Seriously, is there someone even a close second? Now they are recruiting the unwashed masses to read her emails--looking, no doubt, for things to extol her for. When will the Palin-hating media ever focus its attention on Obama like this?

Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska's governor will be released Friday. That's a lot of e-mail for us to review so we're looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.

We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the e-mails. Participants can join from anywhere with a computer and an Internet connection. Read more about how it will work.

If you need inspiration before getting started, take a look at what to expect from the e-mail drop.

I mean, really, she's not President. As far as we know she's not running. So, why all the focus? The Wa-Po (above) and the NY Times are looking for . . . what, exactly?

Meanwhile, we're fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq (well, there are still troops there), Libya, and now Yemen--who knows how many new wars Obama will be launching. Iran's going nuclear. The economy is in the dumper. We have a debt that boggles the mind and are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. States are on the verge of bankruptcy. We have a myriad of problems and the media is zeroing in on emails from a former governor of a lightly-populated State?

If that makes sense to you, you probably hate her too.

Hate? No. Dislike - certainly. Distrust - muchly. Disdain - sure.

I'm pretty sure there were some controversies over her tenure, though. Surely every elected official is accountable to the people who elected them, and none should be considered above scrutiny. Do you give them a pass because other stuff is going on? Perhaps they should give Weiner a pass too, he's only a fairly junior congressman, after all.

This technique is catching on though - kind of crowdsourcing for research. In reality it just speeds up the process, but it also brings people 'in' to the paper, giving them part-ownership of it. Palin loves being in the media, as her current tour of the East Coast demonstrates, and this is the flipside of being a personality - especially one with a public past.

I guess a lot of people are absolutely terrified at the prospect of somebody so obviously batshit insane coming close to the levers of power. There again there's also the fact that Palin and her friends fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the release of these emails, which implies that there's something to hide and so naturally will lead to a lot of curiosity.

danivon wrote:Hate? No. Dislike - certainly. Distrust - muchly. Disdain - sure.

I'm pretty sure there were some controversies over her tenure, though. Surely every elected official is accountable to the people who elected them, and none should be considered above scrutiny.

Agreed.

Is she in office?

Is it the press' job to investigate her or to farm it out?

Did you fail to notice all the whining about her bus tour? Everything from it was "illegal" to complaining they were having trouble keeping up with her because she did not give them her schedule.

Do you give them a pass because other stuff is going on? Perhaps they should give Weiner a pass too, he's only a fairly junior congressman, after all.

I'm sure you don't watch American MSM. If you did, you'd know that they are giving Weiner, by and large, a pass. The guy's been married a year--one year--and just look at all he's "getting done."

The worst aspect of that was that he lied--to people and about others. He said malicious things that he knew weren't true. Was there a MSM investigation? Did they round up readers/viewers to investigate?

For the most part, they tried to let it go. NBC's Brian Williams didn't even cover it. He said he didn't have time. Yet, the very same day he could/should have covered it, he took time to go after Palin for the Revere story, in which many historians argue she was, essentially, correct.

There is a Palin-phobia in the MSM that makes Bushphobia look rather tame.

Apparently, Margaret Thatcher is a 'hater' too.

Not many times I would agree with our former PM, but she's certainly got discretion when it comes to who she hangs out with.

Sassenach wrote:I guess a lot of people are absolutely terrified at the prospect of somebody so obviously batshit insane coming close to the levers of power. There again there's also the fact that Palin and her friends fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the release of these emails, which implies that there's something to hide and so naturally will lead to a lot of curiosity.

Who decides who is insane? The media?

Obama has fought tooth and nail to prevent a lot of things. His record on FOIA requests is feeble.

So, by your logic. Obama is guilty of something too.

danivon wrote:Apparently, Margaret Thatcher is a 'hater' too.

Not many times I would agree with our former PM, but she's certainly got discretion when it comes to who she hangs out with.

So, was the media as rabid about Senator Obama?

Steve, what I said was that people are more likely to curious about the contents of emails where their release has been strongly contested. That would apply to anything that Obama is perceived to be hiding too. I have no idea whether Palin is hiding anything or not, but I suspect that at the very least there will be a lot of stuff that might make her look bad. Not that I'm personally curious all that much, but I can understand how a lot of people might be.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Hate? No. Dislike - certainly. Distrust - muchly. Disdain - sure.

I'm pretty sure there were some controversies over her tenure, though. Surely every elected official is accountable to the people who elected them, and none should be considered above scrutiny.

Agreed.

Is she in office?

No, but I didn't think that leaving office meant you were immune from any comeback from when you were. Mind you, we don't have political 'pardons' like you enlightened guys do.

Is it the press' job to investigate her or to farm it out?

Perhaps you missed it in my post, but it's a new way of working for the media. They have been cutting down on staff and are also trying to use the new media. Crowdsourcing research is a cost-effective and quick way to do what would take many man-hours. Giving journalists and researchers more time to work on other stuff (you know, like the stuff you listed above that is more important).

The press (like the police) has always relied on information from the public to do it's 'job', and this is just more of that. I can understand you not liking where they are looking, but the method is pretty sound.

The Guardian used it recently with the MP expenses claims, which came out as a huge mass of electronic data all at once.

Did you fail to notice all the whining about her bus tour? Everything from it was "illegal" to complaining they were having trouble keeping up with her because she did not give them her schedule.

All I've heard about is that she messed up talking about Paul Revere (and then her minions tried to deface the Wikipedia page to make it conform to her error).

But don't try and tell me that she didn't embark on it as a way of getting herself all over the media. She knows full well what she's getting into (or should do).

I'm sure you don't watch American MSM. If you did, you'd know that they are giving Weiner, by and large, a pass. The guy's been married a year--one year--and just look at all he's "getting done."

Again, all I've heard is that he's been caught out badly. The only references I've seen have been on 'liberal' media outlets and here.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Apparently, Margaret Thatcher is a 'hater' too.

Not many times I would agree with our former PM, but she's certainly got discretion when it comes to who she hangs out with.

So, was the media as rabid about Senator Obama?

What is your question in response to? I was talking about Thatcher and Palin. What are you talking about.

Actually, it's quite ironic. Even in a thread where you bemoan other people's obsession with disliking a prominent national politician, you can't help but make sure to put in something about the prominent national politician that you have an obsession with disliking.

But I suppose you can't see that.

[quote="danivon"No, but I didn't think that leaving office meant you were immune from any comeback from when you were. Mind you, we don't have political 'pardons' like you enlightened guys do. [/quote]

Not what I said, but what else is new?

Here's the point: they're expending a lot of energy on someone who is not in office and has not announced she is running for office. Until the last few days, they were pretty much shilling for Weiner. They won't ever stop shilling for Obama, no matter how many wars he starts, how bad the economy is, or how many outright lies he tells.

Why is that?

Perhaps you missed it in my post, but it's a new way of working for the media.

Right and she is the best focus for this? Maybe they can dig up some personal dirt!

From the time she accepted the VP nomination, she has been the most scrutinized person in American politics. Period.

All I've heard about is that she messed up talking about Paul Revere (and then her minions tried to deface the Wikipedia page to make it conform to her error).

Whatever. Read this. There are plenty more. Of course, they're not posting where you get all your news.

But don't try and tell me that she didn't embark on it as a way of getting herself all over the media. She knows full well what she's getting into (or should do).

Right. And, they fell right into it--while complaining about her! She was making their "job" difficult. Really? Well then, don't follow her! It won't change my life--or anyone else's.

Again, all I've heard is that he's been caught out badly. The only references I've seen have been on 'liberal' media outlets and here.

I could source all this too, but I won't. For the whole time he was lying, what mainstream media people even thought that was possible? Wolf Blitzer has admitted being duped.

You believe what you want to believe. I don't have enough time to inform you.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Apparently, Margaret Thatcher is a 'hater' too.

Not many times I would agree with our former PM, but she's certainly got discretion when it comes to who she hangs out with.

So, was the media as rabid about Senator Obama?

What is your question in response to? I was talking about Thatcher and Palin. What are you talking about.

1. You didn't source it.
2. Thatcher's not part of the media.
3. We have no idea, based on your illustrative post, why she would not meet with Palin. For all we know, it could be health, schedule, or not wanting to be perceived to be involved in American politics. Thanks to you we have no idea at all.

Actually, it's quite ironic. Even in a thread where you bemoan other people's obsession with disliking a prominent national politician, you can't help but make sure to put in something about the prominent national politician that you have an obsession with disliking.

Why is that?

1. Because he is President. (Palin is . . . ex-governor of a State with what percentage of the American population?)
2. Because the press covers his inadequacies and failures better than his own spin machine does.
3. Because he is running our country into the ground.

But I suppose you can't see that.

The irony is this: they expend immense energy going after someone with no power and fail to examine the man who is the most powerful on Earth, yet YOU think that makes sense.

So it's ok to try to investigate Palin like this, it's par for the course of public service? partly true, but as Steve asked who else can be pointed to that went through anything even remotely close to this? She is not (yet?) running for office, she is no longer in office, she is a has been and is drumming up more hatred from the supposed fair and unbiased mainstream media than we have ever seen.

Point to anyone else in or out of office who has seen this sort of thing, you simply can not find it.

Doctor Fate wrote:[quote="danivon"No, but I didn't think that leaving office meant you were immune from any comeback from when you were. Mind you, we don't have political 'pardons' like you enlightened guys do.

Not what I said, but what else is new?[/quote]So how is it relevant whether she is still in office or not? The point is that she has been in office and the emails relate to that period.

Here's the point: they're expending a lot of energy on someone who is not in office and has not announced she is running for office.

One minute you are complaining that they are getting other people to do the work, the next that they are spending a lot of energy. I don't think you 'get' crowdsourcing - the point is that it's quicker and less intensive on staff.

Tom - every MP in the UK had their expenses claims looked at like this a year or so ago. Several other stories have used this method in the UK that I know of. it's the same thing that was done when someone got hold of the 'Climategate' emails - a load of data was released and loads of people invited to pore through them to look for any dirt they could find.

It's the way of the future, and anyone can do it and any public figure (or anything where a lot of data is released in a short space of time) could be seen for it.

It's not par for the course of public service, but it is par for the course if you seek attention in the public.

Nice try, still waiting for an example of any US politician undergoing such scrutiny, and did we have thousands of people going through their every email as well? Did these UK politicians also face constant media attention like Palin has? We have examples of her doing nothing wrong yet the media chooses to cover her and her supposed "problems" while giving less time to a Democrat Congressman caught in an outright public lie and scandal.
...nope, didn't think so.