@Cycloptichorn,
Let's take a moment to consider this report.
Who is Anne Sutton? We know that she sells "news" stories to the AP wire service. We don't know her sources unless she tells us, and we don't know how thorough a job she does in gathering materials for her story. Who is it that made the conclusions that she is reporting? We can make some inferences from the way she chooses to write the story.
Words, especially modifiers, carry a weight beyond the their simple definitions. Here is an example from Ms. Sutton's story, "part of an ambitious Republican strategy to limit any embarrassing disclosures and carefully shape her image for voters in the rest of the country" Here is a "more neutral" rendering, "
this may be part of a Republican strategy to shape Gov. Palin's image with the voters." And here are the words and phrases that put the writer's spin on the sentence, ambitious, to limit any embarrassing disclosures and carefully, in the rest of the country. That spin might be accurate, but as nearly as we can tell that interpretation resides only with in writer's imagination.
Is this spin morally or legally something we should condemn? Nope, but we should be ever alert to the "hidden" biases of "news" stories. Strip them of their colorful words and phrases, and reduce them to as stark a rendition of actuality as possible. Try to determine what the writer's prejudices, motives are. Citing sources, doesn't necessarily lend credibility to an "authorities" opinion. Zealots on both the Right and the Left have their own pantheon of soothsayers whose biases are as notorious as their regard for accuracy. Less obvious are the internal biases and prejudices of reporters and editors ... until their spin appears damaging to your own position/candidate/party. Then, they are liars who are cynically abusing their sacred trust to report only verifiable facts in a completely objective manner.
This tendency is taken to extremes during a hotly contested election campaign where there is a wide gap between political philosophies. We all regard our own conclusion of what political philosophy is best as self-evident, and true. Alternative political philosophies must then be false and adhered to only by scoundrels or fools in capable of seeing what is so clear and persuasive to us personally. Passions soar, and careless hateful rhetoric tends to rule. We tend to blind ourselves to the spin that favors our cause/candidate/political philosophy, and at the same time paint the negative as willful deceit. The exchange becomes intensely personal, and we lose sight of the fact that political campaigns aren't about telling the truth, whatever that is, but providing a set of assertions that will persuade voters to support our cause/candidate, etc. The zealot and True Believer are blind to their own faults, and being "conspirators" themselves, project "conspiracy" on their opponents and the rest of the world.
This is the way things are. Most folks aren't political zealots, and they aren't particularly alive to their own set of prejudices. The electorate isn't one thing, or the other, but a conglomeration of interests that are all over the map. Some core values and voter preferences are well known. Voters tend to favor military heroes, and they tend to be suspicious of demographics different from their selves. Their personal concerns tend to reside in their pocketbooks, and the circumstances of their daily lives. American voters tend to view themselves as independent, benevolent, and just in a larger world that tends to be dominated by despotism where liberty, if it exists at all, is endangered by the forces of tyranny. Any politician that isn't four square for wholesome family values, patriotism and loyalty to the nation's security and well-being, and the common good is unlikely to move most voters. American values are traditional and passed down through generations, but we have increasingly come to depend upon television sound-bytes to get our information. People have had short attention spans throughout history, but in the highly integrated communications world, that span has shrunk from a few years to a few days. Extremes, inconsequentials and colorful images are sought at the expense of fundamentals, the dreariness of thoughtful consideration, and moderation.
