary, fresh thyme, 3-4 minced cloves of garlic, 1-2 minced shallots, 1/2 tsp dried mustard, tsp sea salt, tsp cracked black pepper.

COOK Slice marinated caribou into 1/2 inch thick medallions. Dust w/ seasoned flour. Add 2 to 3 tbsp of olive oil to a heated sauté pan and sear medallions on each side for 1 to 2 minutes over high heat until medium rare.

Arrange caribou medallions on a plate and cover with game sauce. For side dishes, serve wild rice or roasted red potatoes with a vegetable medley of sautéed baby carrots, broccoli, and yellow squash. Serve with Cabernet or Zinfandel.

Game Sauce

Brown 4-8 oz caribou trimmings, 2-3 oz maple smoked bacon, 3 tbsp vegetable oil. Add cup diced leeks, cup diced carrots, cup diced celery, cook a few minutes. Add 4 oz tomato paste cook for 1-2 minutes, stirring occasionally. (Allow sauce to thicken and begin to stick on the bottom, but not burn.) Pour in 4 oz port wine to deglaze. Cook a minute. Add two cups water, bring to a boil, then lower heat and simmer (uncovered) 30 minutes. Strain the sauce and reserve only the liquid. Combine liquid w/ cup heavy cream, return to heat, bring to a boil, then reduce to desired thickness. Add 1-2 c sautéed mushrooms, 2-3 tbl currants, additional port wine, salt and pepper to taste.

21 posted on 06/01/2011 1:16:29 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: curth

Got my Kindle version when I read this post. ($2.99)

It’s a good fast read, well researched. (Yes, I just read the whole thing...)

one quarter of the book is devoted to the footnotes and supporting URL links.

Nicely done, but with few surprises for those FReepers that have been paying close attention all along.


22 posted on 06/01/2011 4:23:23 PM PDT by EasySt (2012... Sometimes you have to flush twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EasySt

cool.


23 posted on 06/01/2011 4:43:11 PM PDT by curth (Organize4Palin.com - NOW IS THE TIME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Off topic, but do you know anything about this outfit?

http://www.crunchbase.com/company/causes

If it's Soros, they have entered a far more sophisticated stage than ACORN.

24 posted on 06/01/2011 5:22:45 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Headquarters
2105 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Berkeley, CA, 94704

Causes, launched in May 2007, is applying viral principles to altruism and social causes. The company was founded by Sean Parker and Joe Green and is designed to help social causes - charities, religions, political parties and candidates, etc. Whenever someone creates a cause or joins one, it shows up in their news feed for their friends to see. Information about the cause is also included in the profile itself, including total amount raised by that user and new users recruited.

There’s a multi-level marketing approach, too. Any money donated by other users you’ve recruited is also included in “money raised” total. Gaining status by recruiting members and getting donations will be a big incentive for users to not only join a cause that they feel strongly about, but will also get them to participate on an ongoing basis.

In its first year, Causes registered 12 million users who had supported 80,000 non-profit causes worldwide. And $2.5 million had been raised for 19,445 different 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. The company that delivers Causes is called Project Agape.

Causes People

Sean Parker
Co-Founder

Matt Mahan
VP of Impact

Joe Green
Co-Founder

Ariel Poler
Pejman Nozad
Investor

Former People

Randall Winston
Nonprofit Director

Sarah Ross

Joey Liaw
Software Engineer

Scott Baker
VP Operations


25 posted on 06/01/2011 5:51:38 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Huh. I tried the Horowitz sites, but didn’t come up with anything. Berkeley, CA?


26 posted on 06/01/2011 5:55:06 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: curth

Link from the top wouldn’t work. Try this one:

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/06/book-excerpt-bring-her-down%E2%80%99-how-the-american-media-tried-to-destroy-sarah-palin.html


27 posted on 06/01/2011 8:16:26 PM PDT by CedarDave (I agree with Obama's immigration comments in El Paso: We do need moats filled with alligators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson