Weigel shifts from saying that the Trig story was “flogged to death” by the MSM to saying that “it did not take much flogging.” So which is it, Dave? Or are you making this up as you go along? He even cites the ADN’s failed attempt to debunk the story as proof that there was no story. But they were stonewalled by a furious Palin, and staggered by her defensiveness and ran no story at all. Then this amazing line:
Because Palin stopped holding public office in the summer of 2009, and because the stakes were so low, this stuff never really took off.
You mean while she was promoting a book detailing bizarre details of the story, was regarded for months as the top GOP opposition leader, and commanded massive media attention, there was no need to investigate this? And the stakes were so low? You mean the exposure of possibly the greatest hoax in American history would have had no impact on the MSM or the RNC or McCain or Harper Collins? This is now just perverse hostility to journalism. Then he admits that his criterion for pursuing a story is entirely dependent on whether the parties make an issue of it:
Did I just admit that I paid more attention to birtherism, in part, because some Republicans made an issue out of it? Sure, that was part of it. You need some impetus for investigating rumors.
How about the impetus of crazy on-the-record stories by a candidate about a central part of her message? And note how this passive attitude skews the news. The GOP makes a huge fuss about many crazy stories – because they’re crazy. So Weigel covers them. The Democrats? Not so nuts. So Weigel doesn’t cover them. And one wonders how a liberal MSM actually enables the Republican media edge?
Jon Stewart, you have Exhibit A. A journalist bored because a story isn’t being pushed by Republican fanatics.
The Dish 