Sure HBO is Guilty of ‘Piling it On,’ But At Least They Say Nice Things About Todd!

It’s not our intention to overwhelm our readers with the constant dissection of the media’s attempts to downplay the much deserved scrutiny HBO has received from Palin and her supporters – who only serve to set the record straight.  However, these phony calls for objectivity are becoming more laughable by the article that we must continue to meet them head on.

The latest is an opinion piece written by Richard Roeper in the Chicago Sun Times. It caught my eye not only because I live here in Chicago but because Mr. Roeper also has a daily radio show here which follows Rush Limbaugh in the afternoon.

In the article, he attempts to come across as a fair player.  He watched the movie and begs Palin supporters and former aides who’ve pushed back against the lies which exist in the trailer alone  to wait until we watch the full film before we comment on it. 

He writes:

Last week, seven of Sarah Palin’s associates reached out to the media to denounce HBO’s “Game Change,” which they said distorts and creates events, and depicts Palin as woefully unprepared.

“To call this movie fiction gives fiction a bad name,” said Randy Scheunemann, Palin’s foreign policy adviser.

“This is sick,” said Meg Stapleton. “The media has gone too far.”

One small problem: None of the seven had actually seen the movie. That kinda undercuts your credibility, especially when you’re attacking someone else’s credibility.

Two things here: As Stacy pointed out, some of the aides actually asked for an opportunity to view the film and were denied.  Second, judging by Randy Scheunemann’s response to the lie that Palin did not know Germany was the primary button-pusher in the World Wars means he at least was privvy to a very real part of the film not reflected in the trailer.  In response to it, he said:

The idea that there was at any point that Gov. Palin expressed any uncertainty as to who were the various sides in World War I or World War II … or any other war is absolutely untrue. She was incredibly intelligent. She asked very informed questions. She was very interested and she wanted to understand John McCain’s view of foreign policy because she wanted to be the best possible vice presidential nominee.

In Mr. Roeper’s piece, even he said that this assertion by the film was a bit of a stretch.

Where “Game Change” stumbles is by piling it on. Did Palin really take notes on flash cards while aides showed her a map and explained Germany was the enemy in World War II? Come on. And the assertion Palin fell into near-catatonic states and might actually be mentally unstable also feels way over-the-top.

Apparently, Scheunemann was aware of this part of the film somehow.  Secondly, the film is based on the book which we know is not sourced properly and uses unnamed individuals. 

This leaves me to ask: where were all these hall monitors for objectivity when one group of Democrats in Alaska filed over 20 frivolous ethics complaints that were ultimately dismissed after wasting millions of taxpayer dollars?  Where were they when a creep disguised as a relevant author moved next door to Palin for a whole summer to write a book about her?  Where were they with the writing of the book Game Change and the accompanying movie?

And if Richard Roeper is going to use his power in the media to call for objectivity, why not use it to call for a little professionalism?

One can always tell when calls for fairness and objectivity are selective especially when the ones calling for it seem to get qualifiers as Roeper goes on to claim when saying:

But Palin’s grabs for power, her egotistical rants, her shocking gaps of knowledge, her crass effort to give a speech on Election Night — that rings true.

Why does that ring true exactly? Have these liberal myths been so wildly spread that they’re simply undeniable at this point?  Or is Richard Roeper actually claiming to have been there himself to watch her “grabs for power” and listen to those “egotistical rants” first hand?  Her “shocking gaps of knowledge” should have rang true in the case of Germany if Mr. Roeper really believed she had a problem lacking knowledge.  But in the specific case of Germany, suggesting she lacked that knowledge gave Roeper reason to say HBO was guilty of “piling it on.”  But as a general matter, he’s willing to accept this myth as reality.  

Over-generalizing myths about Palin’s intelligence always seem to prevail over the specific cases where she proves them wrong.  But that’s not where it ends.  To suggest Palin is anything but a servant of a people who identifies with ordinary Americans means that the person suggesting it is over-generalizing on her alleged “diva” factor and her accompanying “grabs for power.” 

Perhaps we can revisit the world of truth.  The only thing I have seen Palin grab at one of her many rallies are the hands of her supporters.  I’ve seen her grab pens to sign endless t-shirts, photographs, and campaign memorabilia.  In Indianola, Iowa among other high-profile appearances, I’ve seen Palin stay in the crowd for hours past her scheduled time doing her best to shake the hands and talk with as many individuals as possible.

This is incredibly humble considering she’s the only VP candidate to bring in 70 million viewers for a debate or draws in crowds at rallies up to 60,000.  To many of us, since Palin carried the momentum of the McCain/Palin ticket, she more than earned her right to speak at the election night rally.  The people wanted to hear from her.  Of course this is an uncomfortable fact I am sure McCain or his handlers remain very uneasy with.

It’s Palin’s love of country and respect for the people that drives her.  If she were interested in accumulating power the way our President did, she’d spend more time trying to suck up to the media and the politicos.  The fact that she doesn’t sadly results in cheap shots accompanied by phony indignation — the kind we find in articles like this.

Aside from asking us to spend time watching the piece of fiction, Roeper trys to sweeten the deal:

Game Change” is extremely generous in its depiction of the Palin family. Todd is portrayed as a loving, supporting husband; the kids engulf Mom with hugs and prayers. The only time we see Levi Johnston is when Sarah thanks him for cutting his mullet.

So, there you have it.  Despite saying she’s “on the verge of a nervous breakdown,” or that she didn’t know Germany’s role in the World Wars, we should at least be grateful that they were so “generous” to Todd and her children.

Is Roeper suggesting that there might be a media narrative which has sought to destroy Sarah Palin’s marriage and motherhood?  Nobody’s ever fecklessly and baselessly attempted to question her fidelity or even her maternity of Trig, right?  Oh, wait.

On the basis of fact, why would anyone have reason not to portray Todd as a loving and supporting husband?  This is a man Sarah fell in love with in high school and who she had five children with.  The fact that she did it in one wedlock resulted in those well-adjusted and warm children who “engulf Mom with hugs and prayers.” 

Sorry Mr. Roeper.  There are no qualifiers for blatant lies and a vivid display of smear.  Because they happen to acknowledge her successes as a mother and wife doesn’t mean that the whole thing isn’t a general piece of trash.  And since you, a member of the media, have decided that you can use generalities when specific examples deny your conclusions, please don’t tell us we can’t do the same thing especially when specific example proves our generalizations accurate.



(1302 Posts)

Leave a Reply