Sarah Palin and the ADN - by Patrick

Sarah Palin, the Anchorage Daily News and the State of Alaska – A Delicate Relationship?

- Guestpost by Patrick –

The Anchorage Daily News, as mentioned in my previous guestpost here on Palingates, seem to have a monopolistic status in Alaska, as no serious competition in the print sector in Alaska is apparent.

Furthermore, the ADN has a proud history. Wikipedia tells us: “The newspaper has won the Pulitzer Price twice in the "Public Service" category, in 1976 and 1989. No other Alaska newspaper has ever won a Pulitzer.“

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchorage_Daily_News

But times for newspapers are hard these days. The virtual world is taking over. The ADN clearly took a beating recently, as the paper admitted in a recent story titled “ADN announces staff, pay cuts”, and reported:

“The Daily News will cut its work force and reduce wages as part of a major nationwide effort by its owner, the McClatchy Co., to cut $110 million in expenses to offset declining advertising revenue, Patrick Doyle, the newspaper's publisher, told employees in a letter Thursday.

This will be the third round of staff reductions at the newspaper in 10 months and is symptomatic of an industry-wide crisis threatening to sink newspapers across the country.

Staffing at the Daily News will drop by 45 people, or about 17 percent, through a combination of buyouts, layoffs and the elimination of vacant positions, Doyle said. Seven of the jobs eliminated were the result of new, more efficient production equipment.”

Link: http://www.adn.com/money/story/728972.html

These developments did not go unnoticed. As we learned from the email exchange between Sarah Palin and ADN editor Pat Dougherty concerning the “investigations” into the “babygate rumors”, clever Sarah had a fine nose for the current situation and remarked:

“Sarah Palin:

Thank you for your patience in awaiting my response. I do hope for nothing but the best for our local newspaper in these trying economic times that have hit your parent company.”

Pat Dougherty in return gave a curious response to this remark:

“Pat Dougherty:

As you suggest, these are tough times for newspapers. Having a bunch of conspiracy nuts denouncing the Daily News for hiding your secret just adds to the overall happy ambience.”

See here:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/136586

So...what’s the deal here?

We decided to look a bit deeper into this.

What we found was quite surprising, to say the least, although I am not sure whether Pat Dougherty would share this view. But judge for yourself:

The State of Alaska makes no secret of its expenses. Therefore, according to the golden rule “follow the money”, we thought it would do no harm to check whether the ADN might be in a “mutually beneficial relationship” with the people they are supposed to have a “watchful eye” on – the administration and government of the State of Alaska.

The result of our research astounded us.

For example, between July 1, 2007 and August 31, 2008, the ADN received the following payments from the State of Alaska:

a. $ 427,386 for “Advertising”

b. $ 250,768 for “Print/Copy/Graphics”

c. $ 2,932 for “Subscriptions”

In total, the ADN received more than $ 681,086 for “Advertising, Print/Copy/Graphics and Subscriptions” from the State of Alaska during this period, and the Governor’s office alone advertised with the ADN for the amount of $35,339.

This is certainly not pocket money that we are talking about here.

This report (“checkbook online”) can be downloaded here:

http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/checkbook_online/resource/acct_detail_fy08.pdf

The main competitor of the ADN, the Fairbanks Daily Newsminer, received a considerably lower amount during this period: Around $ 147,407.

In the following financial year, from July 1, 2008 to August 31, 2009, the payments for the ADN were only slightly less and amounted to more than $ 640,349 (including $ 20,783 from the Governor’s office).

Link: http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/checkbook_online/resource/acct_detail_fy09.pdf

Government advertising in newspapers is of course common practice. However, around the world, government advertising is also recognized as a source of conflict between newspapers who are dependent on these revenues, and governments who use those funds to favor “friendly” media outlets or punish overly critical ones – for example in Canada, Latin America, Pakistan, Russia and even Bermuda.

The point I am trying to make here is that Palin in her New Year exchange with Pat Dougherty specifically seems to want to remind him that his parent company is in trouble; the implication being that they need all the money that they can get from advertising etc. She does so in an exchange which she initiated when she wrote to him complaining about the way in which she was portrayed in the ADN and the fact that the ADN had initiated an investigation into Trig's birth. Does that seem wrong to you? It does to me.

Therefore, the question seems justified: How independent can a newspaper be when in incredibly difficult economic times the State of Alaska is such a major customer, probably even their largest advertiser? What thinking process might be initiated in an editor’s mind when the Governor drops such a hint in an email conversation? Will this increase his willingness to pursue the “persistent rumors” about the Governor’s alleged faked pregancy?

I think not.

Pat Dougherty, as is his prerogative, might disagree, however, I would still be interested to hear his answer to my question.

I would like to conclude with two observations that readers of my previous guestpost here on Palingates have sent to me (to my email: patrick12344@yahoo.com).

A reader from Texas wrote:

“The wording of Pat Dougherty’s denial does not reassure me that the ADN has never been threatened to be sued by Governor Palin. Rather, all he is denying is that the ADN has never been threatened to be sued for something that ADN has never published. After all, if no story was published, of COURSE there would be no party with any standing to sue for something that is non-existent! He didn't deny that SP threatened to sue the paper IF it ran a story or stories about a possible faked pregnancy.”

A practising corporate attorney from Florida wrote:

“I agree that rumors are not facts. But Mr. Dougherty should also agree that his failure to pursue the answers to questions raised by hard factual evidence is mediocre journalism at best. Some might even suggest that such failure is a passive cover-up ("We don't want the answers, because they may well force us to change our preconceived viewpoint regarding Trig's parentage, which admittedly is not "evidence-based," but which is based solely upon a self-serving, unverified and an uncorroborated assertion by Sarah Palin.")

Does the Alaska Daily News publication really want to serve its customers with truthful and factual reporting, or is that merely lip-service? My prediction is the historical record will prove that is not a rhetorical question.”

Our investigation continues. As I said in a previous comment on Palingates, either Sarah Palin is exonerated after providing solid evidence, or she is guilty. At the moment she is neither, because the Alaskan media refuses to investigate a major political scandal which is lying in front of them. This doesn’t satisfy. A resolution is needed, and in my heart I know that Pat Dougherty is aware of this, too.

Caribou Barbie revisited

1: Bifocal Barbie. Comes with her own set of blended-lens fashion frames in six wild colours (half frames too!), neck chain and large print editions of Vogue & Martha Street Living.

2: Hot Flush Barbie: Press Barbie’s belly-button and watch her face turn bright red while tiny drops of perspiration appear on her forehead. Comes with handheld fan and tissues.

3: Facial hair Barbie: As Barbie’s hormone levels shift, watch her whiskers grow. Available with teensy tweezers and magnifying mirror.

4: Flabby Arms Barbie: Hide Barbie’s droopy triceps with these new, roomier-sleeved gowns. Good news on the tummy front, two –MuMus with tummy support panels are included. Tight abs are a must!

5: Bunion Barbie. Campaigning and travelling the country in stiletto heels have definitely taken their toll on Barbie’s dainty arched feet. Soothe her sores with the pumice stone and plasters, then slip on soft terry mules. No more Naughty Monkeys.

6: No-More-Wrinkles Barbie. Erase those pesky crow’s feet and lip lines with a tube of Skin Sparkle-Spackle from Barbie’s own line of exclusive age-blasting cosmetics.

7: Hockey Mom Barbie: All that experience as a cheerleader is really paying off as Barbie dusts off her old school megaphone to root for Barbie and Todd jnr. Comes with minivan in robin-egg blue or white and cooler filled with doughnut holes and fruit punch.

8: Mid-Life Crisis Barbie. It’s time to ditch Todd. Barbie needs a change and Alonzo (her personal trainer) is just what the doctor ordered, along with Prozac. They’re hopping in her new bright red Miata and heading for the Napa Valley to open a B & B . Includes a reel tape of “Breaking up is hard to do”.

9: Divorced Barbie. Sells for $199.99 and comes with Todd's house, Todd's car, Todd's plane and Todd's boat.

10: Recovery Barbie. Too many parties have finally caught up with the ultimate party girl. Now she does Twelve Steps instead of dance steps. Clean and sober, she’s going to meetings religiously. Comes a copy of the Little Big Book and a six pack of Diet Dr Peppers.

11: Post-Menopausal Barbie. This Barbie wets her pants when she sneezes, forgets where she puts things and cries a lot. She is sick and tired of Todd sitting on the couch watching the TV, clicking through the channels. Comes with depends and Kleenex. As a bonus, the book “Getting in touch with your inner self” is included.



(Picture by Teutonic13)
.

British doctors fight back

British doctors are not happy with the Republican shenanigans regarding healthcare reform in the US and how the British NHS was used to spread lies about socialised medicine:

More than 100 top doctors have signed an open letter to U.S. senators to counter lies about the National Health Service.

Opponents of President Obama's healthcare reform plans say he wants to bring in 'socialised medicine' as seen in the UK. They have claimed that Edward Kennedy, who died last month of a brain tumour, would have died much earlier had he had to rely on the NHS - as treatment would have been withdrawn due to his age.

Another opponent claimed renowned scientist Stephen Hawking, who has motor neurone disease, would already be dead as the NHS would have decided not to treat him.

But in the letter the doctors say: 'There is no cut-off age for healthcare in the NHS. Senator Kennedy, like anyone else of that age, or older, and with health problems such as his, would have been treated by the NHS with the same high levels of care as someone younger.

'Care for the elderly includes free flu vaccinations, free medication, free operations as needed, nursing care visits, and help and adaptions for the home. Many hospitals now offer "hospital to home" programs for palliative and end of life care to enable very ill people to remain at home.'

The letter says there is no truth in U.S. claims that NHS has 'death panels', which decide who should be saved and who should die, on the basis of cost.

'The NHS is funded by taxes and provides universal coverage while costing 8 per cent of UK GDP. The U.S. system currently costs 16 per cent of GDP but leaves 45million without insurance and a further 25million under-insured.

'The NHS is available free of charge to all regardless of ability to pay, and does not discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. Importantly, it gives freedom from fear of the financial consequences of illness.

The letter, which has been sent to U.S. senators and representatives and has also been published on the British Medical Journal website, was written by Dr Jacky Davis, a London radiologist.

'There's so much ignorance and malice around this issue in the US,' she said. 'The debate is skewed by vested interests - the healthcare companies who make millions of dollars of profits every year - with their campaign of misinformation.

'It is upsetting for those of us who have worked in the NHS for years that these lies are being spread.'

Before 1948, healthcare provision in the UK was very patchy. People received either very basic services, no services at all, paid for it or just didn't bother to see a doctor.

Health care in Britain

The development of health care in Britain

Medical care in the nineteenth century was principally private or voluntary. However, sickness was a primary cause of pauperism, and the Poor Law authorities began to develop 'infirmaries' for sick people. The number of infirmaries grew very rapidly after the foundation of the Local Government Board, because of the influence centrally of doctors.

The demand for the infirmaries was at first resisted by a deliberate emphasis on the stigma of pauperism, of which the main legal consequence was the loss of the vote. Few people who became paupers had the vote, but after the extension of the franchise in 1867 and 1884, the numbers increased dramatically. In 1885, the law requiring people to be paupers before using the infirmaries was abolished.

Prior to 1948, health services were mainly based on three sources:

• Charity and the voluntary sector.
• Private health care. Hospitals were fee paying or voluntary; primary care was mainly fee-paying or insurance-based.

• The Poor Law and local government. Poor Law hospitals were transferred to local government by the 1930 Poor Law Act.

These were unified when the NHS was formed in 1948.

In 1948 the hospitals and other facilities in the UK were very different from what they are now. A lot of what we now take for granted had to be built from scratch. That's not the case in the US. The best possible hospitals and other infrastructure are already in place, the problem is access.

Some cynical, dishonest politicians are doing their best to deny American citizens access to healthcare services. They are defending the interests of the big insurance companies that make astronomical profits instead of serving the citizens they were elected to represent.

OK, the US is a capitalist country, but couldn't these politicians opt for capitalism with a heart?

.

Sarah Palin's Babygate - by Patrick

Sarah Palin on March 26, 2008, barely three weeks before "giving birth" to her fifth child...

Why I know That “Babygate” Is Real –

And Why The Alaskan Media Has Failed

- Guestpost by Patrick -

Up until a year ago, nobody had ever heard about “Babygate”. Then, in September 2008, Audrey started blogging with “Palin’s Deceptions” and single-handedly, as a lone blogger, started the discussion going about an issue which has since then grown and inspired the creation of many other blogs. The “Babygate” discussion is still as relevant today as it was at the very beginning and there are very good reasons for this.

At the beginning of November 2008, my partner Kathleen and I became members of Audrey’s research team. Since then, and on an ongoing basis after we left the research team in June 2009, we have received deep insights into the background of “babygate”, and have been privileged to see information that in parts has never been disclosed to the public so far.

Babygate is real. I have seen enough information to openly say this in public without the fear of “reprisals”. Sarah Palin is not the biological mother of Trig.

Here are three pieces of inside information I would like to share with you.

In April 2009, Palin’s Deceptions received an email from a person containing the following story: In January 2008 in a confidential conversation with a prominent and well known member of the Republican Party it was revealed to her that Bristol Palin was pregnant, and that it was “common knowledge in Juneau” at this time. In a second email this person confirmed that this Republican had no reason to lie.

The person who wrote the email didn’t reveal an identity to us, just gave a first name. As a routine measure, in order to assess the validity of this information, we investigated if we could find out who the sender of the email was. To our surprise, we established through internet forensics with absolute certainty that this person is related to somebody who holds a very “high rank” within Alaskan society, including frequent appearances in the media (for example ADN and local TV).

It is clear that this woman is not willing to go on the record. The last sentences of her second email were: “I would like to say more or reveal who I am but at this point am afraid. The vindictiveness of this Governor is just unbelievable.”

We will of course under no circumstances reveal the identity of this person.

The second piece of information I would like to share with you is the following:

On April 8, 2008, 10 days before the “official birth of trig”, the user “jibegod” posted the following on the website “reddit”:

“On March 5th, 2008 Alaska's Republican Governor, Sarah Palin, announced to the media that she was 7 months pregnant with her 5th child. She is currently 44.

The controversy arises from two sources: First, Sarah Palin does not appear pregnant in any recent photographs. The announcement came as quite a shock to people who had worked closely with her, and have been quoted as saying that she did not appear pregnant whatsoever during the prior 7 months.

Second, Palin's daughter Bristol is 16 and attends an Anchorage high school. Students who have attended class with her report that she has been out of school for months, claiming a prolonged case of mono.

Apparently, this rumor has made the rounds in the upper echelon of the Alaska legislature, and is a closely guarded secret. As far as I know, this rumor has not been discussed by any media outlets, in Alaska or otherwise.

The points here are based mostly upon hearsay, and I'm not trying to destroy an innocent family. However, a Republican politician hiding a pregnant teenage daughter seems rather newsworthy.”

Here is the link:

http://www.reddit.com/comments/6f3nq/coverup_alaska_gov_palin_r_announced_she_was?sort=old

We were of course very intrigued about the validity of this post, and again we researched the background of the poster “jibegod”. We discovered, again with absolute certainty, that “jibegod” has family connections to a lawyer in Anchorage, and we found evidence that this lawyer indeed has close connections to the “upper echelon of the Alaska legislature”. Therefore we came to the conclusion that the post by jibegod is credible.

Again, we would of course never ever compromise the anonymity of these people.

The third piece of inside information is also highly interesting, especially in the light of the recent “revelations” by Levi Johnston.

A very well known conservative politician in Alaska received the following email several weeks ago from a friend of his who works as an author in New York (telling him details about Sarah Palin’s book deal):

"X-- I am told by reliable sources, but don't know for a fact, that the deal is worth an initial $2 million, with various clauses that could take it higher if the book sells. Customarily, one-quarter to one-third is paid on signing. (I'm also told, less reliably, that she rushed into the deal in order to get money to pay off Levi and his family in return for a commitment to not talk about anything to do with the Palin family, including the question of Trig's parentage.)"

This speaks for itself.

So, is there enough to “believe” in “babygate”, in conjunction with all the photo evidence and other evidence we have collected over all these months?

In my opinion, the answer is “Yes”.

Admittedly, this is all “circumstancial” evidence. But by now, we have a lot of it. And we have a Sarah Palin who has up until today strictly refused to provide a birth certificate or any substantial medical documentation to the public (that is apart from the medical letter reputed to have been sent from Cathy Baldwin-Johnston and released by the McCain campaign on the eve of the 2008 Presidential election and which is discussed at length here: http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/02/purloined-letter.html)

– and who has a great interest in the fact that discussion of “Babygate” has been so far suppressed in the mainstream media.

Regarding the fact that Sarah Palin failed to follow requests to provide more documentation, see here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/a-fourth-pictur.html

And that leads us to the ADN and Pat Dougherty.

He is the editor of the only daily newspaper in Alaska with any importance. They pretty much have a monopoly.

And they have failed.

In autumn 2008, the ADN realised that the persistent rumors about Sarah Palin’s fake pregnancy were not going away. They appointed a journalist, Lisa Demer, to the story. She started to investigate, conducting interviews including Sarah Palin’s elusive doctor, Cathy-Baldwin Johnston and other people close to Sarah and her children. Demer even interviewed a blogger.

What was the result?

Pat Dougherty complained publicly in his editors’ blog that this investigation by the ADN, which was apparently designed to “exonerate” Sarah Palin, curiously received no support from Sarah Palin whatsoever.

And as a result, he decided to drop the story and decided not to report ANYTHING.

Pat Dougherty wrote about these issues in his editors’ blog for example here:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/136523

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/136586

Is this what highly paid journalists in such cases are supposed to do? Sit in their offices and wait for the “evidence” to walk through their door?

I think not.

Several days ago I shot off an “angry letter” to Pat Dougherty, complaining about the lack of coverage. I also asked him whether the rumor was true that Sarah Palin apparently threatened to sue the ADN. I also mentioned the MTV video and Michael Carey’s interview from September 2008.

This is the response I received from Pat Dougherty:

"Patrick:

What exactly is the evidence? Not what you think you see in a video, but evidence. Not what somebody told somebody who told you, but evidence. If we had the evidence, we'd report the story, but we don't have it. As far as I can tell, neither do you. Just for your information, rumors are often presented as facts; that doesn't actually make them facts. What makes a rumor a fact is verification with evidence.

And no, nobody threatened to sue us to stop a story that never existed. You should know, though, that people regularly threaten to sue us and that doesn't scare us or stop us. It's just another day at the office. Why? Because if they sue us and we can back up what we say with evidence, we win and they lose.

Pat"

Sarah Palin’s faked pregancy is without any doubt a huge political scandal. Palin could still be a serious contender to become the next Republican presidential candidate. And this is a possible danger for the whole world, because elections are never fully predictable.

I want Sarah Palin exposed. She has no business in politics. And I urge every journalist to move their butts, get out there and finally start to investigate and ask the right questions to the right people.

I am certain that if they do this it won’t be long until they find what they are looking for.
.

Sarah Palin's house

This appeared on Sourcing from China:

There’s possible federal indictments against Palin, concerning an embezzlement scandal related to the building of Palin’s house and the Wasilla Sports Complex built during her tenure as Mayor. Both structures, it is said, feature the “same windows, same wood, same products.” Federal investigators have been looking into this for some time, and indictments could be imminent, according to the Alaska sources.

The post gives no links, so we don't know what these Alaska sources are, but it looks good. It's so lovely to read the word indictment next to Sarah Palin's name...

Sarah Palin will be going to China soon. I wonder what topic she'll choose for her speech? "How to build a house in three weeks with some help from hubby's buddies" sounds appropriate.

All Housegate posts. More details about a possible indictment.
.