Are Journalists Persecuting Sarah Palin And Her Daughter?Are Journalists Persecuting Sarah Palin And Her Daughter?

The story of Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy has got McCain supporters riled up. They're angry at what they see as yet another conspiracy by the mainstream media to tear down a good conservative while giving liberal darlings like Barack Obama and John Edwards a free pass.Last week, I wrote a blog outlining how bloggers and journalists have an uneasy partnership: Bloggers report rumors, and journalists chase the rumors down, sometimes verifying them, other times reporting the rumors without verification.

In this case, an Internet site reported that the child Sarah Palin claimed was her own was actually her teenage daughter's, and the elder Palin was lying to cover up her daughter's pregnancy. Journalists started digging into the report to find out whether it was true, which led to the McCain campaign issuing a statement: The child is, indeed, the elder Palin's. However, the younger Palin is pregnant, and plans to have the baby and marry the father.

The blog post struck a nerve with readers. I think it might have been the most popular post we've run on the information Political Tech Blog. Readers had lots to say about the blog and the controversy, much of it critical, of me in particular and the media's role in reporting the story in general.

One of those comments came from a source close to home, Bob Evans, a senior VP at TechWeb, the company which publishes information. Bob complimented my overall coverage, and the Palin blog post in particular (thanks, Bob!), but went on to say:

Bob's e-mail also talked about the larger issue of whether the Palin coverage is sympathetic of liberal bias in the mainstream media. I'm going to deal with those comments another day.

Bob and I have worked together for almost 20 years now -- which is a pretty good feat, considering both of us are just in our early 20s (ha). And I have enormous respect for him personally and professionally, he's demonstrated himself to be an excellent person, manager, and journalist.

However, Bob and I disagree fundamentally on political issues. In other circumstances, that would be fine -- I have friends and family who are just as conservative as Bob, if not more so, and I love them all dearly. However, Bob is not just a friend and colleague, he's also my boss. No, more than that, he's my boss's boss's boss. So, his occasional strongly worded disagreements to some of my political blogs have caused me a little stress over the years.

However, we talked this one out on the phone, and he courageously agreed to allow me to publish his e-mail and respond to it here. I said I would clean the text up a little bit, because language used in a private e-mail written in haste is often not the same language we want used on a public blog.

I struggled with whether to cut the language in the last sentence -- the reference to Edwards "boning his freelance videographer" -- but I decided in the end that it was Bob's e-mail and his choice. He's angry. I've certainly used worse language in my own political rants.

That said, let me deal with Bob's points:

First off, he wants to know why Bristol Palin is fair game. I think Markos Moulitsas, publisher of the blog Daily Kos, which drove the Bristol Palin story into the national spotlight, addresses that point pretty well. Moulitsas said in an e-mail to information: "Her daughter's pregnancy *is* relevant in the context of her mother's opposition to sex education and her vetoing of funding for a shelter for pregnant teens. And, Republicans can't complain about families being drug into the national debate when they've been virtually pimping their Iraq-bound son. Either family is all in, or all out."

As long as candidates -- like Palin -- make their private lives and families part of the public campaign, then those should be scrutinized as well.

I don't see a good solution to this problem. By reporting on this story, journalists are beating up a 17-year-old girl. If they ignore the story, they're giving a vice-presidential candidate a free pass on family values issues which she's made integral to her political persona. Either way, somebody loses, and loses badly and unfairly.

Moreover, it's worth pointing out that the McCain campaign drove this story as much as the journalists did. As far as I know, journalists didn't report anything on Bristol Palin's pregnancy until the McCain campaign already had published a statement. Once the McCain campaign issued a statement, journalists were obliged to report on it. Note: I haven't researched extensively on this element of the story; if someone has information that contradicts my account, I'd like to see it and share it with the readers.

Bob also wants to know why journalists failed to report on John Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter. The Times described what happened here: They screwed up, and they say so. The National Enquirer reported the story when it was little more than a rumor; the Times looked into it in a cursory fashion but couldn't get confirmation. The Times decided the story was too sleazy and let it drop, just as they downplayed a similar scandal involving a Republican Congressman. By the time the Enquirer published its surveillance photos of Edwards visiting Hunter at a hotel, he was no longer a serious presidential candidate.

So: The Times screwed up by failing to report the Edwards story. They admit it. And now, faced with another story of how a candidate in the presidential election handles a family-values issue, should the Times have backed off of that story?

Bob also wants to know why mainstream journalists have given Obama a free ride on his links to Ayers and Rezko.

In fact, the link between Obama and Ayers has been thoroughly reported. Consider this April, 2008 article in The Washington Post or this piece in the New York Daily News, or these pieces on NPR.

Searching Google News on "obama rezko" reveals recent coverage in the Los Angeles Times, Marketwatch, CBSNews, and more.

Moreover, Obama got a lot of heat in the mainstream media for his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The mainstream media has by no means given Obama a free ride; he's been subjected to harsh scrutiny. Which is as it should be.

Reader Tom Hippensteel also takes issue with my blog post. He starts by complimenting me on writing "as fair an article I've seen from a 'Liberal Democrat,'" (thanks, Tom!), but goes on to disagree on a couple of points:

Chelsea Clinton was meat for her father's political opponents when he took office. Rush Limbaugh referred to her as the Clinton family dog. And John McCain, who now says that family should be off-limits in politics, felt differently then; he said Chelsea was ugly because her father was Janet Reno.

(For what it's worth, I never thought Chelsea was any uglier than any other 13-year-old. And, as I noted yesterday, the 28-year-old Chelsea Clinton of today is far from ugly.)

Hippensteel continues:

I think this idea that she "lives .. and openly discussed" family values and sexual morality but "didn't base her career" on those things is hair-splitting. She has cultivated the persona of the tough, dutiful hockey mom -- she opened her comments at the Republican National Convention by joking about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull. She boasts (justifiably!) about her son's service in Iraq. She brought her family into the campaign, and she can't complain now that her family should be off-limits. She's using her family for political gain, and no one can reasonably say it's unfair when the media scrutinizes her family.

I actually agree with Hippensteel on this point. Palin's family deserves credit for standing by its principles. I admire Sarah and Bristol Palin for standing up and doing what she believed to be the right thing. As an American, Bristol could have had an abortion, she could have given the baby up for adoption, or she could do what she's decided to do, and get married and keep and raise the baby. The Palin family made their choice, and took responsibility for their decision. I salute them for it -- and I want all Americans to have the same options, something Palin and the McCain campaign want to deny Americans.

What do you think? Has the coverage of the Palin family been fair? Let us know.