Sarah is right. These lame-stream media guys really are nuts.
[ . . . ] That night, Stephen Colbert presented highlights of [Mika] Brzezinski making her case for ignoring the remarks of the former governor of Alaska — and added his own satirical amplification of it — before rebutting it with the suggestion that, unless she declares that she will not be a presidential candidate, Ms. Palin’s statements are news.
The day after Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough vented their frustrations, the blog Talking Points Memo published a sort of break-up letter from a reader who declared: “I can’t open your page one more time and be confronted with a huge headline … and photo of Sarah Palin. It’s enough. There is no news there. I am so sorry to leave you. I have really enjoyed our time together, but I am tired of being ignored … and I can’t read about her anymore.”
In response, the blog’s editor, Josh Marshall, wrote that the site frequently gets mail from readers who say, essentially, “Why are you giving her so much attention? You’re just pumping her up. If you and the other places would stop giving her so much oxygen, she and her whole circus would just wither away.”
‘Our traffic data leaves little doubt
that our readers find stories
about Palin irresistible’
After pointing out that “our traffic data leaves little doubt that our readers find stories about Palin irresistible,” Mr. Marshall argued that even if left-leaning media outlets took to ignoring Ms. Palin, she would remain a significant figure to a large portion of the American population:
Palin is such a big deal because she’s got a chunk of the political nation that is very, very into her. She resonates deeply with her core supporters. She’s one of those people who cuts an electric figure on the public stage because she slices right through the society and generates one intense response from one side and a completely opposite but equally intense response from the other.
Links to some of the recent media exposure
for Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin
. . .
‘The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell’ • msNBC • Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 • 10 PM est
Mention by name in TIME magazine website • January 12, 2011
‘Jews For Sarah Palin Rally Around’ • The Daily Beast • January 12, 2011
Above article reposted on msNBC BLTWY
‘The Brad and Britt Show’ • FMTalk 1011 • Greensboro, NC • January 18, 2011 • 8-8:30 morning drive-time
‘Good Morning Show’ • KFAB Omaha, Nebraska • January 18, 2011 • morning drive
Benyamin Korn • ‘Statement of Jewish American for Sarah Palin regarding Gov. Palin’s use of term “blood libel” ‘ •
Published on JewsForSarah.com • January 12, 2011 • 1:15 pm EST
‘They Broke Begin, But They Won’t Break Palin’ • By Benyamin Korn • Jewish Forward • January 14, 2011
Reprint of above article in Ha’aretz (English) • January 15, 2011
‘Blame Real Inciters, Not Palin and Tea Parties’ • Jewish Telegraphic Agency • January 13, 2011
Above article reprinted in L.A. Jewish Journal • January 14, 2011
JTA article reprinted in Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, January 21, 2011
JTA article reprinted in N.J. Jewish Standard • January 15, 2011
JTA article reprinted in Cleveland Jewish News • January 13, 2011
Anchorage Daily News • January 12, 2011
‘Sarah Palin like Menachem Begin?’ • The God Blog • L.A. Jewish Journal • January 18, 2011
‘Sarah Palin finds an, unh, amen corner in Israel’ • MONDOWEISS • January 19, 2011
Quoted in ‘Debate rages on over Palin’s ‘blood libel’ claim’ • Jewish Telegraphic Agency • January 18, 2011
More on the Hannity interview, this via The Daily Caller:
[ . . . ] “I’ve repeated over and over my condemnation of violence and trying to explain that we when we say ‘up in arms’ we mean the voting booth,” Palin continued.
Palin remarked to Hannity that within hours of the shooting, before all the facts were in, reporters began calling her for a response. Palin also castigated those who accused her of injecting herself into the story when she was already being “vilified” and dismissed the meta-debate about her use of the phrase of “blood libel” in her video response last week.
“I don’t know how they wouldn’t know ‘blood libel’ obviously means falsely having blood on your hands,” said Palin. “I think the critics, again, were using anything they could gather they could out of that statement.”
Palin said the criticism of her video statement was “being used as another diversion” and said she was being held to a “double standard.”
The former vice presidential candidate, in the third segment of her interview, gives an informed defense of her use of the term ‘blood libel’. Via Palin TV:
There is no surer bell-wether of opinion in the mainstream Jewish community than former NYC Mayor Ed Koch
Via Conservatives4Palin –
The ADN is not normally pro-Palin.
An examination of the Huffington Post,
a leading news site, and Sarah Palin
for evidence of antisemitic associations
Two people who belong to a group to which Palin also belongs (but have no direct connection with her) make antisemitic statements.
Scores of people who write articles on the Huffington Post – which is never criticized or examined by the mass media on this issue – do so. None of them have been barred from writing because of these statements nor have they been answered by other authors for making these statements. And this doesn’t take into account the anti-Jewish remarks seen often in the feedback remarks.
And here for a bonus are some examples of other Huffington Post civility in which, for example, an author with serious mass media credentials – former Washington Post sports’ writer and Seinfeld co-producer – explains how President George W. Bush is worse than Hitler. And I’m not joking. Imagine if someone said the equivalent during the last two years. See also more on the Huffington Post here.
Calls for violence and examples of antisemitism come from both the left and the right. The difference is that the former are excused or ignored, the latter are highlighted and condemned. Let’s document and criticize both sides when they say such things.
Dr. Rubin also recently wrote:
Without taking any partisan position, but purely on the issue’s historical merits, nothing could have been more appropriate than Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” to describe what happened to her after the Tucson killings. I know because my direct ancestors were the target of a blood libel.
A blood libel is a false accusation that someone else has deliberately caused the shedding of blood, made in order to harm that person or people, advance one’s own political and ideological agenda, and stir up hatred for them in a manner that might lead to the shedding of their blood in revenge.
I’ll tell the story of an actual blood libel – first recounted by newspapers at the time and interviews with the peasants done later by Russian anthropologists – and then explain the current post-Tucson story.
Wasn’t it moving to see progressive tweetdom and punditry unite in the defense of Jewry – in the Middle Ages? As a member of this most oppressed minority, I personally want to thank you.
After all, how dare she? The media are so sick and tired of Sarah Palin’s shtick (that’s one of the words we use in private) that they created a stampede to Wikipedia to quickly figure out just how divisive this “blood libel” thing, whatever it means, could be to American discourse.
Now, just for the record, we Jews haven’t been using the blood of gentile kids for our baking needs in at least a couple of decades, but in historical terms, blood libel refers to false accusations that Jews were murdering children to use their blood in religious rituals – and an excuse for anti-Semitism. It was heavily utilized in the Middle Ages by some Christians and, with a few modifications, is a regular smear in the Muslim world today.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of Israel antagonists at J Street (an outfit that USA Today accidentally referred to as “a political organization for Jews and supporters of Israel”), spoke for hundreds when he claimed that “the term ‘blood libel’ brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds” and demanded that Palin “retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.”
Really? Memory? Inflammatory? Painful echoes?
Jews, well, we can be offended like it’s 1257.
If blood libel is really a distasteful parallel, it is only because we have intimately familiarized ourselves with the idea through a History channel documentary about the crusades. And if our institutional memories make us so thin-skinned, there are far more tangible reminders of genocide when we hop into our fancy German cars (which we do a lot, because we’re in charge of everything). Or it is certainly as offensive as the heinous deeds of Sarah Palin, which include, among many other transgressions, talking.