Rev. Wright is back in the news. This time as the subject of an attack ad in Michigan.

Perhaps the conversation on this blog brought it on.

Joan, Well put and thanks for bringing this very interesting thread back to center. In answer to: "Why WOULD the media perceived as so liberal attack a liberal candidate's religious leader and thus the candidate, while leaving alone a conservative candidate's religious leader who possesses equally offensive, if different, beliefs?"

To get to the point, the mainstream media is liberal. Mark, a former White House reporter, is typical in his leanings as a reporter. Only now, as a business man, he can afford to be much more open with his leanings. This fact is understood and we didn't need Palin to come along to know this.

In the "it's all relative" category, the media was unusually kind to Obama on the minister story and as was pointed out here, only decided to cover it when giving behind-the-scenes marching orders from the Clinton campaign. Being a political veteran, you know how that works. If you want to see a glaring example of another story the media went to great lengths not to cover, witness the John Edwards affair. It's almost cliche now, but imagine if that was a Republican candidate. They can plead ignorant all they want, but you and I know, they had leads on the story when Edwards was still a viable candidate. If the Enquirer was writing about it then, there was certainly buzz on the campaign trail over the truth to it.

The answer to your last question is intriguing and hasn't been fully played out yet. Right now, Palin is bullet-proof to the media, but that doesn't mean they're not positioning themselves for the kill. She's bullet-proof because she's first a woman, and they are not used to attacking female candidates. Their early missteps backfired on them, so the "LME" want to make sure next time they land a fatal blow. They're not sure this witch-doctor thing is it yet, but it doesn't mean they're not trying to build a case. Give it four more weeks, and you'll have your answer, but if Palin continues to build on her initial momentum, the middle of October will be downright ugly in terms of blatant bias on the part of the media. Remember the Dan Rather fiasco?

As far as I can see, Michael started this debate off by making the point that one campaign should be held to the same level of scrutiny as another when it comes to evaluating the candidate based on the religious beliefs stated by leaders in the candidate's church of choice. He felt that Senator Obama's religious leader's public stands had generated a lot more conversation than Governor Palin's religious leader's had.

He then took a sideswipe at the favorite us-versus-them conversation about the "liberal" media by noting that this conservative candidate has thus far been relatively free from that attack on religious values.

So I see two conversations that Michael was holding out for discussion.

The very first comment was one attacking him for smearing Palin. Commentor Jon, the third and from there on most frequent to weigh in, actually reinforced Michael's point in his first post: that freedom of speech is not freedom from public scrutiny.

From there on out, about every other commentor chose not to comment on the conversation being offered, but to speculate and complain about their perception of Ragan Communications' and Mark Ragan's personal political leanings, all the while complaining about how biased the site is and how there's never a good discussion of communications, just of politics.

I for one, having managed and advised multiple campaigns, am well aware that a political campaign is the ultimate test of public relations skills. What the media focuses on in a campaign, how the public responds, and how the candidate reacts are tests not only of the mettle of the reporters, the voters and the candidates, but in terms of the campaign, they are certainly tests of the communicators and advisors. Here are opportunities for strategy. Here is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to espousing "transparency" and then deciding whether that's really the path you'll take. Here's where all those ethical pledges we made in PRSA and IABC are put to the test.

If you choose not to take up that conversation but then complain that the resulting conversation hasn't gone toward communications, then who really is to blame? I lay it at the feet of anyone who started whining "bias" without offering substantive response.

As an Alaskan, I'm certainly curious about where the media focus turns when it comes to our governor. We're getting pretty tired of the smug snowballing from the McCain team when Alaskans ask questions about Alaskan issues that matter to us--really matter, because whether McCain and Palin win or lose, either outcome will have a direct effect on our daily lives; and if they win the effect is doubled as we look toward a new governor and at a known personality as vice president.

So I for one, as a communicator and as an Alaskan who's been aware of the new VP candidate for a long, long time, am very interested to hear real conversations about why the media focuses where it does, and why it seems to ignore other things.

Rather than blasting away at Ragan, at the Liberal Media Elite, or at anybody else, for that matter, why don't we turn back to the compelling conversation offered to us to begin with: why is coverage of personal beliefs so fickle? What prompts it? Why is it different from candidate to candidate? Why WOULD the media perceived as so liberal attack a liberal candidate's religious leader and thus the candidate, while leaving alone a conservative candidate's religious leader who possesses equally offensive, if different, beliefs?

Thanks Mark.

That was pretty much the response I was expecting.

Jon, you old liberal-hunter you. You got me this time. You lifted the veil, you smoked me out and you exposed the conspiracy underneath PR Junkie. Onward to glory now. There is an Obama nest lurking over at PR News and they're hiding subliminal messages in their how-to stories about pitching the media.

Quick, sick 'em!

MaryanneJ,

By cutting out the sarcastic dart thrown at the intelligence of your opponent, you have taken the elitist edge off of your comments. Constructive debate can then occur. In fact, your paragraph summarizing your positions is well stated and unclouded by sarcasm.

Mark Ragan,

I never said liberals cornered the market on elitism, nor did I ever say Buckley wasn't a snob. Clearly, he was an intellectual elitist. What you did by bringing him into this thread was something you're clearly very good at - shifting the focus in debate to new ground where you may have a fighting chance at least until countered. All I did was give you context for LME and it is spot-on in terms of what conservatives mean when they say it. I didn't define LME, I'm just telling you what's meant by it. It is not economically rooted.

David Murray,

You have a point that condescension can cut both ways. But you couldn't help yourself by twisting my words to infer that I'd be concerned what others think of my own intellect. Once again, a debate on issues and terms reduced to personal attacks. Thank you for reinforcing my point, which is that liberal elitists are so caught up in their own intellects that conservative concepts (even those expressed by fellow elitist William Buckley) are a foreign language they don't understand and are not inclined to try even for the sake of winning the debate.

"with a child's understanding of economic matters"

OK David. I'll bite. Obama is calling for an increase in taxes on the "wealthy" (even though the top 10% of the wage earners in the US pay 60% of the tax revenues...I don't know how much more he wants them to pay) and increased regulations over industries like the financials and "big oil."

Name me a country that ever taxed and regulated itself into a level of prosperity equal to that of the United States, and I'll concede that liberals are economic geniuses.

I'm still waiting for ED Hill on Fox to show the Palin-Muthee "terrorist witch fist jab" on b-roll.

And this doesn't run both ways? If you like Obama, you're automatically naive, easily duped by pretty words, with a child's understanding of economic matters and an orphan's desperate desire for a "messiah."

Neither side has a corner on condescension in this argument. We all have to own our points of view.

And if it really bothers you so much that some assume you're very, very stupid, maybe it's because you worry they're right.

Maryjane

I respect your opinion on Palin. But that's still not the point. The point of Michael's article was that the media is mute on it while they supposedly went hog-wild on Obama for the Rev. Wright thing. My objection is that's completely inaccurate.

Yes. Agreed. Palin's judgment - just like Obama's, McCain's, Biden's, or any other politician's - is automatically eligible for public scrutiny.

Again, it's the assertion of the article that's in question and the, in my mind, obvious politically slanted view it takes.

Wow, this has so disintegrated into ideology infused with dogmatism.

If I had said that I, personally, place a high priority on fiscal responsibility, human rights, women's rights, sustainable environmentally-responsible development, education, freedom of speech (and peaceful protest) and the separation of church and state, and would not choose to have anyone with a poor track record on these issues in any level of government -- would I sound more or less elitist than my admittedly sarcastic "flat-assed stupid"?

By the way, the "you're just picking on poor little Sarah" thing doesn't work. She is not Jean Valjean, unjustly persecuted for a minor crime after decades of impeccable public service. She has accepted a position where she will be scrutinized and she'd better learn that thinking before opening one's mouth is as important as keeping one's fly zipped up.

Where all this is relevant to public relations is that PR pros know bad decisions, lies and other crap will always hit the fan eventually. Mistakes can be forgiven as just being human, but continuing to lie destroys credibility. My colleagues recommend that the best strategy is to admit it, take responsibility and show everyone how you are going to fix it or do better.

"The most common theme is that if you don't think Obama is the second coming, you're really, really dumb. If you're a conservative, you're stupid."

Anonymous -

It's more than that. If you're conservative or disagree that Obama should be President, you're not just dumb, you're evil.

God forbid that some of us actually study history or have a better than average understanding of how economics ACTUALLY works.

If you wish to adhere to the actual meaning of the Constitution, or you would like to keep the money you work hard for, then you're an evil racist, plain and simple.

To demonstrate the liberal hypocrisy:

If you want to keep your own money, you're greedy. If you want the government to force others, at gunpoint, to give you their tax money, you're not.

Holy shmoly Mark. If only you didn't make things so easy, I might actually feel challenged.

First off, when did I ever use the word "elite"? I defy you to go into any one of my posts (either here or for any other articles) and show me where I used that word. Secondly, I don't think you're really part of the media. You run a website and seminars for corporate communicators. I don't see how that makes you part of the media. Wishful thinking, perhaps? Delusions of grandeur?

Next, I don't consider myself "elite." I consider myself a conservative libertarian. My definition of elite is associated with power. I don't have the power to influence the masses. Frankly, I don't consider you elite either by that definition - which is why I never used that word to describe you.

The fact is that I might not comment on this blog to the extent I do were it not for the obvious bias that is horribly disguised as PR-related content. Really... To say that the media is mute on the Palin/Muthee thing while maintaining that they had a field day with Obama/Wright means that you're either pushing a liberal agenda or you don't pay attention to the media at all - and I already gave you my explanation on this earlier.

I don't care if you want to talk about the business of politcial PR, but statements and comparisons that are either one-sided or poorly researched hurts your credibility to be any kind of expert on the matter. And if you don't consider yourself an expert and simply giving your opinion, fine...just don't get all uppitty when someone challenges your opinion!

So...MARK... don't chastise me because you use a blog that's supposedly about PR to talk about how conservatives suck and liberals are wonderful. Frankly, I don't care if you do or not.

The fact is that I started reading this blog because I wanted to get information and perspectives about PR and corporate communications. Then after reading several articles that clearly weren't about those topics at all, but used merely as smoke to hide your political opinions, I decided to start calling you out on it.

And really...if you can't take it, then here's a suggestion - start writing about PR and corporate communications again. Obviously you have a hard time taking criticism that, according to many other readers of this blog, is at least somewhat justified.

Thanks, Anonymous, for the definition of the "elite" part of "liberal media elite."

So the late great William Buckley, usually considered one of the great intellectual lights of the conservative movement, Yale trained, cushioned forever by a family fotune, a man whose demeanor seemed forever to say, 'you poor, pitiful masses,' well, he was really a hero of the working classes.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Mark,

In answer to your question about what "elite" is referring to, while income is often associated with this, in the LME context, money has much less to do with it. In this case, elite means intellectual snobs. People who think they're smarter than everyone else and further, that everyone else is really "flat-assed stupid" to quote poster MaryanneJ.

This is what irks conservatives the most about liberals. It's not that we disagree on the issues - that's a given - but rather that the liberals and their inspiration in the MSM, constantly insult conservatives by demeaning them every way possible. The most common theme is that if you don't think Obama is the second coming, you're really, really dumb. If you're a conservative, you're stupid.

That is the context for "elite" here. For those of us who deal with the media in our work, these things are true on nearly every story on which we work that even remotely edges near the political/social arena.

I don't know Robin. There's enough good material out there to last until Doomsday (which may be right around the corner). So you tell me.

Now if the conservative readers of PR Junkie mount a nationwide boycott and put me out of business, then I'll be writing it from the LME association headquarters in Gotham City.

So Mark, how much longer are you likely to be doing this blog?

And if y'all think Mark Ragan is good on this "media elite" question (and come on, folks, you know he is) you should hear him on "activist judges."

I think the key issue in this story, and one which should be addressed publicly, is whether Sarah Palin knew that Muthee believed in evil witches and whether Palin's fellow churchgoers and Palin herself believe in this bunk.

The great witchhunts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe (and, yes, Salem) are linked to
- the rising of repressive religious intolerance, mostly protestant sects,
- repressive and misogynistic attitudes towards women, who had risen in influence in the middle and upper classes during better times,
- economic uncertainty from numerous wars and poor crops resulting from unusual weather,
- dependence on torture to extract confessions and force the accused to accuse others,
- hysteria promoted by "professional witch hunters" intent on increasing their ugly, sadistic business, using pamphlets, testimonials, and word of mouth advertising.

Now think about this list. You've got the wars, the weird weather, the increasing religious intolerance, the government ok on torture, a vp candidate with medieval views of women's rights....

This aside, I'd never vote for anyone, male or female, black, white, Christian, agnostic or Wiccan, who got $27 million in federal funding for a town of 5,000 and managed to leave it with $23 million in debt, but only because I ain't flat-assed stupid.

Addendum to my admission of being part of the "liberal media elite": I speak only for myself. I have two wonderful colleagues who also post on PR Junkie, and I know they aren't part of the LME.

Melissa Underwood is the only 20-something I know with pictures of Barry Goldwater tacked to her cubicle. That rules her out.

As for Michael Sebastian, he's no liberal. He's way to balanced to be one of us. If Michael somehow slipped into the LME without our knowing it, we would have ousted him at our last conclave in Las Vegas.

And neither one is an elite.

I know; I sign their paychecks.

Anonymous wrote, "Ragan has really deteriorated. It's now a forum for left-wing kooks."

Looking at the comments here, it appears the right-wing has dominated this discussion.

What's sad is the need for name-calling and mean-spiritedness. No wonder our society is so changed from 1-2 decades ago. Several people here have managed to express themselves very effectively without resorting to negativism and name-calling. I still disagree with them, but at least we manage to have the semblance of a debate without demeaning ourselves, our profession or our country.

But when it's all said and done, I still wish this forum would focus on communication without the politics. I know, I know, sometimes they're inseparable, but every time we start talking about politics, the discussion goes off in every direction except the art, science and profession of communication. Which, I thought, is why we're here. And if this continues, why I soon won't be.

I agree with the statement that voters should at least KNOW such things. The more informed the better.

Nancy Reagan's astrology and Sarah Palin's witch hunter are categorically similar to John McCain's luck fetish.

The man has a lucky feather.

In this instance, I actually find McCain's personal superstitions very revealing of the kind of decision maker he is. (Completely irrational).

Jon,

Are you accusing me of being part of the Liberal Media Elite (LME)?

If so, I already pled guilty to that label many posts ago. I am indeed "liberal," and I am part of the media.

I guess I'm an "elite." But this last term of disparagment baffles me.

By elite, do you conservatives mean upper income? Or, do you accuse me of patronizing small town people, the latest definition offered up by the Palin crowd?

If it's the latter, I'm wondering: Are you writing from your inky job on the assembly line, or are you sending me this dispatch from your the Ben Franklin lunch counter in Circle, MT.?

If neither one of these is the case, does that make YOU a conservative elitist (CE)? And since you are now regularly published on this site, thus giving you an equal voice to mine in getting your word out, are you a member of the Conservative Media Elite (along with Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity; last time I checked, those two weren't lugging lunch pals to work).

What exactly are you accusing me of that I haven't already admitted to?

This blog is an Opinion blog about PR and media. Opinion. As in sometimes forceful and sometimes anger-inducing. As I have said before, many Ragan customers work in government, politics and public affairs.

Some, not all, enjoy analysis and opinion about the business of covering the campaign, and equally fascinating business of staying on message (or attempting to control the message, i.e., the McCain's campaign to wall of Palin from what you call the liberal media elite.

To L Demarest: So far, we've never held a conference on politics and the media, so I can't see how our events would offend you.

There is another solution, though:

Don't read PR Junkie.

The big difference is that Obama spent twenty years going to the same "minister", who was also part of the Black Muslim movement and preaches "Black Liberation Theology" and listening to his Racist and anti-American diatribes. The mainstream didn't want to touch it until it got too noisy in talk radio and Drudge for them not to. The so-called mainstream media has given Barrack Hussein Obama a pass. He needs a teleprompter just to speak to "gun-clinging, bible-toting", "typical white" people in a rodeo arena.

Muthee just believes in the book of Revelations, but isn't preaching racial hatred. By the way, they still have witch doctors in Africa.

By the way, just because MSNBC and Keith have anemic viewer ratings, doesn't mean that they aren't part of the "mainstream media". The mainstream and yes liberal media sent 30-researchers to find dirt on Sarah and Charlie Gibson fawned over Obama and talked down to Sarah.

L D

No offense, but the last part of your comment isn't easy to read. What are you asking me?

I agree with BD and Mark.

The vitriol about Palin spewed on this site by loons the day after her speech at the convention was appalling. Ragan's bias about all things conservative or Republican is unmistakable, although presented under the guise of objective media analysis. That's fine; it's a free country, with free speech, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I am also free to choose not to attend a Ragan conference.

Oh, and Jon; was that Newsweek article by the writer from the Daily Kos, who is now on staff? More "objectivity" and "balance" in the media?

"In all fairness to Ragan, bringing up the point that Governor Palin's religious background hasn't been held to the same level of scrutiny as Senator Obama's is a valid journalistic point. Except for my wee theory above, I don't understand why Governor Palin should be excepted from that conversation."

That's fine Joan. I agree. I'd rather see true objectivity in the media just like everyone else.

But really. For Ragan to say that the media was all over Obama about the Rev. Wright ordeal, and then to dare suggest that they're silent over Palin/Muthee would be funny if it wasn't such BS.

Those of us who follow politics closely and yes, those of us who watch Fox News, knew about Rev. Wright's hate speech WELL before the Spring of 2008. I'm talking in the final October of 2007. I saw Fox doing stories on it, but when I looked for it on CNN, MSNBC, or NYT Online, not a peep. THEN about the time when Hillary finds she's probably going to lose to Obama, SUDDENLY it's a big media storm.

That's what makes this article so funny. I really think Ragan needs to hire a certified conservative to contribute to these blogs because I'm getting the impression that either they can't seem to recognize the bias in the media outside of Fox News (Yes, it hurts me to reveal that CNN and MSNBC are, in fact, bias to the left - and if you couldn't figure that out from the way they coddled Obama all through the primaries, then you really are blind), or they're flat-out liberals intent on getting Obama elected and disgusing their blogs about the media as opportunities to promote their agenda.

Hopefully, it's the former. But if you continue to post these subliminal political articles under the guise of media analysis, then you better hire someone who can lend another point of view to what's going on out there. You keep criticizing Fox News for not being "fair and balanced." All I can say in response to that is, "Hello? Kettle? This is Ragan. You're black!"

What I don't get is why political news or views belong here at all. To paraphrase Nike: Just don't.

Times are a little strange in Alaska these days. Our governor, who had seemed truly committed to open ("transparent") processes now has a team of high-powered Washington lawyers advising us--Alaskans--that questions we think should be answered about her and her husband's actions as the leader and leader's dude of our state are none of our business. I'm not sure who's actually governing here now, as it sounds like both the lieutenant governor and the attorney general are out of state, and we follow our governor by watching national news.

But back here in the home state--and I'm from Wasilla, the home town--we're all talking among ourselves. I sent Mark a link to a local blog where there's a lot of conversation, much of it among people who have known Sarah Palin for many years. I thought he might enjoy the different insights that you get when you talk to the home town crowd. There's a lot more there than discussions about Mrs. Palin's church, if you want to look. Michael gave a link in his article.

I believe that the point of Michael's article was that media coverage should play fair. If it's going to scrutinize Senator Obama and evaluate his morals and ethics based on statements made by his pastor, then why shouldn't that same standard apply to Governor Palin? I don't see a political predisposition in that; it was a fair journalistic question to pose in a forum of communicators.

My take on the new national popularity of our governor is that she appeals because she's perceived as Everywoman. Because we so readily identify with her--a mom, a very local politician, outdoorsy, lots of kids, going to the PTA and running the kids to sports practice--we identify a little too personally with her. Scrutinizing Sarah hits close to home; it feels like somebody's attacking your sister. Nobody wants anybody looking too closely in on family. And Sarah just feels like family. All those nice kids, a good husband who works hard, the problems with the teenagers, balancing home life and work. Just leave her alone, and be happy for her, because she's one of us.

There are among my acquaintance people who have lost their jobs when they crossed the governor's religious beliefs. People close to her were betrayed when it suited her political aspirations. She does bring her religion into her daily activities. And it isn't that which worries me--I believe that our spirituality is as important as exercise and good diet. We need to be whole people, and cannot neglect the spirit.

No, what worries me is how that seems to play into her view of life. You probably read the purloined email where she wrote to our lieutenant governor, regarding his run for US House, about how a local talk show host has "evil stuff going on in him" because he disagreed with the politics Palin and Parnell share. I read an article today by Newsweek's Sam Harris that stated very well why we should be concerned about the end-times beliefs she has been taught since she was a girl.

But those are my personal concerns. In all fairness to Ragan, bringing up the point that Governor Palin's religious background hasn't been held to the same level of scrutiny as Senator Obama's is a valid journalistic point. Except for my wee theory above, I don't understand why Governor Palin should be excepted from that conversation.

Hey Jon,

To answer your question: no, we have not tackled Obama and Rev. Wright on this blog; however, this blog launched in May, after the Wright story had mostly calmed down.

Mark

Ah! Thanks for clearing that up. Because since half the paragraphs in the article above seem dedicated to listing Muthee's statements and travels of twenty years ago, in addition to the accounts of what Palin did over the weekend, I seemed to have gotten the wrong impression.

Many might see this as a jab at Palin. But given this blog's history of non-partisanship, it's obviously simply a dig at the media. My bad. I should have known your dedication to objectivity was above reproach.

So, let me alter my last request: Has this blog ever scrutinized the media's coverage of the Obama/Wright relationship? Since I have a different view point on which side of the aisle the MSM sits - and I found it to be quite silent on the situation - it will be interesting to see how Ragan analyzed the treatment of that situation.

I look forward to reading that article. Thanks!

Jon,

Here at the offices of the influential PR Junkie, we try to scrutinize the media and its coverage of the campaign.

Our staff of writers and editors, bloated as it is, doesn't have time to chase Sarah Palin around asking her how (or whether) God is directing her actions.

That is a task for the so-called mainsteam media, or, nowadays, bloggers. We pointed out in today's post that only a few powerhouse news organizations have done this with Palin. Hence our interest in the subject.

As I wrote before, I think all candidates for higher office should explain the link between their religious beliefs and public policy, particularly when they wave their piety in front of voters (which I agree, Jon, most of them do).

Hope that clears things up.

Mark

Mark

Has this blog posted anything scrutinizing Obama and Rev. Wright?

I don't know one way or the other. If so, can you provide a link? Just interested to see treatment of both candidates - one of which being the VP canididate, the other being the Presidential candidate. Hopefully, there was more (or at least equal) scrutiny for the latter since the position is of much greater importance.

Thanks!

Jon,

A candidate's religious beliefs ARE fair game. That is exactly what I'm saying.

If a president of the United States believes in soothsayers or witch hunters or talking frogs, and if those beliefs actually inform his or her judgement, yes, I think we all need to know that. Voters can then decide. To many, it won't matter.

Obama faced the music with Jeremy Wright and we now have a better understanding of his beliefs. Now it's time for Sarah to lay it out for us.

Mark

Mark

I assume by your comments that you're concerned about the decisions people might make based on religious beliefs when they're in power.

For instance: Should Palin become president, she might propose legislation banning gay marriage on a national level, having daily national prayer, or making Christianity the national religion.

By that logic, surely you are 100% in favor of bombing Iran before it produces a nuclear weapon. Since we know martyrdom in the name of Allah is highly regarded in Islam (says so in the Koran), then really we'd be stupid not to bomb Iran back to the stone age, right?

I've heard many politicians attribute their accomplishments to God - Reps and Dems. Only when Reps do it does it become an object of scrutiny.

And frankly, I don't know how you can say the media is mute on this subject. Last week, I saw a five-minute piece on CNN (which I'm sure they repeated at various times throughout the day) about Palin's church and statements she made while addressing the congregation.

But if you feel that she should be scrutinized for things her pastor said, then again, you must agree that Obama must be held accoutable for being a 20-year member of a church led by a hate-mongering, race hustler like Rev. Wright.

This comment is brought to you by an agnostic, by the way.

Now wait a minute, Bill.

Let me get this straight: A priest who claims powers as a witch hunter is a regular guest lecturer at Sarah Palin's church. Palin herself appears on a video tape to acknowledge his success in praying her into office, and you think we're smearing her?

There comes a time when religious beliefs or beliefs in the occult really matter in an election.

Ask Don Regan, the former White House chief of staff under Ronald Reagan. In his memoirs, Regan relates how Nancy consulted an astrologer before agreeing to some of her husband's activities.

The date for Reagan's summit with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 was approved only after consulting this astrologer.

If that doesn't bother voters, fine. But we should at least KNOW. In Palin's case, someone should ask her whether she supports the teaching of this witch hunter who helped elect her.

Sunday was not football day. You forget there was also Nascar, the Ryder Cup Finals, a full slate of pennant-fever MLB, the last game ever played at Yankee Stadium, John McCain talking about how "lucky" of a guy he is on 60 Minutes, a new episode of Entourage and Mad Men, the Grammys, my nephew and older brother's joint birthday party, and a hangover from Saturday (the real football day).

Bush used the phrase "disaster fatigue" when appealing for aid after Ike. Whether he meant it or not, that notion shouldn't be limited to natural disasters.

Don't be surprised if people just bury their head in the sand and wait for the new season of Grey's Anatomy.

Ragan has really deteriorated. It's now a forum for left-wing kooks. This is some stretch. As much of a stretch as me signing up for a Ragan conference to be surrounded by such "thinkers."

I suggest you stop trying to make sense of this surreal campaign or pointing out a lack of symmetry in the way the press covers it. It's a waste of time.

1) Did Palin attend Muthee's church for 20 years?
2) Did Palin ever label Muthee as her spiritual advisor?
3) Did Muthee preside over Palin's marriage?
4) Did Muthee baptize any of Palin's children?
5) Did Muthee say "America's chickens have come home to roost" in reference to the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
6) Did Muthee accuse the US government of creating the AIDS virus to kill black people?

Apparently ragan.com has ceased to be a site for professional discussion of communication issues, and has become a site for sliming conservatives. That is certainly Ragan's perogative, but then let's just call it a left-wing blog site, not a resource for communications professionals.

You're trying to equate Palin's kind words for a guy who's appeared at her church less than a dozen times with a slimeball like Wright, who had Obama sitting in his church for years and years, with Obama calling him "my spiritual mentor." Get serious.

No body needs to stretch far... only open your eyelids!

I don't know how quick the media was to vilify Rev. Wright. There were conservative commentators talking about him when Obama first entered the primaries, but the mainstream media didn't really get on board until Spring 2008 when Hillary's people needed to use it to try and stop his momentum. Then, they really had no choice. I think if the Hillary camp had not made an issue to try to assassinate Obama's character, the MSM would still be denying the very existence of Rev. Wright.

And regardless, doesn't someone who claims HIV was a creation of the US government to execute genocidal elimination of blacks, the US supplies black neighborhoods with crack cocaine, and "God d@mn America" deserve to be vilified? Lord knows if a white person said all of the above, we'd sure as hell vilify him.

Free speech is freedom from federal prosecution not public scrutiny.

Muthee did not have a camera in the back of the church recording his every word. Words coming forth from an anchor's mouth are OK sometimes, but in this case we need real video. The videotape of J. Wright is what launched the sermon heard 'round the nation - repeatedly.

My, you are really stretching to find some way to smear Palin.