We have definitely found ourselves on the other side of the looking glass. The New York Times and the Washington Post, aka the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the journalism, have issued nearly identical press releases asking for 100 people to help them “analyze” the 24,000 Palin e-mails that Alaska will be releasing on Friday.
It is an act of yellow journalism unparalleled in the 21st century. These tabloid rags are mining for dirt on a woman who isn’t running for president and isn’t even a candidate for office.
The newspaper that the great Kathrine Graham once headed has made the National Enquirer look good. Her newspaper went after President Nixon and oversaw the Watergate coverage that eventually to his resignation.
Fast forward to today, where we have a fraud with multiple social security numbers sitting in the White House. Instead of searching for the truth about Obama and his eligibility, his wholesale destruction of the economy, bringing us into a third war in Libya, these papers are instead focused on their Palin Derangement Syndrome. This is sad and disgusting; and they wonder why readership is down!
This is from the Washed-Up Post:
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.
This is from the NY Times:
On Friday, the State of Alaska will release more than 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s e-mails covering much of her tenure as governor of Alaska. Times reporters will be in Juneau, the state capital, to begin the process of reviewing the e-mails, which we will be posting on NYtimes.com starting on Friday afternoon.
We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.
Now here’s the best part. Go to the comments of both papers and read what people are saying. Many, many of the comments are negative. There are some really good ones that pull no punches. Here are a few examples before they are scrubbed.
From the WaPo:
That sucking sound you hear is WaPo slipping down below the National Enquirer in quality and integrity.
That cracking sound in the background is the last remnant of the Washington Post’s integrity falling to the ground.
wow! not since the 1930s in Nazi Germany has there been such evidence of mass psychosis ..
One-Think, One-Speak partisan lap-dogs.
You’d think this was the release of the Pentagon Papers.
And these are from the Times:
Jesus, is this what it’s come to? E-lynch mobs combing through data to use to as “gotcha” material?
I don’t remember the NY Times asking the public to go through then Senator Obama’s emails to find newsworthy materials…
Astonishing to see how low the lamestream (aka state run) media have sunk. This is nothing more than juvenile junior high clique style gossip and defamation of character. It is hilarious to watch you all jump out of your skin when Sarah says, “BOO!”
No honor or pride left in the journalism business, eh? The professionalism went a long time ago.
Both the Times and the Washington Post are sending out identical notices of recruitment!! What is this journalistic ploy? How many staffers do you plan to let go to cover this assignment with “just plain folks”? Well, I guess the Progressive “investigators” can do as well. Does Obama get to add the “volunteers” to his job creation tally?
This is pathetic and quite creepy…
That last quote sums it all up, doesn’t it?