>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.


There was a very good story on Anderson Cooper 360 last night. It was all about the Palin smear campaign going on - what was fact and what was fiction. The results were that most of it was entirely fiction and the remainder was facts twisted to sound worse, but that the damage done would be minor since only Democrats, not undecided Independents would believe without verification. Surprisingly, so much of the crap is spewed on all the news shows and chat shows. I even heard the hosts of the view yesterday spouting that Palin wanted to put teaching creationism in public schools which is untrue (and covered in the story last night).