Game changing for the worse
Buzz-meisters Halperin and Heilemann ignored a basic reporting rule -- and made me feel sorry for Sarah Palin
Topics: Game Change, Political Books, Politics News
Rarely do I find myself sympathizing with Sarah Palin on any matter, including her endless recriminations about the press coverage she has endured since her rise to political superstardom. (That coverage, often superficial and weak, has made her a millionaire and a candidate for office far beyond her competence.) But like several of the other prominent political figures profiled in “Game Change,” the much-buzzed book on the 2008 presidential campaign, Palin has a real reason to feel burned this time.
Based on material fed to them by McCain campaign advisors and strategists, whose animus against Palin is no secret, authors Mark Halperin of Time and John Heilemann of New York magazine describe Palin as stunningly ignorant, lazy, dangerous — and possibly nuts. According to them, she didn’t know the difference between World War I and World War II or North and South Korea.
Those anecdotes and adjectives probably reflect the ultimate assessment of the hockey mom by the men responsible for her nomination (which tells us as much about them as about her). But shouldn’t Heilemann and Halperin have given Palin the opportunity to rebut, or at least deny, the stupid things she is accused of saying? (“60 Minutes” did.)
Under the standards of traditional American journalism and the usual practices of the news organizations where Halperin and Heilemann have worked, the answer is an unequivocal yes. The same goes for Bill Clinton, whose supposedly scandalous remark about Obama “serving coffee” to him and Ted Kennedy was never checked with him or his aides, among others.
This is not to suggest that scenes or quotes in “Game Change” were necessarily invented by the unnamed sources, although many of the book’s sources were obviously motivated by lingering resentment. These are people, after all, who spent most of 2008 telling reporters how wonderful their candidates were — and then spent the next two years whispering insults about those same politicians. So they may not be perfectly reliable, even when one of them corroborates another.
Continue Reading CloseJoe Conason is the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com. To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. More Joe Conason.



Comments
35 Comments