Skip to comments.Sarah Palin mocks Washington Post for false report she’s joining Al Jazeera
Posted on 02/12/2013 4:00:44 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin got to take another jab at the lamestream media on Tuesday after The Washington Post issued an embarrassing correction on a false report that the former Fox News commentator is joining Al Jazeera.
The Washington Posts attention-grabbing mea culpa followed reporter Suzi Parkers claim that Palin signed a deal to be a host and commentator for the Qatari-based network.
Parker had called the faux-scoop a cautionary tale about what can happen with politics and celebrity meet.
The story became a cautionary tale of another sort, however, when it emerged that the news came from The Daily Currant, a satirical website.
The blogger cited a report on the Daily Currant Web site as the basis for that information without realizing that the piece was satirical, The Washington Post said in its correction.
Sarah Palin a longtime media critic who popularized the term lamestream media didnt wait long before smacking the newspaper for its mistake on Twitter: Hey @washingtonpost, I'm having coffee with Elvis this week. He works at the Mocha Moose in Wasilla. #suziparkerscoops #idiotmedia...
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
A blogger got it wrong.
I've been saying for years that bloggers are smacktards.
On the other hand, if al Jazeera had offered the right amount of money.. who knows?
I bet Suzi Parker can see Al Jazeera from her front porch.
They have all these real high-paid college grads who use their superior brains to vet the news.
People who just get their news directly from the internet can fall prey to all kinds of irresponsible bloggers, donchaknow.
Why not just come out and call her a whore? You just did, for all intents and purposes...
Today, former journalist (now blogger) Suzi Parker, posted another snark-filled article at The Washington Post trying to trash Governor Palin. The most obvious problem with the piece is that when WaPo first ran the story, it looked like this:
Parkers source for that scoop? The Daily Currant, which describes itself as the global satirical newspaper of record. As astounding as it is that someone who (until today anyway) calls herself a journalist didnt catch this fact while gathering her research, it is even more outrageous (yet, completely typical) that it her editors missed it as well.
Currently the same article, complete with a bunk poll and some know-nothing academic speaking for Palin supporters everywhere, has the following new headline and bold correction:
Notice that WaPos correction states that Parker is now just a blogger while her actual bio at the bottom of the page reads:
Suzi Parker is an Arkansas-based political and cultural journalist and author of Sex in the South: Unbuckling the Bible Belt. Follow her on Twitter at @SuziParker
Way to ruin your career, Suzi. Bravo!
The new media, and even some in the old have been taking Parker to task over this today.
Chad Sinclair at the DailyDownload wrote:
One click. Thats all it would have taken for Suzi Parker, the author of this phony gem, to discover that the entire site is full of fake news.
Is this what the Washington Post has come to? Stooping so low that neither its reporters nor its editors can perform the most basic fact checking?
Parker and the Post made a second egregious mistake: They waited too long. The Currant story was published on February 4. The Posts story? It published eight days later.
Now, if Sarah Palin was in fact joining Al Jazeera American, dont you think more news outlets would have picked up on that? Perhaps MSNBC or her old chums at Fox News? Lets be honest, its not as if the Post was sitting on the story for eight days to triple-check the facts.
The gross oversight in editing, the lazy reporting and the utter lack of common sense at the Post is astounding.
Dylan Byers wrote:
Parker calls this a cautionary tale about what can happen when politics and celebrity meet.
But Parkers report is a cautionary tale about what can happen when writers cite satirical websites, such as The Daily Currant.
John Hayward wrote:
But the marquee element of Parkers post the entire reason she wrote the silly, contemptuous piece was the revelation that Palin would become a contributor for the TV network al-Jazeera bought from al-Gore. Supposedly Palin hoped to use her new perch at al-Jazeera to reach millions of devoutly religious people.
Its a blockbuster revelation that turned out to be based entirely on a hoax which Parker fell for hook, line, and sinker, apparently making no effort whatsoever to substantiate it, not even through the minimal practice of searching for a single corroborating source online. Parkers sole source was an obvious parody site, the Daily Currant. She probably didnt even bother to visit the site, instead building her story around a cut-and-paste of something she received via social media. At the time of this writing, the top story on the Daily Currant is Catholic Church Considering Jerry Sandusky as Next Pope.
So it turns out that this is really a cautionary tale about what can happen when sloppy reporting, liberal prejudice, and Internet comedians meet. Its really not that hard to lead mainstream media reporters, pundits, and editors into phony stories just give them something that fits the narrative they already believe in. Just yesterday, on Sarah Palins birthday, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post announced the Popes resignation on Twitter as follows: Pope Benedict, following Sarah Palins lead, resigns. Maybe its time for the top brass at the Post to do some soul-searching about its unhealthy obsessions. Or could this be more fairly characterized as a desperate search by their writers to find ways to stay relevant?
It does not speak well of the Post that they would leave the story in place without a full retraction and apology to Palin, or a complete explanation to readers of where the false material came from.
Doug Powers writes:
Michelle mentioned it this morning, but I thought Id elaborate
A WaPo journalist reported earlier in a piece claiming Sarah Palins star has fallen and shes now engaged in a desperate search for attention by thanking people for wishing her happy birthday or something that Palin would be joining up with Al Jazeera (the Al Gore costume Sarah wore last Halloween was way too convincing).
Iowahawk posted the following over at Breitbart:
Something called Suzi Parker who writes something called She The People at something called The Washington Post bagged the scoop of the century earlier today, in a report originally entitled Sarah Palins plan to reach millions of devoutly religious people through al-Jazeera
Maybe a more accurate correction would have added because we are psychologically incapable of disbelieving about any story the voices in our head tell us about Sarah Palin.
Another proud moment for the Washington Posts layers and layers of fact-checkers. Take a bow, Suzi! And a 500mg of Xanax.
Update: Heh! Governor Palin sent out the following two tweets in response:
Update II: And another:
Sarah, keep smacking around those media morons.
Is there some question on the matter?
Why would I need to?
You might not know this, but Jim has met Governor Sarah Palin and likes her. I don’t believe he’d cotton to you two calling her a whore. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Who? We be talk’ ‘bout dem womens at THE WASHINGTON POST ~
“You might not know this, but Jim has met Governor Sarah Palin and likes her. I dont believe hed cotton to you two calling her a whore. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.”
Maybe humblebummer should explain to us all why he thinks she is one. Let’s hear his intelligent argument on the matter.
Is there some question on the matter?”
If you’re not calling her a “W’ then I apologize. If you are then let’s hear your rationale for doing so. Don’t just throw bombs like humblebummer, back it up.
Highly educated and well paid professionals who do not know the difference between current and currant.
Read post #2 and tell me that last is about Suzi.
I don’t recall calling her a whore.
Perhaps you would grace us all with showing where I did.
As far as I can see, the designation “whore” was applied by you.
And speaking of which.. how’s your mom doing these days, by the way?
You very clearly implied she is one...now explain intelligently why she is one.
Yeah, well, I think the mental midget who used that as a source was even more of one. I mean, bloody hell! Next we'll be quoting from someone's facebook page or examiner-dot-com, for example.
I've stated that she'll accept speaking engagements for money.
Do you deny this? I never used the word "whore".
That was YOU that associated her name with the designation "whore".
Please, sir.. stop calling Sarah Palin a whore.
Damn humbledbungler, you made the same statement on two Palin threads, how repetitious of you.