Really, Associated Press? Really?

It should be no surprise when yet another anti-Palin story hits the news wire. Why, it wouldn’t be a day without one.

Today’s epic philippic comes from one Rachel D’Oro of the Associated Press, who breathlessly blurts out news of a scandal of scandals: Bristol Palin was paid $262,000 last year by the Candie’s Foundation to speak about the ill-advised nature of teenagers getting pregnant. A subject with which she has some familiarity.

Obviously, this is news because… because… well… did you see how much money she made?

Which is no one’s business but hers and the Candie’s Foundation, which despite the best efforts of the current administration to regulate who can be paid what is still free to pay whatever amount it wants to whomsoever it wants. But back to the story.

If you dig down, down, down — all the way to the eleventh paragraph — you discover this line:

The blog Palingates first reported the compensation figure.

Palingates.

Uh-huh.

The blog that even freakin’ E! Online, in an article about the subject loaded with snark, manages to identify as an anti-Palin site. Apparently this was missed by Ms. D’Oro.

She apparently also missed, on said blog, its link to a document screaming that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig.

Uh-huh. Again.

Obviously a qualified source for hard facts.

Really, Associated Press? Really?

You’re so desperate for anything to throw against the Palins, even as your favorite son Obama would rather shut down the federal government than stop spending the country into financial ruin you troll a demented hate blog for “research” into a non-story?

Really?

Wow, you’re awesome.

Susan

It amazes me that the main stream media continues to claim the moral high ground. Bristol Palin discussed being a paid spokesperson for Candies on The View at least 6 months ago. Obama is Missing in Action at this point but zero reporting from the ‘journalists’ about that.
Pingback: Prosser Clings to Narrow Lead | POWIP
Todd S Jenkins

Well, to be fair, the bigger picture is that the foundation paid Ms. Palin seven times more than all the funds it paid out to teen pregnancy prevention groups. Candie’s also spent $185K for advertising on ABC Family, more than five times the money that actually went into the cause. Such a disparity in funding is a major issue, no matter who the spokesperson is.
Diondrum

Well, Todd, if what you say is true, perhaps Candie’s paid Ms. Palin “seven times more than all the funds it paid out to teen pregnancy prevention groups” because she has name recognition and personal insight and it helps their cause. Scandalous!

“Candie’s also spent $185K for advertising on ABC Family, more than five times the money that actually went into the cause.” That statement would benefit from some elaboration, but isn’t advertising a cause a necessary part of a cause? Oh the conspiracy! Quick! Someone alert the Daily idiot, Andy Sullivan.
Todd S Jenkins

Diondrum, I don’t think you’re following me. The scandal is not Bristol Palin, but the idea that about 2/3 of the organization’s funds went to pay off one single celebrity spokesperson. It doesn’t speak well of the Candie’s Foundation; it’s akin to a CEO’s salary totaling more than all the other employees in his company combined.
Caligirl

Ya, I’m not even a big Palin supporter, but this kind of stuff is reaching. The point about the charity foundation’s fund allocations is fair, but has nothing to do with Bristol Palin. Many charities spend more on overhead/advertising than they do on actual aid. It’s easy enough to research charities these days and find out what percent of every dollar gets spent on overhead and what gets spent on aid. Instead of sniping at Bristol (who seems to be turning out to be a fairly level-headed young lady), just don’t support a charity that has a poor overhead-to-aid ratio.