Sarah Palin finds herself on the losing end of a war of words with The Washington Post.
In her Facebook post, Palin challenged The Washington Post “To reclaim your credibility (and the mainstream media’s, at large), I challenge you to engage in the same aggressive investigative journalism you courageously employed 42 years ago covering President Nixon.”
The public knows about President Obama’s incompetence, Palin added, but it would be “well-served” if the media would use its resources to uncover the truth regarding “Team Obama.”
On Monday, The Washington Post published a rebuttal to Palin’s post beginning with a video clip of Palin’s now infamous interview with Katie Couric, during which Palin unable to name a single national publication that she read. Couric went on to win a Cronkite Award with the judges calling Couric’s interview with Palin a “defining moment in the 2008 presidential campaign.” A film clip was later leaked showing Couric mocking Palin.
Below is the Washington Post rebuttal followed by a clip of Palin fumbling the question about what publications she reads.
“Sarah Palin slams The Washington Post, credits The Washington Post“
Hello Ms. Palin: We all know from your famous interview with Katie Couric that you’re not much of a reader of newspapers and magazines. When asked to name a specific one, you said, “I’ve read most of them, again, with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.” When pressed to name one, you said, “All of ‘em, any of ‘em that have been in front of me over all these years.” Pressed again, you said, “I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news…”
Now you’re showing some evidence that you’ve read The Washington Post, circa the early 1970s. In a recent Facebook post, you demonstrate some familiarity with this newspaper’s Watergate coverage, in an appeal to The Post’s current editors: “I challenge you to engage in the same aggressive investigative journalism you courageously employed 42 years ago covering President Nixon.”
You say, “The list of Obama abuses and impeachable offenses is long.”
But you say that The Post has “fallen like a lead balloon” and that “Those running the Washington Post’s show now, compared to those during the Nixon era, are too afraid of being uninvited to the permanent political class’ cocktail parties and petty gossip fests, making you all a bunch of wusses.”
Way to blast that Washington Post!
One problem, though: The post in which you blast the Washington Post sits about ten posts above this July 20 Facebook post of yours, which starts with these words:
Obama Knew of Border “Crisis” Prior to Reelection; Lied About That, Too!
The Washington Post has a bombshell article out about how “top officials at the White House and the State Department had repeatedly been warned of the potential for a further explosion in the number of migrant children since the crisis began escalating two years ago.”
Bold text added to note a contradiction in your timeline. In one Facebook post, you’re calling The Post wussies, and in an earlier one, you’re crediting its reporting for exposing a policy failure of the Obama administration. It’s not really a big deal, though. One remedy would be to delete the post that congratulates The Post for its July 19 story on the early warnings about the border crisis. Another remedy would be to amend your Post-slamming post to say something along the lines of: “You’ve fallen like a lead balloon, except for that sweet story last week about how the Obama administration had ample warning of the border crisis, as well as any other Obama administration–criticalstories thatImissed on account of my documented failure to read newspapers.”
A third approach would be to leave things as they are, on the safe assumption that no one looks to you for consistency anyhow.
BONUS VIDEO- Katie Couric caught on camera saying what she really thinks of Palin.