Headline in the New York Post, Monday:
Headine in US Weekly, later Monday:
OK, so what’s going on here? Why would the New York Post print a story stating as a fact that Sarah Palin’s daughter was pitching a TV show without bothering to get confirmation from any of the alleged stars of such a show? They certainly must have trusted their sources. And who would those sources be?
One online commenter said of their reunion, “When you have no way to come up with $1,700 a month in child support … and there aren’t any other jobs out there … options are limited.”
Hmmm. “One online commenter”? Better make that one anonymous commenter at a notorious anti-Palin blog:
I’m reproducing the screen-capture of that comment because I don’t want to link the blog — which is the same blog that pushed the “Palin divorce” hoax in August 2009!
Yes, that’s right. A mere anonymous commenter at the “Immoral Minority” blog (operated by a disgraced former kindergarten teacher) qualifies as an authoritative source for the New York Post. How so? Apparently, after posting that blog comment, the commenter was quoted at the Gawker gossip site last week.
As I remarked last week, some reporters seem to have added a special clause to their ethical code for all stories relating to Sarah Palin: Any “source” is acceptable, so long as the source is anti-Palin.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online