There was a recent Associated press article regarding Sarah Palin’s comments about the relationship between Barack Obama, and the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Objective journalism? Let’s take a look.
The writer, Douglass K. Daniel starts off by suggesting that the McCain’s campaign is not only faltering, but it may get worse, suggesting that Palin’s remarks are somehow racially tinged. This is curious, considering that Ayers happens to be white, but Daniel finds a connection somehow.
He next decides that Palin’s remarks are unsubstantiated. It’s unclear what Daniel’s finds unsubstantiated, but even the New York Times concedes a connection. McCain will end up regretting all of this, according to Daniel. Was that a threat, or did he just mean McCain’s campaign would falter even more?
According to Daniel, this is just a deliberate attempt to smear Obama.
The story shows few cracks when Daniel suggest Palin’s comments were exaggerated at best. He seems to run out of gas, and the article quickly degerates into a presumed veiled racial attack against Obama.
Daniel suggests that the McCain campaign is using internet rumors (not attributed to McCain) to keep alive the notion that Obama may be a foreign born Muslim, not a Hawaiin born Christian, that hey, happens to pal around with terrorists. The fact is, there are questions about his birth. Palin is doing this with her white audience. Daniel suggests that throwing a racial aspect into this benefits McCain by having Obama defend himself instead of addressing the issues.
A one sided article? You be the judge.