Exactly the point, she does come out well and was completely within state guidelines. But the casual reader sees the headline "Palin expenses under scrutiny" and makes a negative assumption.

End result - there's no story here but we have a controversial headline. The "scrutiny" appears to be that of the reporter and not any governmental agency. It's sickening.


>>Another hit piece that, when you read it, belies the title
>>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212/
>>
>>MSNBC is truly on a crusade, huh? Unbiased media my butt.
>
>
>Where's the bias it seems like an article about her expenses and she seems to come out quite well.
>
>"Palin spent $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski"
>
>Maybe your skins a bit thin at the moment as you seem to take any article about her (unless its about how the sun shines out of her rear) as a smear.
>
>Remember as a nobody politician up to now everything about her is going to get raked over.as its all new.