The Enquirer's latest Sarah Palin story II

Following the email story. Click to enlarge.

Update: Times article confirms Sarah Palin gave birth in April; cites witnesses in delivery room; unclear how much detail was taken from People

The New York Times article on Sarah Palin's five-month-old Down syndrome child does not mention the rumours that the child was actually delivered by her daughter Bristol. Instead, it is a straightforward chronology of the events leading to Palin's delivery of the child and an implicit editorial criticism of her use of the child as as political prop:

"... with Trig in her arms, Ms. Palin has risen higher than ever. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, says he selected her as his running mate because of her image as a reformer, but she is also making motherhood an explicit part of her appeal... In just a few months, she has gone from hiding her pregnancy from those closest to her to toting her infant on stage at the Republican National Convention.

"No one has ever tried to combine presidential politics and motherhood in quite the way Ms. Palin is doing, and it is no simple task. In the last week, the criticism she feared in Alaska has exploded into a national debate... some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain.

"But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers. And on Wednesday in St. Paul, she proclaimed herself a guardian of the nation’s disabled children..."

Reported by three Times reporters, the article relies heavily on the authorized People magazine interview with Palin and her family, yet does seem to confirm that Palin went through with the delivery:

"When Ms. Palin arrived at the hospital, she was still not in labor, so her doctor induced it, Ms. Bruce said. Trig was born early the next morning, weighing 6 pounds 2 ounces.

"Parents who were in the next delivery room said the scene looked like any other, with no security detail in sight. The three Palin daughters came and went, and as Todd Palin passed through the corridors, he stopped to accept congratulations..."

The article also points to the possibility that Palin, who is solidly against abortion, may have considered the alternative herself:

"...A few weeks later, after an amniocentesis — a prenatal test to identify genetic defects — Ms. Palin learned the results (that the fetus was afflicted with Down syndrome). Some abortion opponents decline such tests, but as her older sister, Heather Bruce, said, Ms. Palin “likes to be prepared.” With her husband, Todd, away at his job in the oil fields of the North Slope, Ms. Palin told no one for three days, she later said.

"Once they reunited, the Palins struggled to understand what they would face. Children with Down syndrome experience varying degrees of cognitive disability and a higher-than-average risk of hearing loss, hypothyroidism and seizure disorders. About half are born with heart defects, which often require surgery.

"The couple decided to keep quiet about the pregnancy so they could absorb the news, they told people later..."

The question of Sarah Palin's parentage of her fifth child has been a major issue in Alaska since her surprise announcement, and a troubling and issue since she was cynically and recklessly selected by John McCain as his running mate. The Times, a paper that has often demonstrated good tabloid instincts, confirmed the story's legitimacy through its follow-up, while demonstrating to its "mainstream" colleagues an effective way of chasing a lead that could be seen as an unseemly: getting to the bottom of it without mentioning the reason for the investigation.

The Times did not "take their word for it."

Now, on to that affair and those photos!

URGENT! DRUDGE REPORTS THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES IS FOLLOWING TABLOID BABY'S LEAD WITH A MAJOR STORY ON PALIN BABY

Who would have guessed that Sarah Palin's baby would turn out to be the Tabloid Baby of the Year?

We would.

For a week now, we've been saying that the "mainstream media" was cowardly and wrong to, in the shocking words of CNN talking head Jeffrey Toobin, "take their word" and, despite convincing evidence, step away from investigating whether Sarah Palin's newborn child Trig is actually the son of Palin's daughter Bristol-- and that Palin, the evangelical, fundamentalist, abstinence-promoting conservative hypocrite, pretended to have given birth in order to score political points with right wingers and right-to-lifers.

Whether because of misguided elitist politesse or fear of corporate overlords, any journalist who'd dismiss the story needs an old-school tabloid re-education.

So hooray for liberals grinding axes!


This afternoon, Matt Drudge reports that the New York Times, who've sharpened the blade expertly all week, plans a major story on the subject.

Drudge got us going with the original headline

NYT PREPARES TO FRONT EXPOSE
ON PALIN'S BABY...
DEVELOPING...

before knocking it down a storm category or two, but still promising some real investigation:

NYT PREPARES TO FRONT
DETAILED STORY ON PALIN'S
BABY, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL
DRUDGE... DEVELOPING...

The conclusion to the six-month mystery doesn't matter as much as the fact that journos doing their jobs.

Timesman Frank Rich warned today that "by hurling charges of sexism and elitism at any easily cowed journalist who raises a question about Palin, McCain operatives are hoping to ensure that whatever happened in Alaska with Sarah Palin stays in Alaska. Given how little vetting McCain himself has received this year — and that only 58 days remain until Nov. 4 — they just might pull it off."

Not if we can help it.

And by the way, where's PETA in all of this, with macho mama's aerial wolf hunting and all?

The LA Times leaves out key information in the Sarah & Bristol Palin pregnancy scandal, showing again why it is irrelevant in the Internet age

Weeks after it ignored the John Edwards baby scandal that erupted on its turf, The Los Angeles Times runs a story on its website this afternoon about the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Bristol, pointedly neglecting to mention that the reason the McCain-Palin camp released the news was to counter stories that Bristol is actually the mother of Palin's five-month-old son.

Who are these guys trying to fool?

LA Times:

"ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin said today that her 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and plans to wed.

"In a statement released by the campaign, Sarah and Todd Palin did not say when their daughter told them the news. But John McCain's campaign aides said they were aware of Bristol's pregnancy before the presumptive Republican presidential nominee chose Palin as his running mate...

"(McCain strategist Steve) Schmidt said the campaign had hoped that Bristol's pregnancy would remain private in spite of 'a lot of very disturbing nasty smears moving around on the Internet.' He said the campaign released the Palins' statement because of the number of media inquiries about Bristol..."

The New York Times:

"ST. PAUL — The 17-year-old daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate, is five months pregnant, Ms. Palin announced today, adding a new element of tumult to a the Republican convention that had already been disrupted by Hurricane Gustav...

"The announcement was intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Ms. Palin had claimed to have given birth to her fifth child in April when, according to the rumors, the child was her daughter’s."

The story's been on the front burner all weekend. The old men at the Los Angeles Times, in their white shirts and ties need to realize that nowadays, when they withhold information because it's deemed "unsuitable," they only expose themselves.