Media critics have praised the internet for allowing anybody to reach a global audience instantly and easily. This presents one problem; destroying the information is just as easy.
In the past, if political candidates stated something foolish – either to a newspaper reporter or in an advertisement – it would be printed on a piece of paper. No matter how badly the candidate’s supporters wished it never happened, it could be cited and criticized indefinitely.
Now, candidates can send out messages faster, cheaper and easier through blogs, and if the statement turns out to be something the candidate’s supporters regret, the delete button will do away with it.
Recently, some Sarah Palin supporters have taken advantage of this new trick. In 2006, the Alaskan branch of Eagle Forum, a nation-wide “pro-family” group, posted a questionnaire Palin filled out in a blog.
This was the address: http://eagleforumalaska. blogspot. com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate. html. Today, however, the address leads to nothing.
Last week, Debbie Joslin, the president of Eagle Forum Alaska and a Palin supporter, removed the blog.
Palin’s responses on the questionnaire were attracting too much criticism, Joslin said in a telephone interview on Monday.
“We’ve been getting… a lot of hateful remarks. You know, the usual,” she said.
Today, the only evidence it ever existed are quotations and informal citations in other people’s blogs, which are far from reliable sources.
People have been leaving “hateful remarks” on the blog because two of Palin’s answers in the questionnaire seemed to be a misstatement of facts.
Question 11 asks if the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance offends her. She stated, “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.”
Critics pointed out Americans recited the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time in the 1890’s, which was about half a century after the last of the founding fathers died. Moreover, the phrase “under God” was added in the 1950’s.
If the blog still existed one could ask the question: should we have a vice-president so benighted to our nation’s history?
This question will not be asked. This debate will no longer take place. It has been deleted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
How dare you question her knowledge of history! That is sexist! SEXIST!
Powerful post. I had never heard about this interview, probably because I wasn't supposed to. I don't know about you, but I thought dissent (aka "hateful remarks") was part of the political process.
What! Fuck, I'm taking screen shots next time.
Ok I googled it and it is up on the web here but they could easily say it's been tampered with and the "base" would likely believe them.
Hmf. Much more to say on this subject but I'd be preaching to the choir. We shouldn't have to try and salvage the damn thing.
Post a Comment