Is the Associated Press biased?

[Maple]

Implied by several posters in this thread. The excerpt from the article is clear that these people were not engaged full-time in factchecking Palin's book, but that hasn't stop several people in this thread from making that claim.

Oh Boy, two liberals fighting with each other. This is fun. I just wished they would have fact checked Obama during his campaign running for POTUS. Especially his resume. The FACT that he didn't have one.

 

[del]

Implied by several posters in this thread. The excerpt from the article is clear that these people were not engaged full-time in factchecking Palin's book, but that hasn't stop several people in this thread from making that claim.

Oh Boy, two liberals fighting with each other. This is fun. I just wished they would have fact checked Obama during his campaign running for POTUS. Especially his resume.

who's the second liberal, knuckledragger?

 

[manifold]

Hey, wouldya look at that. Some folks are so far right that they see del as a liberal.

I wonder if the same thing is going on with the poll results?

Is it possible that a non-biased source would be seen as having a bias by those with their own bias?

 

[Ravi]

Implied by several posters in this thread. The excerpt from the article is clear that these people were not engaged full-time in factchecking Palin's book, but that hasn't stop several people in this thread from making that claim.

Oh Boy, two liberals fighting with each other. This is fun. I just wished they would have fact checked Obama during his campaign running for POTUS. Especially his resume. The FACT that he didn't have one.

Here's a recent AP fact check on Obama (reprinted on FAUX, but done by AP).

FOXNews.com - FACT CHECK: Obama's Job Creation, Deficit Claims Questionable

This is where bias leads you...to be dumber than a brick like Maple.

 

[Maple]

Hey, wouldya look at that. Some folks are so far right that they see del as a liberal.

I wonder if the same thing is going on with the poll results?

Is it possible that a non-biased source would be seen as having a bias by those with their own bias?

Sorry Del, got you confused with someone else. My very sincere apologies.

 

[del]

Hey, wouldya look at that. Some folks are so far right that they see del as a liberal.

I wonder if the same thing is going on with the poll results?

Is it possible that a non-biased source would be seen as having a bias by those with their own bias?

Sorry Del, got you confused with someone else. My very sincere apologies.

unlike some, i don't consider liberal to be a dirty word.

no apology is needed.

 

[Maple]

Implied by several posters in this thread. The excerpt from the article is clear that these people were not engaged full-time in factchecking Palin's book, but that hasn't stop several people in this thread from making that claim.

Oh Boy, two liberals fighting with each other. This is fun. I just wished they would have fact checked Obama during his campaign running for POTUS. Especially his resume. The FACT that he didn't have one.

Here's a recent AP fact check on Obama (reprinted on FAUX, but done by AP).

FOXNews.com - FACT CHECK: Obama's Job Creation, Deficit Claims Questionable

This is where bias leads you...to be dumber than a brick like Maple.

I know about that one, but why in the world did they not fact check his RESUME before he was elected for POTUS. Because we all would have found out how lacking that was. He did not have one, he was the LEAST qualified out of ALL the candidates.

 

[Ravi]

Oh Boy, two liberals fighting with each other. This is fun. I just wished they would have fact checked Obama during his campaign running for POTUS. Especially his resume. The FACT that he didn't have one.

Here's a recent AP fact check on Obama (reprinted on FAUX, but done by AP).

FOXNews.com - FACT CHECK: Obama's Job Creation, Deficit Claims Questionable

This is where bias leads you...to be dumber than a brick like Maple.

I know about that one, but why in the world did they not fact check his RESUME before he was elected for POTUS. Because we all would have found out how lacking that was. He did not have one, he was the LEAST qualified out of ALL the candidates.

They did that too...here's one article, printed in USA Today but done by AP.

Obama's promises, vision to collide with reality - USATODAY.com

Google ap fact check obama and you'll find plenty of articles with them doing just that. Which is why I stated above somewhere that the AP is considered biased by both the lefties and the righties...

 

[Missourian]

Implied by several posters in this thread. The excerpt from the article is clear that these people were not engaged full-time in factchecking Palin's book, but that hasn't stop several people in this thread from making that claim.

I'll need a link to anyone claiming or implying anything related to "full-time".

All I've seen is people stating correctly that 11 fact checkers were assigned to Going Rogue while zero were devoted to fact checking books by:


Barack Kill live born abortion babies, ban handguns, William Ayers, At church for 20 years Obama

Joe Home Depot, I went to Katie's, FDR on television Biden

Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy

Bill I didn't inhale or have sex with that woman Clinton

Hillary I was shot at by the flower girl Clinton

 

[chanel]

I'm not sure if the fact checkers time cards are posted on the internet. Good Lord. Lol

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Implied by several posters in this thread. The excerpt from the article is clear that these people were not engaged full-time in factchecking Palin's book, but that hasn't stop several people in this thread from making that claim.

I'll need a link to anyone claiming or implying anything related to "full-time".

All I've seen is people stating correctly that 11 fact checkers were assigned to Going Rogue while zero were devoted to fact checking books by:


Barack Kill live born abortion babies, ban handguns, William Ayers, At church for 20 years Obama

Joe Home Depot, I went to Katie's, FDR on television Biden

Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy

Bill I didn't inhale or have sex with that woman Clinton

Hillary I was shot at by the flower girl Clinton

WAHHH WAHHHH!!!

It's not fair!

Face it, the AP is biased - towards MONEY. AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already public iffy relationship with the truth. AP wrote the story because they thought it would sell.

 

[Missourian]

Implied by several posters in this thread. The excerpt from the article is clear that these people were not engaged full-time in factchecking Palin's book, but that hasn't stop several people in this thread from making that claim.

I'll need a link to anyone claiming or implying anything related to "full-time".

All I've seen is people stating correctly that 11 fact checkers were assigned to Going Rogue while zero were devoted to fact checking books by:


Barack Kill live born abortion babies, ban handguns, William Ayers, At church for 20 years Obama

Joe Home Depot, I went to Katie's, FDR on television Biden

Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy

Bill I didn't inhale or have sex with that woman Clinton

Hillary I was shot at by the flower girl Clinton

WAHHH WAHHHH!!!

It's not fair!

Face it, the AP is biased - towards MONEY. AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already public iffy relationship with the truth. AP wrote the story because they thought it would sell.

Lame.


Obama's misstatements, misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies just from the first page of results of Factcheck.org:


In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

• Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
  
  
• Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:

• Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

• He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
  
  
• He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

• Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

• Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
  
  
• He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
  
  
• Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama tried to sell his health care overhaul in prime time, mangling some facts in the process. He also strained to make the job sound easier to pay for than experts predict.

• Obama promised once again that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.” But congressional budget experts say the bills they’ve seen so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

• He said the plan "that I put forward" would cover at least 97 percent of all Americans. Actually, the plan he campaigned on would cover far less than that, and only one of the bills now being considered in Congress would do that.

• He said the "average American family is paying thousands" as part of their premiums to cover uncompensated care for the uninsured, implying that expanded coverage will slash insurance costs. But the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation puts the cost per family figure at $200.

• Obama claimed his budget "reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion" compared with where it was headed before. Not true. Even figures from his own budget experts don’t support that. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $2.7 trillion increase, not a $2.2 trillion cut.

• The president said that the United States spends $6,000 more on average than other countries on health care. Actually, U.S. per capita spending is about $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country. Obama’s figure was a White House-calculated per-family estimate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama’s prime-time address to Congress and the nation on health care prompted a Republican congressman to shout “you lie!” Did he? Here’s what we’ve found:

• Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
• The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
• The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
• Obama said his plan won’t “require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” It’s true that there’s no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your argument is in desperate need of DoctorIn.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'll need a link to anyone claiming or implying anything related to "full-time".

All I've seen is people stating correctly that 11 fact checkers were assigned to Going Rogue while zero were devoted to fact checking books by:


Barack Kill live born abortion babies, ban handguns, William Ayers, At church for 20 years Obama

Joe Home Depot, I went to Katie's, FDR on television Biden

Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy

Bill I didn't inhale or have sex with that woman Clinton

Hillary I was shot at by the flower girl Clinton

WAHHH WAHHHH!!!

It's not fair!

Face it, the AP is biased - towards MONEY. AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already public iffy relationship with the truth. AP wrote the story because they thought it would sell.

blather.

Did you read my post? Because your cut-and-paste job doesn't really have anything to say about anything in my post.

 

[Missourian]

WAHHH WAHHHH!!!

It's not fair!

Face it, the AP is biased - towards MONEY. AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already public iffy relationship with the truth. AP wrote the story because they thought it would sell.

blather.

Did you read my post? Because your cut-and-paste job doesn't really have anything to say about anything in my post.

First, you're not supposed to change peoples quotes.

Don't sweat it, you likely didn't know, that's just for future reference.

Second, your argument was:

"AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already iffy relationship with the truth."

President Obama is a bigger celebrity with a verified disassociation with the truth.

If that won't sell, nothing will.

Therefore your argument fails.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

blather.

Did you read my post? Because your cut-and-paste job doesn't really have anything to say about anything in my post.

First, you're not supposed to change peoples quotes.

Don't sweat it, you likely didn't know, that's just for future reference.

Second, your argument was:

"AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already iffy relationship with the truth."

President Obama is a bigger celebrity with a verified disassociation with the truth.

If that won't sell, nothing will.

Therefore your argument fails.

If you think that exposing Obama's lies would sell just as well as exposing Palin's - why has the Washington Times never made a profit? Why doesn't Newsmax get the same traffic as the Huffington Post? All the things you posted, they've all been gone over a million times. The reason they've never caught on isn't because people aren't being exposed to them - its because people don't care.

Do you think that politics means anything to Rush Limbaugh? Or Keith Olbermann? Maybe it did, at one point - but now them, and everyone else it the so called MSM is in it for one thing - $.

 

[rdean]

Of course they're biased. Anytime someone disagrees with the crazy right, they are automatically biased.

 

[Missourian]

Did you read my post? Because your cut-and-paste job doesn't really have anything to say about anything in my post.

First, you're not supposed to change peoples quotes.

Don't sweat it, you likely didn't know, that's just for future reference.

Second, your argument was:

"AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already iffy relationship with the truth."

President Obama is a bigger celebrity with a verified disassociation with the truth.

If that won't sell, nothing will.

Therefore your argument fails.

If you think that exposing Obama's lies would sell just as well as exposing Palin's - why has the Washington Times never made a profit? Why doesn't Newsmax get the same traffic as the Huffington Post? All the things you posted, they've all been gone over a million times. The reason they've never caught on isn't because people aren't being exposed to them - its because people don't care.

Do you think that politics means anything to Rush Limbaugh? Or Keith Olbermann? Maybe it did, at one point - but now them, and everyone else it the so called MSM is in it for one thing - $.

OK, that's more interesting than your first post.

You're probably right about Rush and Keith AND the MSM.

But Huffington is more comparable to Drudge, by Ariana's own admission, but I couldn't tell you which gets more web traffic.

As for the Times and the Post, I'm not sure there is a comparison to be drawn, since major metropolitan are generally left leaning.

I have a theory on that, but we'll save that for another thread.

And I really don't believe the majority have been exposed to the deceptions and half truths President Obama has perpetrated...some of those I cut and pasted where a surprise to me, and I'm reletively well informed.

But non of that addresses the real question that underlies our disagreement.

Palin couldn't legally impound a stray dog, while the President is changing the course of our country every day.

Why would the public be more interested in Palin's misrepresentations than Obama's ?

 

[Oddball]

But Huffington is more comparable to Drudge, by Ariana's own admission, but I couldn't tell you which gets more web traffic.

Comparable in what way?

Drudge's site is a news outlet, with links to sites and commentators from across the political and journalistic spectrums. HuffnpuffPo is nothing more than a fringe lefty hack site, that specializes in screeds form the hackiest of them.

 

[rdean]

I'll need a link to anyone claiming or implying anything related to "full-time".

All I've seen is people stating correctly that 11 fact checkers were assigned to Going Rogue while zero were devoted to fact checking books by:


Barack Kill live born abortion babies, ban handguns, William Ayers, At church for 20 years Obama

Joe Home Depot, I went to Katie's, FDR on television Biden

Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy

Bill I didn't inhale or have sex with that woman Clinton

Hillary I was shot at by the flower girl Clinton

WAHHH WAHHHH!!!

It's not fair!

Face it, the AP is biased - towards MONEY. AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already public iffy relationship with the truth. AP wrote the story because they thought it would sell.

Lame.


Obama's misstatements, misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies just from the first page of results of Factcheck.org:


In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

• Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
  
  
• Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:

• Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

• He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
  
  
• He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

• Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."[/SIZE]
  

• Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
  
  
• He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
  
  
• Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama tried to sell his health care overhaul in prime time, mangling some facts in the process. He also strained to make the job sound easier to pay for than experts predict.

• Obama promised once again that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.” But congressional budget experts say the bills they’ve seen so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

• He said the plan "that I put forward" would cover at least 97 percent of all Americans. Actually, the plan he campaigned on would cover far less than that, and only one of the bills now being considered in Congress would do that.

• He said the "average American family is paying thousands" as part of their premiums to cover uncompensated care for the uninsured, implying that expanded coverage will slash insurance costs. But the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation puts the cost per family figure at $200.

• Obama claimed his budget "reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion" compared with where it was headed before. Not true. Even figures from his own budget experts don’t support that. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $2.7 trillion increase, not a $2.2 trillion cut.
  

• The president said that the United States spends $6,000 more on average than other countries on health care. Actually, U.S. per capita spending is about $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country. Obama’s figure was a White House-calculated per-family estimate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama’s prime-time address to Congress and the nation on health care prompted a Republican congressman to shout “you lie!” Did he? Here’s what we’ve found:

• Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
• The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
• The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
• Obama said his plan won’t “require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” It’s true that there’s no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your argument is in desperate need of DoctorIn.

Just a couple of things I can't let pass.

I watched John McCain, it wasn't a joke. The laugh was because he didn't know.

Obama's budget seemed to skyrocket because the Republicans never included the cost of either war during Bush's entire administration. In a way, it's like a lie from omission.

Even 2,500 is a disgrace.

Something no one ever discusses when talking about John McCain, other than his graduating 5th from the bottom out of 899 member graduating class, the Forestall, the 5 jets he crashed, Keating 5, the fact that veterans groups gave him a grade of D and a rating of 20% during the presidential election, the fact that he believe "Viagra" should be paid for by insurance because it is used for a "medical condition", but birth control shouldn't be covered because it is a "lifestyle choice", the list is endless. Is every house I see MY house?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

First, you're not supposed to change peoples quotes.

Don't sweat it, you likely didn't know, that's just for future reference.

Second, your argument was:

"AP set people to fact check Palin's book because she's a celebrity with an already iffy relationship with the truth."

President Obama is a bigger celebrity with a verified disassociation with the truth.

If that won't sell, nothing will.

Therefore your argument fails.

If you think that exposing Obama's lies would sell just as well as exposing Palin's - why has the Washington Times never made a profit? Why doesn't Newsmax get the same traffic as the Huffington Post? All the things you posted, they've all been gone over a million times. The reason they've never caught on isn't because people aren't being exposed to them - its because people don't care.

Do you think that politics means anything to Rush Limbaugh? Or Keith Olbermann? Maybe it did, at one point - but now them, and everyone else it the so called MSM is in it for one thing - $.

OK, that's more interesting than your first post.

You're probably right about Rush and Keith AND the MSM.

But Huffington is more comparable to Drudge, by Ariana's own admission, but I couldn't tell you which gets more web traffic.

As for the Times and the Post, I'm not sure there is a comparison to be drawn, since major metropolitan are generally left leaning.

I have a theory on that, but we'll save that for another thread.

And I really don't believe the majority have been exposed to the deceptions and half truths President Obama has perpetrated...some of those I cut and pasted where a surprise to me, and I'm reletively well informed.

But non of that addresses the real question that underlies our disagreement.

Palin couldn't legally impound a stray dog, while the President is changing the course of our country every day.

Why would the public be more interested in Palin's misrepresentations than Obama's ?

I don't know. But they are, and if you own a TV, you know that I'm correct. I'm not trying to say that it's a good thing - clearly it isn't. But the public is more interested in Palin - for the same reason that when a cute white girl gets kidnapped, you hear about it for weeks.

Missing white woman syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia