|This page is part of WikiProject Alaska, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to Alaska. Check out the project page or contribute to the project discussion.|
| This page is part of WikiProject State Executives, a WikiProject.
If you have any questions or comments please e-mail Nick at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ive been reviewing this page and it seems like some of the content is skewed in Palin's favor, like the stuff in the media section. It wouldn't be a big deal but most of it is framed as the media persecuting Palin, and there doesn't seem to be anything about valid complaints against Palin that have arisen since she became the VP candidate. This perceived bias isn't helped by the fact that almost all of the reference links in this section are broken.
There appears to be user conflict so instead of changing anything I figured I would just leave a note rather than make changes. -- Joker
Please be specific
What in particular of the media section do you find favors Palin? Please be specific, I will happily listen to suggestions and make changes if they are valid. Thank you-911News
- "Even though the false accusation was discredited and most articles about the incident have been deleted from the internet, some journalists are not convinced." If you actually go to the article referenced (the link is broken), it goes to one blog entry which does not explicitly state that the writer is "not convinced." It really implies dissatisfaction with the way the incident was handled, rather than skepticism with the McCain/Palin camp's story. Furthermore, since only one "journalist" is referenced, why is it stated as a plural ("journalists")? This, to me, implies that the media is against Palin, a theme that runs throughout this section.
- "The consensus was that she did well and that there was no surprises." What consensus? Even if there was some kind of consensus (there isn't), this statement is ambiguous and doesn't belong on this page. (Reference link in this paragraph is also broken.)
- "New York Times- "Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense."
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, who first coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in 2001, wrote "She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous," and "Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense," Krauthammer wrote. "Wrong.""
This whole section is full of issues. The two quotes that are critical of Palin are weak (they contain no real arguments and one of them is from a controversial liberal blog), while the two quotes in favor of Palin are well thought out and convincing. But there are convincing arguments against Palin, too. Why are they not referenced? Krauthammer might think Gibson's definition of "Bush doctrine" is wrong, but other authorized sources agree with Gibson.
This section ends up being skewed towards Palin because you're using good arguments in favor of Palin and weak (or non-existent) arguments against Palin.
- "Before Palin entered the picture, accusations of sexism and a double standard within the media surfaced during the 2008 election. Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)during her failed bid for the nomination said, "I understand that there has been, throughout this campaign, something of a double standard. I accept it; I live with it."" This Clinton quote is irrelevant. It strikes me that it is used to establish the premise that the media is sexist, but Clinton is not a valid source. She had her own political reasons to claim the media was sexist.
- "The majority of Americans believe that the media is also biased against Sarah Palin." Once again, broken reference link. Furthermore, this statement is not completely accurate. It would be far more neutral to say "According to a Rasmussen poll, the majority of America etc. etc. etc." Considering that there are many, many people who are skeptical of such polls in general, we shouldn't accept them as fact here on Ballotpedia. We can just reference the poll openly and honestly and maintain the same content without alienating people or discrediting ourselves in the eyes of skeptics.
But the main problem I see with this entire section is that every part of it seems to be about Palin being victimized by the media: section 1 is about false rumors spread about her and her family, section 2 is about Charlie Gibson bullying her, section three is about sexist coverage. That's all there is. If I was a Ballotpedia viewer and I stumbled upon this page I would be a little suspicious.
To be honest, these edits raised a red flag with me initially. I honestly thought it was a Palin supporter trying to make the candidate look good (see the YoungTrigg section).
P.S. Also, two things were removed from the "2008 vice presidential campaign" section and I don't see why. The first was a quote from Palin prior to McCain's announcement, where she asked what the vice president does. The second was a reference to Romney and Pawlenty stating that they felt like they were used as decoys. Both of these things were referenced and both seem relevant to me. I can kind of understand the second item being removed since nothing grew out of it so it isn't necessarily noteworthy, but the quote from Palin has been widely referenced since the announcement and is something people would be interested in.
It struck me at the time as suspicious, since both of these items don't reflect well on McCain/Palin, though they were both factual, referenced, and framed neutrally. That's why I reversed the edits.
While I do not agree with most of your arguments, I do see some merit here and there. I have already made few changes and added some references that may ease your concerns. Over the next few days I will make a few more changes. If you care to comment at that time, I will be glad to consider your thoughts.
What does deeply concern me is that you believe that the 3rd party claims that Romney and Pawlenty felt used should even be considered for her page. That shows me a lack of judgement, a serious anti-Palin bias on your part or an inability to comprehend what is objective journalism. Maybe that is not an accurate perception, but with all do respect, it does make me question your thought process.
I could have sworn that my reference contained quotes from Pawlenty and Romney (or at least one of them), but looking at it now I see it doesn't. This is less of a lack of judgement and more of a flat-out mistake. At the very least I should have added more context to that statement in the article. (EDIT: I did at least put "reportedly", rather than stating it as fact or stating that they themselves made the claim. More context would have been appropriate, though, if it was going to be on the page at all. The main reason I put it up in the first place was because I thought it might grow into a bigger story in the following days; it didn't.)
It seems a little silly to infer "a serious anti-Palin bias" based on one sentence. I'll admit, I don't care for the woman's politics, but I don't care for the politics featured on 99.99% of the pages I've edited or created. It doesn't stop me from being objective.
Nonetheless, since you think my work has shown an anti-Palin bias and I think your work has shown a pro-Palin bias, it seems like the best thing to do would be for us to co-edit this page and balance each other out (this is, after all, the principle behind Wikis).
Honest Mistake is OK
As you pointed out, you thought the source was a direct quote from Romney and Pawlenty. Honest mistake and that is OK. I sincerely welcome your comments and as you may have already noticed, I did make a few changes because, as I said, some of your comments have merit. This also isn't finished, not even close.
I'm not in competition with anyone. I just want to lay the info out and let our readers decide. So don't hesitate to express your concerns. I welcome them. Besides, since you think I am bias, I can't help but even be more aware of my content.