Sarah Palin's Vanity Fair article's controversy continues. An 18 page spread in Vanity Fair discussed the former VP hopeful in a negative light. Of course, Sarah Palin is a dynamic person and is heavily involved with the Tea Party movement. Out of the political faces out there, she's definitely one of the more divisive.
So it comes as no shocker that someone would write an adversarial piece about her. However, given that she has an extremely loyal backing of supporters, one would think that a journalist trying to rip her apart would fact-check and make sure that all the t's were crossed and the i's dotted.
We can forgive a simple recreational blogger for making a mistake, but when a journalist for a major publication such as Vanity Fair has a "whoopsie" it sort of makes you wonder about the publication as a whole.
Michael Joseph Gross, the writer of the Vanity Fair column on Sarah Palin identified a child as Sarah Palin's son, Trig - when really it was the son of Gina Loudin, a conservative activist from St. Louis. Gross was trying to point out that Sarah Palin used her children as political pawns - but Trig wasn't even at that event.
Loudin told the press that she had informed Gross that the baby was hers, not Trig - but he ignored it.
If that's the case - and Gross did admit to the Associated Press that he made a mistake - can you really trust the article? Even if Gross did have some valid points in his Vanity Fair piece about Sarah Palin, the whole message has been tainted by errors and controversy.
Sarah Palin's Vanity Fair article is questionable, at best. Vanity Fair published a 10,000 word piece about former VP hopeful Sarah Palin - and reporters who fact check have noticed several holes in what was supposed to be a strong attack against her.
The article even went as far to say that she used her children as political props - especially her special child Trig. Trig has Downs Syndrome. However, the event that the article discussed was one that Trig did not attend.
The article is so grotesque, that even a feminist who neither approves of Sarah Palin or politics in general is speaking out about the whole article. Melissa McEwan says:
"Gross' article, however, amounts to very little but "Sarah Palin is the worst because she's in politics...and is A WOMAN. Sure, it's covert sexism. Gross doesn't talk about her boobs or use identifiable misogynist epithets to describe her, but it's sexism nevertheless, as the (frequently dislikable) habits of many major politicians, of both parties, are used to build the case that Palin is remarkably awful. But there is nothing particularly remarkable about a politician who requires family members get permission to grant interviews. Nor about a politician who ambitiously trades favors and ruthlessly gets people fired who cross her. Nor about a politician who acts like an entitled ass. What makes this article the worst thing I've read all day is the fact that most of what's in it is the sort of [expletive] that is considered (rightly or wrongly) the mundane business of doing politics, and yet is somehow ZOMG SHOCKING when done by Sarah Palin."
Although Sarah Palin is almost as controversial as Glenn Beck, she tends to avoid the mainstream media. She favors more conservative media outlets such as the controversial Fox News. She's a working mom, a politician, and a Fox News contributor. It seems like at the height of her career, her adversaries want to tear her down.
It sure did backfire, didn't it?
