Hey, people, two things are going on here. One, it is definitely slimy to hack into any email account. But two, government business is public, regardless of the tool used or the locale in which it is conducted. If a government official were to physically type business letters at home on a privately-owned typewriter using personally-provided paper, that wouldn't change the fact that it was government business being conducted. Using a 'private' email account is no different. It's an attempt to avert public-record laws. Look up your state's Freedom of Information Act.

She was using private email accounts to conduct state business and keep those communications off the record and not subject to subpoena. Her writing style isn't the point here.

Welcome to Politics.

It's incredibly illegal. Just ask this guy how it turned out for him:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJTfkKbkepLvlZpmZY5PUtwK5M2AD92NKCOO2

You didn't step into an "ethical gray zone." You lowered your standards and jumped into a pile of poo, spreading it on yourself and Ragan. The fact that Gawker generated hits and revenue from this is irrelevant, and your use of that as some justification for it puts you on par with the National Enquirer.

I don't think the fact that it's arguably "amoral or disgusting, perhaps even illegal," is the problem.

It probably is illegal, but I think Palin gave up any claim for the moral high ground when she started using private email accounts to bypass public records laws.

The most important question is why does anyone give a hoot about two of the most boring emails ever seen?

Leaking the "Pentagon papers" was considered illegal, too, but it opened up the public's eyes to some big-time realities.

I agree there are some ethical issues to examine. (Fortunately, if there was anything that could compromise public safety/security, it wasn't published.) But that shouldn't deter us from also examining the fundamental issues of:

- Did Palin (and others) use non-secure, non-government email to circumvent legitimate laws that apply to all public officials?

- Does that contradict her claims to be open and transparent?

Obviously, the same standards should apply to all officeholders (and candidates), at all levels. But given that this information is out in the open (and may reflect on an individual's candor and character), we shouldn't ignore it.

>does she do phrase acronyms like "LOL," "WTF"?

The only one she needs to know is IOKIYAR.

It was illegal and wrong and unethical to hack into her e-mail account and post them and the hackers should be arrested and it is amusing to hear the right wing all of a sudden be so concerned about privacy after spending a good part of the last 12 months dismantling the constitution and approving of warrantless spying on Americans.

Hacking is illegal and wrong. I don't think anyone would disagree with that (except perhaps the hackers).

But now that this is out there, the situation has two aspects that I believe are legitimate and valid for discussion:

1) Everyone who chooses to enter the political arena in the US knows (or ought to) that they become fair game for a media which HAS become a ravening beast with no morals, and very few limits. Whether this is right or not isn't the issue - the situation is what it is, and until this changes into the perfect world where all reporters are like Walter Cronkite used to be, we need to deal in the currrent world reality. Sarah Palin should have been properly vetted when she decided to run with McCain, and she should have been prepared for everything she's ever said or done to be hunted up and thrown out there for public examination.

2) As Michael indicates, regardless of how the information about Palin's emails became public it is now public, so should it not be a concern to the public Palin wants to represent as Vice-President of the United States, that she feels it right, honourable and appropriate to intentionally act on behalf of her constituents in such a way as to avoid accountable, and and transparency about how she conducts the business of governing? Anybody out there remember Watergate?

Agree with the others. This is slimy, but there's much more than meets the eye here. First off, the hackers didn't find anything. That's huge. The worst they could find is Palin is a normal person with email idosyncracies. Can you imagine if she referred to Obama as a "meany?" Now that would be a scandal to rival the very fact that Palin has a personal email account.

Second, do you think the hackers ever attempted to hack Obama's or Biden's email? Here's an educated guess: no. Don't assume those guys don't have personal email accounts, where they discuss government business. Imagine what they might find there. Of course imagine is all you can do, because it's not gonna happen. And if it did happen, the last thing the media would do is reveal it to the world or analyze the content, spelling or grammar of those emails. More than likely, it would take steps to protect the privacy of the Democrat candidates, but not the Republicans.

Morally disgusting, yes. One should never break into someone's e-mail. Never, never.

But do you know what else is morally disgusting: A decision by government officials to use private e-mail accounts so the public can't get access to senstive policy decisions.

That is MORE disgusting, and THAT is the reason all of us should be concerned about a Palin White House.

And yes, I TOO use all caps to make a point.

Michael, I understand why you tackled this timely event, and yes, it's a no-win scenario for you. However, just because it makes money and feeds on our society's need for gossip, doesn't make it right or open feasting.

I think you missed the boat on this one; it's not about her ellipses or style usage, it's about someone's personal coorespondance being tolen and placed on the world's bulletin board for to see, compounded by every possible media outlet telling the world is wrong, but "hey, look at what she wrote". This is a horrible and morally corrupt act.

Thanks to the freedom of speech - no matter if you are on the media side, pr side or internal side - we are given great power, but with it comes responsibility and accountability. I don't care if it's a newspaper, press release, memo or blog; journalism must have ethics and standards to protect our priviledge. It's what separates us from ad hoc bloggers and gossip sites. I think it's a sad day frankly.

Once again, the media has let public curiosity get the better of them and they've played right into the hands of this group, which is foolish, sad and disappointing. I thought our profession was smarter than this. How silly and naive of me. I forgot that we must be current and follow the lead of Perez Hilton rather than the now meaningless ethics of AP style, Journalism law and common sense.

All that said, I do appreciate the discussion, Michael. Thanks.

Yes, it seems I have stepped into an ethical gray zone with this post. (The kind of ethical gray zone TV reporters live inside that usually drives me nuts.)

That said, I don't regret it. And neither does Gawker. The site is raking in page views for its post on the Palin emails, writes Media Bistro blog Fish Bowl New York (FBNY). (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/)

Gawker bloggers are paid per page view. This particular blogger had by Thursday morning earned $4,000 for that post, FBNY said.

There's an ethical gray zone that pays off.

I promise I'll turn away from the dark side for my future posts. (Unless Mark Ragan starts paying me per page view ... just kidding ... Mark Ragan would never pay us per page view.)

Wow. She sounds like she writes personal emails in the same style I do. How scary.

I find this whole hacking episode disturbing. "Perhaps even illegal" and "it feels a tad slimy". Michael, it is illegal and it's not a "tad slimy", it's morally, ethically and fundamentally wrong. And what's worse, is that your piece, along with all the cable news pundits, hint that this is wrong, but go on to dissect her e-mails and writing style. And this is not a political issue, I would feel the same if this was Sen. Obama...this is wrong in every way possible. Privacy must be respected.

If it is "amoral or disgusting, perhaps even illegal," why write about it at all?

Yes. But does she do phrase acronyms like "LOL," "WTF?," or my personal favorite, "ROFLMAO"?

You're right. Quite amoral and disgusting indeed. Unless it's some kind of child pornography, I don't really care what's in the candidates' emails. Barack can shop at Red Envelope and John McCain can correspond with his fellow cat lovers at Catster.com...it won't change how I feel about either of their political views.