Is it any wonder why so many people mistrust the media these days? The Daily Currant ran a "satire" piece on Feb. 4 that reported that Sarah Palin was joining Al Jazeera America.
Just weeks after leaving Fox News, Sarah Palin is bouncing back by joining the fledgling Al Jazeera America news network as a host and commentator.
The former vice presidential nominee confirmed today that she has signed a multi-million dollar deal to host her own shows and to provide commentary on United States issues for Al Jazeera, which is best known for its news coverage of the Middle East.
After leaving Fox News, Palin said she was hoping to reach a broader audience with her message. When contacted by phone, Palin said Al Jazeera - with its extensive international network - offered her the best opportunity to broadcast to millions of people.
An earlier version of this post and the post’s URL incorrectly reported that Sarah Palin had signed on as a contributor to the Al Jazeera America news network. The blogger cited a report on the Daily Currant Web site as the basis for that information without realizing that the piece was satirical.
Nice ...
Even worse, CBS in LA was a victim of a Howard Stern prank call. KCBS/KCAL put on a guy on the air who had told them that he was an official from the U.S. Fish and Game Commission. He had claimed to have information about the
CBS Los Angeles learned that lesson the hard way during their coverage of the shootout between ex-Los Angeles Police Department officer Christopher Dorner and law enforcement agencies.
In the call, a man who identifies himself as Captain Janks pretended to be a California Fish & Game official and said his agency was the first to spot Dorner, but then things went a bit astray.
"It was confirmed that there was gunfire. We don't know at this point. We believe it was Ronnie the Limo Driver firing at Mr. Dorner."
Janks said Ronnie was driving to a block party when he spotted Dorner. The problem is, Ronnie is a popular feature on Howard Stern's radio show and not a game and fish official.
Janks called the CBS reporter a few choice words before getting cut off. He has been a long-time fan and popular caller of the Howard Stern Show.
I'm old school. But this is total stupidity on "Captain Janks' " part.
The Smoking Gun published apparently private Bush family photos from the hacker’s cache, such as a shot of George H.W. Bush sitting up in his hospital bed in December (the photo was taken down a few hours after it appeared). It also quoted from e-mails that revealed deep family concerns about the elder Bush’s health, including one from George W. Bush seeking input from his relatives for a eulogy to his father. Further, it posted images of paintings made by the younger Bush that he had sent to his sister Dorothy, including paintings of a man showering and one in a bathtub.
The Smoking Gun went way out of bounds here. There is no journalistic value in publishing such private communications. No public policy is affected by these emails.
Here's more evidence that once you are elected to Congress and you find yourself inside the Beltway that your brain just shuts off and you just don't get it.
Denham
At least 12 Republican congressmen-elect, six of whom are Tea Party members, are banding together to throw a swank party to celebrate their inauguration and raise funds at the plush W Hotel in downtown Washington, D.C. Performing at the event is country singer LeAnn Rimes, who is not a favorite among social conservatives because of her Twitter photos and other activities.
The event is sponsored by America’s New Majority, a political action committee formed by Rep.-elect Jeff Denham, R-Calif., whose goal is to raise funds.
Conservative blogger Matt Lewis reports that the cost to attend the event is "$2,500 a pop (for $50,000 you can become a "Platinum Sponsor" -- but that includes eight tickets, a "VIP lunch" and a "VIP suite" at the W hotel)."
Lewis also describes why Rimes might not be the best choice in the eyes of the socially conservative base:
But the price isn't the only thing raising eyebrows. Once thought of as "family friendly," Rimes has since added some new material to her resume. As Perez Hilton recently noted:
"LeAnn Rimes took to her Twitter to reveal some pics of herself ... as a Sexy Santa performing with the El Lay Gay Men's Christmas this past Sunday. And, of course, some with her man Eddie Cibrian!" Even before Rimes' tweet, she might have been an interesting pick for conservatives. As the New York Daily News reported in September:
"Once considered America's Sweetheart, LeAnn Rimes shocked fans when she admitted to cheating on her husband, Dean Sheremet.
. . . Rimes, now 28, admitted that she had an affair with actor Eddie Cibrian while they were shooting a Lifetime film back in 2008."
Here’s a list of all the participating members-elect, according to the Sunlight Foundation's "Party Time" site:
Jeff Denham, R-Calif.
Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn. (Tea Party)
Robert Dold, R-Ill. (Tea Party)
Renee Ellmers, R-N.C. (Tea Party)
Jeff Landry, R-La. (Tea Party)
Tom Marino, R-Pa.
Tom Reed, R-N.Y.
David Rivera, R-Fla.
Jon Runyan, R-N.J.
Steve Southerland, R-Fla. (Tea Party)
Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. (Tea Party)
Kevin Yoder. R-Kan.
POLITICO's Kenneth P. Vogel and Marin Cogan report that "House Speaker-elect John Boehner, whose name was featured on the invitation, is nonetheless skipping the event."
Their report goes on to say that at least one GOP consultant is advising his clients to stay clear of these activities:
While at least 11 incoming Republican House members had signed up for the committee by Dec. 10, other freshman were discouraged from joining, said a pair of GOP fundraising consultants.
“We strongly recommended to our clients that they not take part in this,” said one consultant, who did not want to be identified discussing advice offered to members of Congress.
“It’s causing a buzz because it’s in direct contradiction to the image that leadership is trying to portray as a conference that wants to get down to business,” said the consultant, comparing the Rimes fundraiser to one thrown by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi when Democrats assumed the House majority in 2007.
That fundraiser – organized by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and featuring $1,000 ticket prices and performances by Tony Bennett and the remnants of The Grateful Dead – got some bad press and also sparked ill will among some of the lobbyists and political action committee managers who typically comprise the target demographic for high-dollar Washington fundraisers.
Howard Kurtz at The Daily Beast has the inside details of the battle between Keith Olbermann and his superiors at MSNBC over his recent suspension for making unapproved political campaign contributions. Those contributions, sources tell Kurtz, are upsetting other NBC top journalists who are worried that they damage the reputation of the network, and thus their credibility.
Keith Olbermann was having dinner with his manager at an Upper East Side restaurant, chewing over their battle to lift his suspension at MSNBC, when Phil Griffin called.
Michael Price stepped out of the Atlantic Grill to talk to MSNBC’s president, leaving his client with a platter of 18 oysters. It was Sunday, Nov. 7, and Price informed Griffin that if they couldn’t resolve their differences quickly, Olbermann would take his complaints public by accepting invitations from Good Morning America, David Letterman, and Larry King.
Keith Olbermann (Jamie McCarthy / Getty Images) “Why are you putting us in the position where you’re daring us to do this?” Price demanded, his voice rising.
“If you go on GMA, I will fire Keith,” Griffin shot back. Such a move was clearly grounds for dismissal.
The manager returned to the restaurant. He and Olbermann, who had been pushing hard to end the suspension the next day, discussed whether they would be burning bridges by carrying out the threat. Minutes later, their phones buzzed with emails from reporters, asking about a statement that NBC had just released. Olbermann, it said, would be allowed to return to his prime-time show on Tuesday—a day later than he had wanted.
Price called Griffin again. “What compelled you to do that in that way?” he asked.
“We are at war,” Griffin responded.
If so, it was a war that had spread beyond the principal combatants to many of the journalists who work at NBC and MSNBC. From the moment Olbermann was found to have donated money to three Democratic candidates, there has been a deepening sense of anger and frustration among his colleagues, according to interviews with eight knowledgeable sources. These sources, who declined to be quoted by name because of the sensitivity of the situation, say that several of NBC’s front-line stars, including Tom Brokaw, have expressed concern to management that Olbermann has badly damaged MSNBC’s reputation for independence. (NBC and MSNBC executives declined to comment, and Olbermann declined to be interviewed.)
Mike Allen of POLITICO reports today that MSNBC sources said that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.”
Olbermann told his bosses he didn't know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC's prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, who make considerably less.
UPDATE, Nov. 5 at 4:49 p.m. Eastern: Brian Stelter of The New York Times just tweeted "MSNBC now says Chris Hayes will *not* be the sub tonight. No word yet on who will be."
------
Keith Olbermann has been suspended without pay from MSNBC because of his contributions to three political candidates.
The unusual move happened this afternoon after POLITICO reported that he had contributed to the campaigns of three Democratic candidates.
MSNBC President Phil Griffin released the following statement: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Usually journalists are bound by ethical standards not to contribute to political campaigns or to be aligned with any political party or movement. Ethic rules concerning partisan commentators on cable TV networks and political advocacy have been debated for some time now. Many believe they are held to the same standards of new reporters. Others have felt that they are advocates, and do not fall under the same guidelines.
Indeed, journalists have contributed thousands to political campaigns and efforts and not faced suspension. MSNBC published a list of 143 journalists who gave to political campaigns. On that list, published on July 15, 2007, was Joe Scarborough, NBC's "Dateline" correspondent Victoria Corderi, MSNBC.com's Rachel Schwanewede, senior editor of TodayShow.com, and MSNBC.com's Joel Widzer, travel columnist. I cannot find any report that they suffered the same penalty that Olbermann did today.
One other distinction could be that NBC News policy does not prohibit making political contributions, just that you need prior approval from NBC executives to do so. It is possible that Scarborough and the others did receive such prior approvals and Olbermann did not.
Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress, Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, and Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway. Conway lost his bid to Republican and Tea Party candidate Rand Paul. Olbermann made the legal maximum donation of $2,400 to each.
What might be the troubling point to MSNBC brass is the fact the Olbermann made the donation to the Arizona candidates pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.
POLITICO is also reporting that Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation and a previous fill-in for Rachel Maddow, who will fill in for Olbermann tonight has also made contributions to political candidates. POLITICO reports that he gave $250 to the congressional campaign of a good friend, Alabama Democrat Josh Segall.
New York Times freelance writers got a reminder today from management on ethics in this memo:
Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM Subject: TO ALL NEW YORK TIMES FREELANCERS: PLEASE READ To: FreelanceWriters1-NO_REPLY@nytimes.com
TO: ALL FREELANCE WRITERS
This is a reminder about The Times's ethics policies for journalists.
As you know, The Times takes very seriously the issue of conflicts of interest and other problems that might undermine the credibility of our journalism.
Your freelance contract obliges you to comply with the applicable provisions of The Times's policy on Ethical Journalism (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf ) and to take care to avoid conflicts or the appearance of a conflict. The provisions pertaining specifically to outside contributors are reproduced below, but you should review the entire document. Readers do not distinguish between freelancers and staff reporters in The Times, so as far as possible we expect outside contributors to adhere to the same standards as Times staff members.
The ethics rules outline specific requirements while you are on assignment for The Times. But because of The Times's high profile, our freelance contributors are often viewed as "Times writers" even when they are not specifically working for us. Companies, organizations and other potential subjects and sources may believe that favors or special treatment for you - whether you are on assignment or not - will help them gain favorable treatment in The Times.
Note that our rules on free travel and other free or discounted products and services are stricter than those of many publications. Even if such a benefit is not directly connected to a Times assignment, it can create an appearance that undermines the credibility of The Times or its contributors. Any questions involving such benefits should be discussed with your Times editor.
Other common areas of concern include these:
- Work for companies or organizations that The Times may cover. - Undisclosed ties between the writer and people or institutions mentioned in an article. - Lobbying, advocacy or political activities or contributions related to the area of coverage. The written guidelines are detailed, but they cannot anticipate every situation. The best rule of thumb is the simplest: If you have any questions or doubts about compliance with our policies, ask your Times editor before proceeding.
When you first signed a contract with The Times, you should have filled out a questionnaire covering many of these topics. You should update the questionnaire as often as needed to keep the information current, so your editors can identify areas that might warrant further discussion. To review or update your questionnaire, please log in to the freelancer invoicing (Extranet) site (https://freelancers.nytimes.com) and follow the "Stringer Questionnaire" link. If you have questions about this policy, feel free to call your assigning editor; for technical help with the invoicing site, please call 1-800-756-3464 (or, from outside the United States, +1-212-556-2020).
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Philip B. Corbett Associate Managing Editor for Standards
Here is an absolutely fantastic post by Gina Chen writing on Savethemedia.com about ethics in the social networking world.
It should be read and understood by everyone in the profession.
I think ethics are ethics. You can’t have one set of rules for online and another for print. But I do think the medium impacts how we live out these philosophies, and I’ll get to that more later. When it comes to social media, one of the key questions becomes: If a journalist offers an opinion on Twitter, is that unethical? Does that violate some type of rule? Think about that ...
I hear so many times writers and editors justifying to themselves "well, it's just a blog (post, tweet ... whatever)." But ethics are a true test to who we are, and they cross platforms.
In a stunning lack of ethics, Tom Oosterhoudt, publisher of the weekly "Conch Color" in Key West, Fla., has told city commission candidates that they are required to buy advertising with his newspaper if they want campaign coverage.
[Oosterhoudt] acknowledged his policy, which alarmed journalism experts at an internationally renowned institute and troubled two national civic elections and election reform groups.
"As far as candidate forums and debates, we'll cover those when we can, but if candidates want their campaign covered, they have to pay to play," Oosterhoudt told The Citizen Thursday. "I gotta pay the bills."
District 6 candidate James Marquardt, who is challenging incumbent Clayton Lopez, said he became concerned when both received an e-mail from Oosterhoudt on Tuesday. Lopez said he had no problem with the policy.
"From this point on, I will be treating you both like the other candidates in order to sustain a level playing field and ask that you both advertise in order for me to be able to afford any campaign coverage that you may ask for," Oosterhoudt wrote. He went on to state that mayoral candidates Craig Cates and incumbent Morgan McPherson had purchased advertising, which is why Oosterhoudt had covered their campaign parties.
The Poynter Institute's ethics group leader called his policy "horrific" and "appalling."
"That is an absolute breach of the editorial independence of a newsroom," Kelly McBride said, emphasizing that editorial content should be completely separate from advertising content. "Otherwise it has no value to the audience. The publication is putting its loyalty to their bottom line ahead of their responsibility to their readers."
UPDATE, 11 p.m. Eastern, Feb. 18: Calderone defends his story against charges that it was slanted against Democrats.
A number of people are starting to question the latest craze for mainstream media veterans of jumping to the Dark Side to work for government, specially the Obama administration and the Democrat leadership on the Hill. Once considered a suicidal leap in journalism, the trend is growing in light of the fact that so many newspapers are cutting staff (see list to your right, for example) as well as the fact that most journalists are in-tune with what the new president is trying to accomplish.
In an interview, [Jill Zuckman] said that she began looking around for a new job last month, motivated by the grim state of the industry — her employer, the Tribune Co., recently slashed its D.C. bureau — and also by her own feeling that she’d accomplished what she’d set out to do covering politics.
She said she had no plans to go to the administration — until she heard about an opening under Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican representative she’s long respected for reaching across the aisle.
So, would Zuckman have taken — or even been offered — such a job if [Sen. John] McCain were president?
“I have a great deal of respect for [McCain] and have thoroughly enjoyed covering him over the years,” Zuckman said. “But there’s no way I can answer your hypothetical because I wouldn’t know who he would have chosen for secretary of transportation. My decision to go to work for the Obama administration is tied up in my relationship with Ray LaHood and his focus on getting the economy back on track.”
Conservative Michelle Malkin calls it "Obama's own little MSM bailout program."
Zuckman isn't alone. She's the latest of a number of high profile journalists who have crossed sides. Calderone provide this following rundown:
*Scott Shepard of Cox is now Sen. John Kerry’s speechwriter. *Doug Frantz, formerly an investigative reporter, is now chief investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is chaired by Kerry. *Tribune's Peter Gosselin is now a speechwriter for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. *Time's Washington Bureau Chief Jay Carney is now Vice President Joe Biden’s communications director. *Warren Bass left the Washington Post’s Outlook section to write speeches and advise Dr. Susan Rice at the United Nations. *Daniel W. Reilly left Politico to become communications director for Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). *Linda Douglass left the National Journal for the Obama campaign in May and is expected to become assistant secretary for public affairs in the department of Health and Human Services.
The ethical question is once you have jumped over that fence, can you jump back and expected to at least pretend you are covering politics down the middle of the road? The political question is whether this is a sign of a glaring media bias during the campaign or just economic realities?
Of the journalists flocking to government jobs, Pew Project Director Tom Rosenstiel told Calderone that: “There’s no mystery here, and I don’t think the key to this is ideological as much as economic. The newspaper industry, in Washington in particular, is suffering mightily.” The Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism recently published a report on “The New Washington Press Corps,” describing the decline of the Washington Press Corps.
But Brent Bozell had a different take for Calderone:
“If you are in journalism, and you can so easily fit in the world of politics, it tells you something,” Bozell said, “that you were not that detached from it when you were in journalism.”
Perhaps proving Bozell’s point, journalists say that there used to be more stigma attached when a reporter crossed over to cover someone he’s covered. Now, they say, it’s hard to consider a colleague a sell-out when the alternative to a government job could be the unemployment line.
FOX's Carl Cameron's report on "The O'Reilly Factor" has opened some questions about the inner workings of the McCain organization, especially relating to Gov. Sarah Palin and a possible ugly rift within the campaign. But it also gives pause to the use of unnamed sources. Here's the segment:
After that was aired, Greta Van Susteren talked to Politico's Alex Burns about this issue, defending Palin:
The New York Times’s Elisabeth Bumiller wrote on the rift as well. The story uses a number of unnamed sources, but also talks about the backlash of the reports:
Advisers in the McCain campaign, in suggesting that Palin advisors had been leaking damaging information about the McCain campaign to the news media, said they were particularly suspicious of Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s top foreign policy aide who had a central role in preparing Ms. Palin for the vice-presidential debate.
As a result, two senior members of the McCain campaign said on Wednesday that Mr. Scheunemann had been fired from the campaign in its final days. But Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, and Mr. Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers, said Wednesday that Mr. Scheunemann had in fact not been dismissed. Mr. Scheunemann, who picked up the phone in his office at McCain campaign headquarters on Wednesday afternoon, responded that “anybody who says I was fired is either lying or delusional or a whack job.”
Newsweek’s web election recap also is mostly based on anonymous comments from campaign advisers, but it takes a different tone and and concentrates on ligitimate subject matters. Although at one point it does touch on Palin's towel incident.
The disclosures are among many revealed in "How He Did It, 2008," the latest installment in NEWSWEEK's Special Election Project, which was first published in 1984. As in the previous editions, "How He Did It, 2008" is an inside, behind-the-scenes account of the presidential election produced by a special team of reporters working for more than a year on an embargoed basis and detached from the weekly magazine and Newsweek.com. Everything the project team learns is kept confidential until the day after the polls close.
This is classic study in the use of unnamed sources and the problems that practice might cause. When journalists use an unnamed source, it's usually for the purpose of gaining some kind of information we couldn't receive on the record. Anonymous sources should only be used when we cannot report on information that is reliable and newsworthy otherwise.
So, the question becomes, are the Palin stories truly newsworthy? Or is it rather a case of CYA by the McCain staff? In my book, the Palin reports are pure gossip, and mean-spirited gossip at that. She couldn't name the countries in NAFTA? I'd bet 98 percent of Americans couldn't. She didn't know Africa was a continent? Well, that is a bit embarrassing, but once again, unfortunately we are a nation of geography-ignorant people. Did she come out of her bathroom in a towel? Most people do after a shower. There might have been an explanation. She might have not known the aides were there, and then it would be the aides' fault, not hers. But we don't know, because anonymous sources only give one side of a story.
The Newsweek article, on the other hand, sticks to issues. Here's a taste of its writing:
The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle asked a top campaign aide.
On the Sunday night before the last debate, McCain's core group of advisers—Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, adman Fred Davis, strategist Greg Strimple, pollster Bill McInturff and strategy director Sarah Simmons—met to decide whether to tell McCain that the race was effectively over, that he no longer had a chance to win. The consensus in the room was no, not yet, not while he still had "a pulse."
The Obama campaign's New Media experts created a computer program that would allow a "flusher"—the term for a volunteer who rounds up nonvoters on Election Day—to know exactly who had, and had not, voted in real time. They dubbed it Project Houdini, because of the way names disappear off the list instantly once people are identified as they wait in line at their local polling station.
Palin launched her attack on Obama's association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain's advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.
The point is that the Palin stories serve no purpose other than to smear someone and provide giggles. It's especially distasteful to kick someone when they are down. And she is a person who has been kicked around enough in the past few months, whether it is her email account being hacked or attacks on her family.
This certainly is not one of our finest moments in journalism. Are we supposed to feel proud of reporting like this? It's this type of reporting that makes our readers and viewers despise us at times.
Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily wrote in an article last night that Gwen Ifill, the moderator of tomorrow night's vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin, has written a book that praises Sen. Barack Obama. The book, scheduled for release on inaugration day, hopes to "shed new light" on Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."
Ifill is a moderator on PBS' "Washington Week." Her book,"The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," examines the "black political structure." She says in the book that the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality, according to Unruh.
This creates a conflict of interest for Ifill as moderator of the debate. The success of her book is hinged on Obama winning the election.
This is not the first time she has been accused of favoritism toward Democrats. Unruh gives two examples of what Republicans believe is bias against their candidates.
During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."
"Well, that's all you've got," she told Cheney.
More recently, PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said that he received a number of complaints about how Ifill reacted to Palin's speech at the GOP convention.
According to Unruh, some viewers complained of a "dismissive" look by Ifill during her report on Palin's speech. Getler said some also said she wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on the Republican candidate. At that time Ifill said, "I assume there will always be critics and just shut out the noise. It is surprisingly easy."
One PBS viewer, Brian Meyers of Granby, Conn., said he was appalled by Ifill's commentary.
"Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust," Meyers said. "Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance."
"It simply is not fair – in law, this would create a mistrial," she said.
Juan Williams, a senior correspondent with National Public Radio and a commentator on FOX News, defended Ifill but noted the conflict of interest.
"I think Gwen has been a terrific journalist," he said. "She spent a lot of time with Obama. She praises him in the book. The book's success [is] invested in Obama. ... Suddenly everyone's going to be saying Gwen Ifill is somewhat biased against Gov. Palin."
Chris Matthews apparently interviewed his daughter Caroline before the debates on "Hardball" but failed to tell his viewers of his relationship with her, FishbowlDC reported yesterday. This is a Journalism 101 breach of ethics.
One tipster told FishbowlDC that "Matthews, at the asking of his daughter, instructed the producers not to name her."
The reason this is a breech of ethics is that Matthews has a conflict of interest. His daughter had a political point to make about an organization she is a member of. Its web site was promoted during the interview. The interview under normal circumstances, while quite soft and ordinary, would have been fine, but his viewers deserve to know that she was his daughter appearing on his show to promote her political point of view.
The Daily Kos should delete these posts immediately, issue an apology, and work to improve its standards. It's a new low in American politics coming from the side that claims it wants "change" in the way political campaigns are conducted. It's about as disgusting as you can get.
KTVA, the CBS affiliate in Anchorage, is now reporting that despite Sarah Palin's new-found national notoriety, the investigation into whether her staff violated ethics laws in the firing of a state official is continuing.
An earlier report that breaks down the case is below:
"The status of the investigation is that Steve Branchflower is taking statements right now from former members of the administration, and scheduling other appointments with other members of the administration, up to, and including Governor Palin to find out the facts of what happened," said Senator Hollis French, who is in charge of the legislative investigation of Palin.
Branchflower is looking into the events that led up to the firing of former public safety commissioner Walt Monegan. It is alleged that Monegan may have been fired for refusing to fire Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten, who went through a messy divorce with Palin's sister and is currently in the midst of a custody battle.
Other state officials from both parties say that they want the investigation to play out.
"There is too much information to just erase it as a mistake," said Senator Lyda Green, a Republican from Wasilla, "It needs to be followed through very diligently, very carefully."
"The fact is the investigation will continue to go on regardless of governor Palin's position as the vice presidential nominee," said Andrew Halcro, who ran against Palin for governor in 2006.
"I don't know how they would do that given the fact that Branchflower just began his investigation and there is a lot out there that is unknown," said Halcro.
"We certainly don't want to see anything like this on the national level if it is found there is abuse of powers on the state level," said Green.
The results of this investigation are due on Oct. 31, just five days before the election.
There is a new buzz on the Internet regarding potential GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin regarding an allegation that she illegally hacked into a co-worker's computer in 2003.
In a neat symbolic fit, the agent responsible for Alaska's current moment of reform and modernization is a woman, a breed once nearly as rare in far Northwest politics as a Democrat. Sarah Palin, a libertarian and hockey mom from the fast-growing suburbs of Anchorage, began her political career -- as an appointed member of the state's Oil and Gas Commission -- by hacking into the computer of another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Alaska Republican Party. Palin was seeking the evidence that she would eventually use to charge him with an improper relationship with lobbyists. (Ruedrich would later settle state ethics charges against him by paying a $12,000 fine.)
It is difficult not to see Palin's ascendance not just as a challenge to the state's establishment but also as presenting a crudely cut choice between the state's cronyist, resource-economy past and its future. She beat Frank Murkowski, the incumbent, in the GOP primary; voters began to sour on Murkowski as soon as he picked his daughter to replace him in the Senate, and then grew angrier over his grubbing for a private jet and other perceived ethical lapses. He left office the least popular governor in the country. Since her election as governor last November, Palin has made a public point of cutting down on Alaska's excesses, and challenging the easy habits of its past -- getting the state to put Murkowski's infamous jet up for sale on eBay, canceling pork projects and firing patronage appointees. By early this summer, with the scandals plaguing the rest of the Republican Party, Alaska Democrats had made some headway in the polls. But Palin's approval ratings are over 90 percent. Whether in the long term Alaska's economy can modernize and the state can wean itself from government welfare remains to be seen. But as Stevens hits back at the FBI through press releases, the senator's old legislative aides plead guilty, and his son endures a federal investigation, the moment is beginning to look like a pivotal point in Alaska's history. Perhaps the rough edges are being ushered out and something more modern and nationally acceptable has begun to move in.
What is happening in Alaska is not simply the collapse of one ancient Republican power and the rise of another, in Palin, that is more fragile and conditional. It is the assertion that for all of the country's divisions into red and blue, the national culture does exert a crude centrifugal tug, a tendency to iron out protruding regional discrepancies. The plaintive, humbled sounds coming from Alaska right now are those that always emerge when the exception succumbs to the rule.
Mauer writes that Palin was apparently working at the request of Paul Lyle, an assistant attorney general in Juneau. Mauer wrote that Palin was simply looking for evidence that Ruedrich, who had been a member of the Oil and Gas Commission while Palin was the chairwoman, had broken the state ethics law.
Palin, as chairwoman of the Oil and Gas Commission and its ethics supervisor, was entitled to examine Ruedrich's computer, since the computer was state property. According to the Anchorage Daily News, a technician who worked for the commission found a way around Ruedrich's password (presumably by simply using an administrative password) and recovered some files from his computer's trash bin. Palin found dozens of e-mails and documents on the computer that suggested an improper relationship between Ruedrich and oil companies, which she forwarded to the attorney general's office.
While Mauer's report tells Palin's side of the story, voters this fall will question whether Palin's computer-hacking activities were justified, ethical and/or legal. It may be all three. But the Internet is fertile ground for political attacks. This revelation in conjunction with her current ethics investigation will be a tough hurdle for her to overcome in a national election.
