Michelle Malkin » P.D.S. alert: Us magazine’s partisan hit job

P.D.S. alert: Us magazine’s partisan hit job

By Michelle Malkin • September 2, 2008 11:17 PM

The next time you’re waiting at the grocery stands and tempted to buy Us magazine, stop and think again. Unless you’re buying it for oppo research, you may not want to put money in the pockets of rabid partisans who have turned their gossip rag into a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party.

This is the cover of the latest issue of Us:

Now, let me remind you who and what Us magazine put on its June 19, 2008 cover:

A source forwards the following e-mail from former Clinton operative and Us weekly flack, Mark Neschis, that went out to all media in St. Paul:

Thought I would send over our Us Weekly/Sarah Palin cover story, on stands Friday, if helpful in your coverage. Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out.(Us Weekly has 12 million, mostly female readers)

Mark Neschis
Corporate Communications Director
Wenner Media
Us Weekly | Rolling Stone | Men’s Journal

Steve Hayes notes that Us publisher Jann Wenner is a prominent Obama donor.

Wenner also publishes Rolling Stone, which deified Obama in March. Remember?:

The use of the gossip rags to shape the election is all part and parcel of the Brangelina-fication of the Obamas that I wrote about earlier this summer. They are pulling out all the stops to glorify The One and demonize all who stand in his way.

Truth, fairness, and decency be damned.

Palin Derangement Syndrome photoshop: David Lunde

***

Readers are leaving their two cents about Us magazine’s partisan hit job on the rag’s website here.

***

Ace:

The Tabloidization of Palin: The strategy is to deny her any credibility or gravitas by turning her into a tabloid soap-opera star.

Could it work? Sure, it could. But they have a lot running against them, too.

Let’s sort of remind them:

Bristol Palin, a 17 year old girl, is not, in fact, running for Vice President, and probably is not even eligible for the position until she successfully passes Civic Studies.

I know Obama would like to run against Bristol Palin. He might actually have more experience and gravitas than she does.

Then again, she’s quite young. In a few years, Barack will be salivating to run against Willow.

***

The National Enquirer jumps on the Palin-bashing bandwagon.

Posted in: Sarah Palin

Printer Friendly

comments (472)

trackbacks (94)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#501

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm, sandyb said:

Sarah Palin: David
MSM/Obamazombies: Goliath
Cue the “Rocky” music.
#502

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm, chapoutier said:

It certainly looks that way from out here in flyover land, where common sense, small town values, and middle class lifestyle is the norm.

And that’s why Tweak’s coffee is the only one for me.
#504

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

Ordinary Coloradan said:

Wow, you’re right this is the chrysalis of a “Jacksonian” GOP. Thanks for the post.
#505

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm, nyk said:

Do you even know what “indict” means?

Do you even know who you’re talking to? Don’t be silly. Of course he doesn’t!

I am still waiting for a five-sentence-or-less description of conservatism from a conservative’s point of view, gleaned from NYK’s explorations into the rube-filled world of MM land.

Or am I asking something that is simply too painful for the hive-mind to produce – like asking a vampire to build a cross, cook a bowl of garlic soup, or clean a mirror?
#506

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm, RockyR said:

Sally Quinn was just on O’Reilly and summed up these attacks on Palin quite succinctly:

“McCain should have indicated months ago that she was one of the names being considered, that way the MEDIA could have vetted her… as well as the McCain campaign”.

McCain didn’t consult the media for his choice, and that has them PISSED off. Afterall, THEY are the MOST POWERFUL force in America.

@$$h0135.
#507

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm, RockyR said:

I am still waiting for a five-sentence-or-less description of conservatism from a conservative’s point of view, gleaned from NYK’s explorations into the rube-filled world of MM land.

You can’t sum conservatism up in five sentences or less. It’s too sophisticated a world view. It requires a conversation over a cold beer.
#508

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

I am upset that O”Reilly called Governor Sarah MRs. Palin. As I recall, he usually calls BO Senator. Others also have done similar things, calling her Sarah, or Sarah Palin, and not GOVERNOR. Sexist, or just innocent slips.
#509

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm, T-Bone said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am, nyk said:
NYK, you obviously have not read this site.
No, actually, I’ve read it plenty, hence my take on conservatives. I came here wanting to learn more about how conservatives think, hoping to hear something new (I read the site for about a year before ever posting). What I’ve learned since first visiting here from the posts and comments on this site is that most of you care little for facts or issues, and that there is no point you consider too low.

Oh — until it’s one of your own.

You are not fooling any of the conservative posters on this site. You and your ilk are so immersed in the Democrat mindthink that you can no longer think clearly. USING a 17 year old girl to make political points is just sick. It doesn’t matter if others do it.

For your side, the end justifies the means. At ALL costs. You will never be able to admit it because then you will have to seriously rethink your life positions. That may be difficult for you to cope with so you project that onto others such as commentators on this site. I don’t believe you came here to learn something about conservatives. You came here to learn
something so you could project your liberal views on us and try to sway us to your position.

I do not believe you are open minded or willing to explore ways to reach common ground. Your goal appears to be to get your way at all costs. You have convinced yourself you have the right positions on all the issues. Others here are like that too. You may have fooled yourself in your own mind but rational readers see right through you.

It would be nice to have rational discussions about major issues that we as “Americans” have. I would guess that this site offers more chance for that than Huffpo or Daily KOS. But that would violate your ideas about things so the projection continues.

I think that is sad but you probably do not. You just want to win and have your positions superior to all others.That is more important than the life of a 17 year old girl thrown to the wolves for partisan political gain.

IMO
#511

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm, mgraves said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm, edelweiss said:

As a young woman (24), I would love to see a woman elected President or VP.
I’d have loved to see Hillary on Obama’s ticket.
But not a woman like Sarah Palin, who thinks decisions about MY OWN BODY should be made by hateful old men or other Christian wingnuts.
We don’t want a woman who is a creationist, thinks science is a myth, preaches abstinence, but cannot even educate her own teen daughter.

So you are worried about hateful old men or Crhistian wingnuts but are you willing to let the government make decisions about your health care? Essentially by casting your vote for Barack Obama you are handing over many of your freedoms that you take for granted to the government.

Speaking of hate, I find your statement about Palin not being able to educate her own daughter rather hateful. I am sure that when you have kids one day they will be sooooooo perfect they will never disobey or break your rules. Just as I am sure you were a little dutiful angel and abided by ever ground rule your parents laid (eye roll). And do you really want hateful old Democratic men teaching your children about sex?
#512

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm, RockyR said:

You can’t sum conservatism up in five sentences or less. It’s too sophisticated a world view. It requires a conversation over a cold beer.

Well, yes, to be precise, it can be summed up, just not completely described.

If someone has truly been spending an entire year trying to “better understand conservatism”, as opposed to being remunerated by the hive-mind to propagandize against it, then one should at least be able to summarize its basic tenets earnestly, without bile.

I can easily sum up hive-mindism from its own point of view. Why can’t the hive-mind sum up conservatism from a conservative point of view?
#513

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:

Filmladd, you ignoramus, go luck up Russel Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles.

That’s a good starting point. There’s a lot more to it than that, but its a solid start.

I’ll give you a few of them:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world.
#514

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:

argh hit enter before I proofed that.

The ignoramus is not who I thought it was upon second reading, and was editing – ‘luck’ should be ‘look’, etc.

And the Kirk quotes needed to be trimmed down (I didn’t finish condensing 9 at all)

Apologies for the confusion and error.
#515

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm, Roland said:

You can’t sum conservatism up in five sentences or less.

Today’s conservatism? Easy. It doesn’t take five sentences.

1) Anyone fighting for the preservation of our Constitutional Republic.

Period.

How does that relate to abortion, for instance? Roe is an obvious Constitutional abomination. How does it relate to affirmative action? Government racism however ‘well intentioned’ is plainly unconstitutional. How does it relate to the WOT? Islam and the Left are aggressively working to undermine our freedom of speech and religion, including our right to argue to depose dictators nurturing the growth of terrorist Muslim organizations intent on mass murdering us. Mustn’t be a ‘warmonger.’ That’s ‘hate speech.’

The irony is that the people who are called ‘conservative’ today are those of us defending liberal democracy. The ‘liberals’ are really socialists trying to destroy it.
#516

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:

Apologies for the confusion and error.

Wow, hey, not a problem! I was really confused at first, as I was asking someone who was a liberal (claiming to have been studying us rube conservatives) to define conservatism on her own.

Now you gave it a (very good) cheat sheet! But it will still have to condense those thoughts down even further to five sentences or less.

Ah, nevermind, the hive-mind is too frightened to attempt the exercise.
#517

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm, T-Bone said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm, Ordinary Coloradan said:
Filmladd, you ignoramus, go look up Russel Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles.

That’s a good starting point. There’s a lot more to it than that, but its a solid start.

I’ll give you a few of them:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Awesome post.
#519

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm, T-Bone said:

Awesome post.

Yes, except for the friendly fire. Ouch!
#520

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm, T-Bone said:

Maybe you could add an 11th item.

Then it would be “FilmLadd at 11″
#521

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm, Rob said:

Anyone that reads TIME or NEWSWEEK or US or PEOPLE, etc. or any of those stupid tabloids that talk about movie stars and other fools are just MORONS.
#522

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm, Politicalguano said:

First Palin next our families.
They have started a war and they want our blood. We know their names and we know many of their faces. They do not know who we – to them we are bugs to be crushed. They started this war, they think we won’t fight back, that we won’t defend our families. Every year they become more vicious and destructive – it is only a matter of time before they begin to kill or maim us, or cause such pain to our families that a child or loved one commits suicide. They hate us and clearly say so.
#523

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm, Erik W said:

“Us” seems to have closed its comments for the article.
#524

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm, conservative82 said:

This helps sum up Us Magazine, on their main webpage on the right hand side they list a section of “news from trusted Us Weekly partners” and under that section under Fox News is none other than Huffington Post. Did I miss when they became a trusted news site?
#526

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm, Dimsdale said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm, RealImmigrantChick said: #433

Libs made it illegal to destroy a bold eagles’ egg, with a fine of $10K, but it is legal to kill an human baby, way more than just an animal egg.

That is a SUPERB point! Relevant and on the mark! Kudos!
#527

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm, conservative82 said:

TMZ has a story titled “Palin Don’t Preach: Bristol and Levi Unite” including a tag line

If only Bristol and Levi stopped at holding hands, they wouldn’t be in their latest predicament.
#529

On September 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm, RockyR said:

I can easily sum up hive-mindism from its own point of view. Why can’t the hive-mind sum up conservatism from a conservative point of view?

Hrm… I’ll reinforce your point. What is a “hive-mind?” I hope you spend SOME time studying something useful.

I’ll sum up my view of my own conservatism: Maximization of freedom by protecting individual liberties; enabling free market capitalistic economies; minimizing government intrusion; batting the influence of gangs, thugs, criminals, and the government (all birds of the same feather); supporting constructive cultures before barbarism, eliminating race-base, identity politics; protecting life; protecting America; combatting socialism; fighting group-think; supporting REAL education that REALLY moves society forward (through innovation, invention, and enterprise); putting America and Americans FIRST, ALWAYS; and expecting more of my fellow man (or woman) than he believes he has within himself.

Does that help you in your social studies exercise?
#532

On September 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm, e.koenig said:

well after crusing the libtard blogs….and coming across comments like

It will play well with the scum. And it will be important to combat it, viscerally, viciously, brutally

and the same un-vetted arguments……i’m pretty sure that terror replaced fear.
#536

On September 4th, 2008 at 9:53 am, RabbidSquirrel said:

What happened to the days when we could post 40 entries and then we were on to the next blog topic? (Oh wait, that was just last week) Now all of you have suddenly become engaged and educated and I have to think about my answers!

Welcome back EVERYONE!!!!!
#537

On September 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am, fulldroolcup said:

I’m surprised so many wasted time with edelweiss. She’s not a citizen. she’s a euroweenie. She can’t vote here, she lives in a country that is completely morally tainted by its prissy and self-serving neutrality.

(Kinda like Obama: if you avoid making tough decisions it’s easy to deride those to do make them.)

Edelweiss doesn’t know our culture, our values, our politics. She’s a lot like that fool in the movie “Airplane”, who flits in and out offering utterly inane advice.