WITH FOURTEEN YOU GET BULL-ROAR! Who produced that partisan probe? The Post forgets to say: // link // print // previous // next //
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2008
WITH FOURTEEN YOU GET BULL-ROAR: Why did Alaskas Legislative Council produce that report about Sarah Palin? On the Posts front page, in his fifth paragraph, James Grimaldi quickly gives you the Palin/McCain position:
Huh! The report was a politically motivated attempt to damage the ticket of McCain and Palin! Again, this claim appears in the fifth paragraph of Grimaldis front-page report. It appeared in the fourth paragraph of our hard-copy, early edition.
Of course, the claim that this was a partisan hit-job is a bit hard to sustain. If you were read todays Los Angeles Times, you got an idea why that is. Charles Piller reported the story for the Timesand he included bone-simple, basic information about where this big report came from:
Duh. The Legislative Council, which commissioned the investigation (in July) and released the report, is an official body which conducts legislative business when the full Legislature isnt in session. And oh yesthe fourteen-member Legislative Council is top-heavy with Republicans! Obviously, this is fairly basic info, especially when the Palin camp is calling this a partisan witch-hunt. But go ahead! Just try to find a hint of this in Grimaldis lengthy report.
Grimaldis report stretches 31 paragraphs. You get the Palin bull-roar quicklybut amazingly, you never get any real information about who was behind this probe. In 31 paragraphs, Grimaldi never says that the panel which authored this probe is more than two-to-one Republican. The pro-Palin claim is in paragraph 5. Debunking information is AWOL.
Who produced yesterdays report? Benighted Post readers are never quite told. Here is Grimaldis first paragraph:
According to that, the report was produced by an Alaska state legislative investigator. His name is revealed in paragraph 3 (see below), but nothing more is offered. He could be a crank, a lone wolf or a nut; he could be working for some Dem Party caucus. Sadly, one lone word in paragraph 4 represents Grimaldis sole attempt to inform readers about the provenance of this report:
Bipartisan: That represents Grimaldis lone attempt to describe the make-up of the committee which authored this probe. By current journalistic convention, that could mean the committee contains thirteen Democratsand one Republican. (Later, Grimaldi does say that the committee has fourteen members in all.) Palins complaintthis report was a partisan witch-huntgets big play in Grimaldis piece. But he never includes the basic information which makes the claim hard to sustain.
Luckily, Piller and his editors retain the basic sense they were born with. But if you read the Washington Post this day, that fact didnt do you much good.
He did remember this: Pitifully, Grimaldi did include this:
Grimaldi included the fact that French, a Democrat, managed the probe. He doesnt say that French was selected for that task by a passel of Republicansor that these Republicans started the probe before McCain picked Palin. Was this an attempt to harm McCain-Palin? The team didnt even exist when the probe was commissioned.
Was this some sort of partisan probean attempt to harm McCain-Palin? In fairness, Alaska party politics is somewhat complex in the age of Palin the Avenger. But its absurd to give the partisan claim high billing without including those basic facts. Somehow, the L. A. Times knew thatand somehow, the Post did not.