In an article on the response of conservatives to the media coverage of Sarah Palin, Politico's Jonathan Martin examines the "time-honored and strategic effort by Republicans" to "blame the media". One example of the McCain campaign's strategy:
Tuesday, the campaign ratcheted up the criticism, singling out New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller for her reporting on whether McCain sufficiently vetted Palin.
"Ms. Bumiller, if you'd like to try reporting instead of writing fiction, here's a link to our press line," campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb wrote, snarkily offering a phone number to the campaign headquarters.
Martin does not point out that the Times had to issue a retraction of Bumiller's report that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years. In a piece examining the "strategic" element of the McCain campaign's media crticism, is it fair to leave out the instances in which the media have reported false information about Palin? Such as the claim that Palin was a Pat Buchanan supporter? Or the Washington Post report that "Palin Slashed Funds For Teen Moms", when in fact she increased funding by $3.9 million rather than $5 million?
