Posted on 09/15/2011 3:46:24 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
The Naked Politics blog is repeating the “reporting” of the National Enquirer about Sarah Palin having an affair with former Miami Heat basketball player Glenn Rice.
It is on the FRONT PAGE of The Herald website.
So as a journalist, I ask:
Do we know this story to be TRUE? Are we certain it is TRUE because we’ve done the work or have a reasonable certainty that is TRUE?
Did anyone actually try to confirm this story before giving it Herald front page credibility? Did anyone call Glenn Rice to get independent confirmation? He lives in Miami, you know.
Is it now OK to repeat any “report” from the National Enquirer on the front page of the Herald’s website without actually reporting even one fact independently? The blog calls The Enquirer’s sources “solid.” How do we know the Enquirer’s sources — plural? And if we know the Enquirer’s sources, can’t we work them ourselves to see if they’re truly solid?
Question: Can I repeat on my blog any allegation made by the Enquirer culled from any book just because, well, if it’s in a book or in the Enquirer, Herald policy is now to assume it must be true?
There have been a couple of good Enquirer stories on athletes coming from other planets. Those are in bounds now?
If this Rice story, unconfirmed and unreported by us, can be published on our site, do the alien stories not meet the same standards?
These, by the way, are my questions relative to journalism. But there are other things at play here. The Herald, like it or not, admit it or not, is widely viewed as a liberal newspaper. Palin is a conservative.
So we put this story on our website and conservatives that read us ask why The Herald didn’t report the stories of President Obama being gay in 2007 and 2008? Those stories were in the Globe, a competitor to the Enquirer. The allegations were brought by the person who said he had a drug-crazed, gay affair with the President.
http://www.globemagazine.com/story/424
Obviously this is tabloid fodder. And we rightly never gave the Obama stuff any play because, I suppose, there was no confirmation or independent reporting done on the story.
So why is it OK to do the right thing on behalf of one presidential candidate having an unconfirmed affair but not on behalf of another potential presidential candidate having an unconfirmed affair?
We ignored the one back in 2008 and continue to do so to this day. But we run out and repeat the other first chance we get? They call that a double standard in my country.
And that also is bad journalism.
I remember when the Herald broke the Gary Hart affair story. I’ve been proud to work at a paper that did that kind of work. But this cutting and pasting and unprincipled gossiping we’re doing on this National Enquirer story is a journalistic embarrassment at best and comparative agenda writing at worst.
Just my opinion,
Armando Salguero
(((((PING)))))
Hey Armando, you created this Frankenstein. Now you are horrified when it goes on a rampage.
“Affair” which supposedly happened when she was single. Sounds more like a date if it actually happened.
The source is from a book written by a reporter. The same reporter who rented the house next to Palins up in Alaska.
She’s vehemently denied it and the other affair rumors according to what I heard on the radio.
They wouldn’t touch well sourced and easily verified stories about John Edwards.
I saw this last night on the Herald online and damn near fell out of my chair!
This writer’s assessment was the same as mine. Since when do you put this garbage on the front page of a Newspaper using the Enquirer as your source?
Such BS!!! Besides, she wasn’t married so by today’s standards, who cares?
“Since when do you put this garbage on the front page of a Newspaper”
Looking back, this is pretty mild in comparison to Sarah being accused of shooting Giffords.
The LSM has their agenda and they’re sticking to it.
And read some of the blog posts after the article. It shows what a Rorschach test these types of stories are for the left. The comments say things like:
This is relevant because she preaches abstinece but this proves she is a hypocritical “wh*re.”
This is relevant because she “will try to wriggle out of it with her usual fabrications.”
This is relevant to those “crazy conservatives,” who won’t vote for Palin after learning about this because they are racists.
Even in 91(before my FR days)I knew I had to quit, just didn't know why. I knew something was wrong somewhere. Today it's a no brainer.
A number of years ago during a stint on talk radio doing morning drive from 7-10 five days per week I used to take the Herald to work with me and dissect its liberal bias righto on the air without even reading it first, it was so bad and still is.
Just like Newsday on Long Island, as predictable as the sunrise.
Hey Armando, you created this Frankenstein. Now you are horrified when it goes on a rampage.
—
I don’t know why you are saying this. He is a sports reporter for the Herald and has a show on one of the local sports talk radio stations. Not exactly a policy decision maker for the paper.
Years ago, the New York Times put Kitty Kelly’s book on Ronald Reagan on the front page. Sadly, nothing new here.
No, Armando is a definate conservative and has made that abundantly clear over the years that I have been reading him as the beat writer for the Miami Dolphins. Mando has stood up for conservative, American values for years as his parents escaped Cuba, bringing their family over to escape Castro’s tyranny. A couple years ago when his mom died he wrote a beautiful piece about the struggles of his parents sacrifice in order to raise their family and how much appreciation they have for the freedom and opportunity in America.
Don’t lay this on Armando, he is the last person who would slander Palin.
I’m just saying this has been going on for years and these guys—liberal and conservative—have worked there and supported the paper. Now he is surprised by this? Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy he’s taking a stand, but he works for an organization that has been slandering conservatives for years.
They are reporting on a date she may have had?
Whats the big deal?
If they want juicy stories I can fill their paper for a week on some of the dates I had before marrying.
Been married 48 years now, and they are pretty irrelevant, just like this story.
But why didn’t he slam Palin for lying about Perry!!!!! /s
“The Left’s own columnists are even gagging at the stench of their rags’ own behavior with respect to Sarah Palin.”
I like how he points out that his paper did not print the stuff on Obama being a homosexual that was in the Enquirer. Double standard as always. Hearsay is published as fact if it is against a conservative, but even facts (other stuff not the homosexual stuff) about a liberal are not published.
They are reporting on that particular date because they are racists. They are playing the race card via the back door. It is that simple. The writer of the story is unhappy with the possibilty of a good looking white female being friends with a black. It was done for election purposes.
Thanks for the ping.
bump.
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.