Even in these times when the once unthinkable is becoming increasingly unremarkable, the current controversy over whether Rush Limbaugh is potentially worthy to be an NFL owner crosses over from the simply outrageous to the utterly infuriating. I strongly believe that it also represents a seminal moment in our cultural history as well as the sad state of free speech in this country.

There are so many levels of insanity with this story that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, the facts: Limbaugh is a part of a group that wants to buy the lowly St. Louis Rams so that the team will stay in Rush’s native Missouri. The group has not even made an official bid as of yet, is one of several potential buyers, and Rush would not even be the primary owner of the team.

Despite all of this, just the mere mention of his name has caused a literal hysteria in the public dialogue. Nearly everyone even remotely associated with the NFL (as well as many who have no direct connection at all) have expressed their, often completely ignorant, opinions on whether Rush is worthy to join the highly exclusive club of NFL owners.

The overwhelming view allowed to be expressed in the mainstream media has been irrationally negative towards Rush’s potential bid. The primary “justification” for these views has been the notion that Rush is somehow a racist and that because the league has a high percentage of black players that it would be wrong to have him be a part owner of a team.

What is the basis of this incendiary claim? Well, we all know (because the media tells us so) that strong conservatives are really racists so anything they say that sounds remotely racist must be presumed to be so. Therefore, because Rush resigned in 2003 from a position at ESPN because a legitimate observation about the media coverage of a black quarterback was deemed by Rush haters to somehow be “racist,” this is all the critics need to close the loop on their laughably inane circular argument.

Just after Limbaugh’s resignation, I wrote in my book “The Death of Free Speech” that Rush had made a big mistake because he was allowing the perception to be created that he was essentially, though unintentionally, admitting (by resigning without a fight) that he was indeed a “racist” and that this narrative would come back to haunt both him and the movement. Unfortunately, it appears that I was right.

But even more infuriating than the tactic of Rush’s opponents to take his past statements out of context (or, in some cases, just flat out make them up), is the audacity of those who have chosen to be most vocal about this issue.

It should go without saying that of the 300 million people in this country that Al Sharpton should be at the very back of the line when it comes to being the moral arbiter of who is or is not worthy of owning anything. The man was found guilty in a civil court for having blatantly lied when accusing an innocent man in the infamous Tawana Brawley case. That he is given any platform to speak on this or any other matter of social importance is a damning indictment of our entire society. And yet, here he is leading the charge in the cause to keep Limbaugh from simply buying property.

If that wasn’t enough, the first owner to speak out against the theoretical Limbaugh bid was Jim Irsay of the Indianapolis Colts. Irsay claims, “Sometimes when there are comments made that are inappropriate, incendiary, insensitive… It’s bigger than football. As a nation we have to watch the words that we say.”

Forgetting for a moment that Irsay clearly has no appreciation for free speech, any such comment on who would make a proper NFL owner coming from him fails to even pass the laugh test.

Ask the people of Baltimore about Irsay who helped his alcoholic and apparently insane father (who was known to drop profanities during live televised press conferences) take the Colts to Indianapolis in moving vans under the cover of darkness. I doubt anyone there will tell you Irsay is the model NFL owner. And by the way, under these bizarre, watered down, rules for racism, why was it not “racist” for the Colts to move from Baltimore to Indianapolis where the percentage of blacks in the neighborhood was exponentially smaller? (It should also be noted that there are quite a few black people in St. Louis who would like to keep their NFL team.)

Then there is the angle of who else is already an NFL owner. Al Davis is a clearly senile crazy man who has sued the league and moved his Raiders numerous times while turning them into an utter laughing stock on the field. But Davis is just the tip of the iceberg.

The transparent hypocrisy here could not have been more starkly displayed than on the pages of Wednesday’s USA Today. On the front page of their sports section the top headline was “Irsay, Goodell speak out against Limbaugh.” Directly under that article was a cover story on how the Miami Dolphins have incorporated numerous celebrities into their ownership team. Included among them are Marc Anthony, Gloria Estefan and the Williams’ sisters.

That’s right. Serena Williams, who recently threatened bodily harm to a lines woman on national television, is a part owner of the Dolphins. I must have missed the hand wringing from anyone associated with the NFL or the media about whether she was fit to be an NFL owner. Oh wait, I forgot. She is a black woman and is therefore beyond such scrutiny. After all, to even ask such questions would obviously be racist and, let’s face it, it’s no coincidence that the flock of celebrities picked to be Miami owners all happen to be members of strategically important minority groups.

Unfortunately, now that the momentum has started and it is more than safe (in fact, expected) for everyone involved to condemn Rush, the floodgates appear to be open. It frustrates the heck out of me that the Commissioner of the NFL has no fear at all of offending conservatives by bashing Rush. The reason? Largely because they tend to have day jobs and think for themselves, conservatives are really lousy at boycotts/protests. If a similar situation happened to say, Al Franken, the left would immediately be in attack mode and the apology would be immediate.

Quite simply, what is happening to Rush is beyond outrageous and frankly dangerous to the property and free speech rights of all Americans. This is so obvious that even Keith Olbermann (whose own appearance on Sunday night NFL telecasts should be seriously questioned) has somewhat supported Rush’s position here.

And yet my sense is that the general reaction from many conservatives is to not take this topic very seriously. Some seem to think the issue is frivolous or that Rush is doing this for publicity.

Folks, this is a huge deal. If Rush Limbaugh is not even allowed to be considered to be a minority owner of a property where his primary intent to help the community where he grew up, an incredibly dangerous precedent will have been set and the narrative that conservatism is synonymous with racist will be further cemented in the public consciousness.

Rush Limbaugh needs to fight this one right to the very end of the game, and we need to back him with everything we have.

If not, we will get what we deserve.

For instance, when Barack Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright “under the bus” a month after he was praised lustily by the media for not having done so in his famous “race” speech, the history of that event was never rewritten. Similarly, the dramatic positive impact of the surge in Iraq never came close to altering the media’s premature conclusion that the war there was a “disaster,” and the most recent data on the global temperature drop has done next to nothing to change the notion that the debate of global warming is “over.”

In the past week we have seen two classic examples of this quirk in the unwritten rules of media history.

The Obama/Oprah led flameout for Chicago’s hopes to host the 2016 Olympics certainly fits in this category. Much has already been said about the disastrous nature of this development from the economic and political perspectives. However, not nearly enough has been stated about how this event seems to prove that one of the basic foundations of the argument for Obama’s election was a complete lie.  

It was just over a year ago when Obama choose to go to Europe for his grandiose victory lap for having won the Democratic nomination. Hundreds of thousands (allegedly) of enlightened ones flocked to the streets to see and hear the new Messiah promise to bring the now hated United States of George Bush back into the good graces of the “civilized” world.

The message was clear. We elect Obama and the rest of the world will instantly love us again (as if they ever really loved us to begin with). The media hammered this point until even the people who literally couldn’t find Europe on a map (you know, the ones that actually decide elections in this country) understood how vitally important this was.

Well, based on what happened in Copenhagen, how in the world can anyone conclude anything other than that whole concept was just simply made up?

Never before in modern history had a U.S. President needlessly put so much prestige on the line in front of the world community and been so roundly rejected. The fact that Chicago didn’t even get out of the first round eliminates any real ambiguity about what was really happening here and exposed the theory that Obama’s election did anything to elevate our country in the eyes of the world as being completely bogus (keep in mind that all it took for golf to get in 2016 Olympics after a century long absence was for Tiger Woods to appear in front of the IOC via videotape; once again proving that Obama is no Tiger).

And yet, very little has been said that even questions whether we were lied to about this audacious promise. Instead, some have laughably tried to blame the Bush hangover for the embarrassment even though Chicago somehow made it successfully to the final stage while the evil one was still President.

This episode is reminiscent of the Cambridge police flap where Obama’s words and action totally destroyed the obviously phony narrative that our new President was a different kind of black leader and was going to be “post-racial.” The evidence could not be more overwhelming that we were lied to about this as well, and yet (due mostly to rampant media malpractice and conservative wimpiness) in the consciousness of the average American, that slam dunk case is still largely unproven

The other incident which followed this same pattern involved the revelation that David Letterman has apparently had numerous affairs with members of his staff.

This one is particularly personal for me because I somehow found myself at the forefront of the Fire David Letterman “movement” after his inappropriate “jokes” about Sarah Palin and her daughter. At the time, it seemed pretty clear to me that Letterman had “issues” and that the basis of his obsession with Palin and her family was obviously sexual. After all, Letterman had continuously referenced Palin’s attractiveness in a creepy sort of way and had even invited her on his show while urging her husband Todd to stay home.

But when I went on Fox News Channel to discuss this issue and referenced my theory, I was almost mocked by anchorwoman Megyn Kelly.

Now, based on these most recent disclosures, how can you conclude anything other than I was probably right? Heck, even Letterman himself seemed to back up this conclusion when he seemingly bizarrely (though in the context of my supposition perfectly understandable) “apologized” to Sarah Palin in the middle of begging for understanding from his fans and wife for his indiscretions.

This is on top of the numerous previous statements and “jokes” that Letterman had made about Palin just before and after his original “apology” was so eagerly accepted by the news media which cast great doubt about the sincerity of his efforts to make amends.

But has there ever been any reevaluation of what was really going on in the Letterman/Palin flap which, at the time, actually was outrageously a net gain for Dave? No. Instead much of the media focus has been on how Letterman is a “victim” of an extortion attempt as well as how strongly his fans appear to be backing him on this.

I realize that what is about to happen or what may occur in the future is far more exciting and ratings friendly than what has already occurred in even our very recent  past, but are our collective attention spans and memories really all so short that we can’t at least correct the record on these significant incidents?

Our side needs to understand the incredible importance of the narrative and when the facts allow us to win these skirmishes (even after they have seemingly been previously lost), we need to take advantage of that. Fortunately, based on recent history we will get plenty of similar opportunities in the future.

I also abhor false or frivolous claims of racism. Of course, according to the media, the end of this scourge was supposed to be of the many dividends of making Barack Obama President, but those of us on the right certainly know this has so far turned out to be one of many lies we were told during the 2008 campaign. 

Why mention two concepts with apparently nothing in common except my antipathy for them? The reason is that as I found myself watching the Emmy broadcast (I wasn’t that into the football game and Entourage hadn’t started yet) when it suddenly occurred to me that, based on liberal Hollywood’s definition of racism, I was witnessing an event that was barely one notch above a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan.

This offensive truth first hit me when they showed the crowd via a wide shot from the Los Angeles stage. I hit pause on my DVR and a comprehensive scan of the audience revealed that it resembled a film newsreel from the early 60’s (appropriate, I guess, since Mad Men won best drama) with row after row of skin pigmentation-challenged faces. I literally haven’t seen such a Caucasian dominant crowd in LA since I attended the USC/Texas Rose Bowl a couple of years ago.

But it wasn’t just those in attendance who were lacking this century’s greatest virtue: diversity. The host was white. All of the presenters I saw were white. Those who were nominated were almost all white. And Caucasians completely dominated the winner’s circle. Heck, even the guy who used to play the “White Shadow” won one.

But the overt “racism” didn’t stop there. Tracy Morgan, arguably the most prominent black nominee, plays a character on 30 Rock that is easily among the most dangerously stereotyped black roles in modern television (I guess since the show’s two real stars, Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin, are hardcore liberals, this is not relevant). If that wasn’t enough, the black person who got by far the most attention during the telecast was Kayne West, and that was because he was being made fun of all night.

And yet despite the Nokia Theater being transformed into the liberal caricature of the Republican Convention (except with Tina Fey being honored instead of Sarah Palin), absolutely NOTHING has been said about this obvious and, based on what we have constantly been taught, horrifying development.  I have Googled all sorts of combinations of the words “racism, black, white, and EMMY awards” and not even one mention of Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson comes up.

At first glance this all may seem to be cause for celebration. Perhaps we really have turned a racial corner in this country and inequality of outcome is no longer seen as automatic proof of inequality of opportunity. Maybe it is even now okay for whites like me to beam in pride at my race’s ability to finally kick ass again in something “important” now that we have ceded even golf to the Cablinasians.

But I actually think there is something very seriously wrong going on here. What was showcased last night was less Hollywood’s “good old boy” network at work, and more the ramifications of over a decade now of massive fragmentation within the television media.

In the Golden Age of television (the 70’s and 80’s) there were only four or five channels and the networks were forced to broadcast. Now there are hundreds of channels and television has become all about narrowcasting to an economically preferred demographic (which, for the major networks, is apparently mostly made up of white people). So instead of Good Times, Sanford and Son, or The Jeffersons airing on major networks with big budgets and automatic mainstream audiences, the fragmentation has created a self-segregation phenomenon that is only surpassed by the dramatic racial disparity in religious worship. There is still plenty of “black” television programming; it is now just on channels that mostly only other black people watch.

To me this is a sad and dangerous development.  Television used to be the ultimate uniter and now has become the definitive divider of our culture. The major networks used to create a de facto “team photo” of our nation which (after a slow start) eventually included everyone in the picture. Now, each race, gender, and age group has their own “team” and tends to watch programming that is built to only appeal to them. In short, we end up living in very different realities with almost nothing in common (this same ominous trend can of course be seen in news coverage with the advent of cable news networks with obvious political leanings).

While this modern reality has its advantages (HBO’s non-Bill Maher original programming and The Golf Channel immediately come to mind), there seems to be little doubt that it is a net loss to the strength of the fabric of our country.  What is most surprising however is that no one seems to be noticing it, even when the evidence is as black and white as it was Emmy night.

[ed. note: In a scheduling reshuffle this piece accidentally published for a few minutes last week.]

First, it must be noted that it is rather incredible that this speech got as much play as it did. Remember, this is a private citizen from Alaska who was a “failed” vice-presidential candidate, who has given no official indication she is ever going to run for anything ever again. The speech was a private affair in a foreign country and contained no real “news” whatsoever. The news media was barred and were forced to cobble together bits and pieces of what was said from the paying customers who attended. And yet, nearly every major publication gave the event heavy play and links to FOUR of those articles were displayed prominently on the Drudge Report all day long. 

This is simply extraordinary, a true testament to Palin’s enduring star power and just how much the media still desperately wants/needs their favorite target to stick around. It is also a vindication of her much maligned post-resignation strategy. 

The initial element that shocked me about the coverage of this Hong Kong event (other than its magnitude) was that, at first glance, the reporting left a remarkably positive impression of the speech. The New York Times in its second paragraph reluctantly admitted that those in attendance thought, “she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.” You can almost see the Times reporter and editors cringing at having to allow the Old Grey Lady to be soiled by such blasphemy to the modern liberal as the acknowledgement that Palin is not a complete dunce.       

The AFP service’s first quote in their article was, “She was brilliant,” though they added the caveat that this assessment came from a delegate who requested their anonymity (presumably to protect the ability to make future dinner reservations in New York or Los Angeles).  Meanwhile, Bloomberg, after quoting someone who left the speech early as calling it “boring,” at least allowed the head of the sponsoring group to call it “a great speech.” 

But a closer look at the coverage reveals that Palin Derangement Syndrome is still a robust strain within the news media and that the rules for reporting on her are completely different than anyone else in public life. 

The most egregious example of this probably came from Time magazine whose account claimed she ducked questions (when she did indeed take them), was laced with only disparaging comments form those in attendance, and which had a top ten list of Palin “spoofs” embedded right in the middle of the web version. But an item in both the New York Times and Associated Press accounts of the address deserves an extra special critique. 

In a classic example of the grossly distorted prism through which the Times sees all events (especially those involving Palin), their writer arbitrarily decided, with zero evidence, that the purpose of the speech was to “broaden her foreign policy credentials” for a 2012 presidential run. This then opened the door for the “reporter” to make a pronouncement that should set a new definition for the word gratuitous and a fresh standard for shoddy journalism.

The Times actually deemed it appropriate to publish: “Mrs. Palin was faulted during the campaign last year for her lack of foreign policy experience and expertise. As the governor of Alaska, she said in her own defense, she had a unique insight because ‘you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska’ — a remark that was widely lampooned.”

This is simply a stunning statement coming from the newspaper of “record.” Palin “was faulted for her lack of foreign policy experience and expertise”? By whom? For what reason? The reality is that Palin’s foreign policy experience, while meager, was still greater than our current President whose nonexistent credentials (little more than a mysterious college trip to Pakistan) were never remotely questioned by the media, and a rudimentary examination of the Vice-Presidential debate reveals that it was Joe Biden who made all the significant foreign policy blunders.

But even that pales in comparison with to the “see Russia” gem. 

First, the now infamous “Russia” statement was clearly made as an aside in Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson. Palin knew that the vast majority of American’s had no idea of the geographical proximity of Russia to Alaska (which, until after the Civil War, was actually part of Russia) and said it in a “gee, isn’t this an interesting fact?” sort of way.

Second, what she said was 100% factually accurate and relevant. As for the “lampooning” of the remark, that was done inaccurately by a comedy show with an obvious agenda. The Times should be embarrassed (if that’s still possible) even mentioning the episode in this context and to not at least point out the full context, as I just did, is flat out Media Malpractice.  

As pathetic as the Times reporting was, the Associated Press was downright juvenile in taking the exact same page out of the anti-Palin playbook. They wrote, “she was ridiculed during the campaign after contending her state’s proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience. “You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska,” she said.

However, amazingly, the AP hardly stopped there. They ended their piece of trash with this beauty: “Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said Tuesday the group knew little about Palin’s speech. ‘We’re curious as to what she’s willing to say in private but not in public,’ Sevugan said. ‘Are there other countries that she can see from her window that she doesn’t want us to know about?’”

This is truly astonishing. Forgetting that the DNC feels like it needs to use old, factually empty, Saturday Night Live skits to ridicule a private citizen, how absurd is it that the Associated Press has no problem ending their “report” on Palin’s speech with a blatantly inaccurate quote from a highly partisan source without even at least a mention that Palin never came close to saying anything about seeing other countries from her “window.”   

This issue is a particular pet peeve of mine. After the election I paid a lot of money for a controversial Zogby poll which exposed that 87% of Obama voters wrongly thought that Sarah Palin had said she could she Russia from her “house” when it was actually Tina Fey who had said that on SNL.  Then, after I appeared on The View, I was interviewed on Barbara Walters’ radio show and, incredibly, she revealed that even she was under the delusion that Sarah Palin had actually said that. Unfortunately, even some “conservative” commentators have bought at least partially into this myth.

In the coverage of Palin’s speech we see some of the many spoiled fruits of both the insidious nature of the news media and of conservatives being either unwilling or simply unable to win even the easiest of battles. If a year later we still can’t correct the record about a simple factual statement Sarah Palin made about the geographic location of her home state, how the hell can the truth win any argument?! 

While it’s obviously the media’s fault that this lie has become such a large part of the Palin mythology, I have been disappointed with the timid response of conservatives on this issue and others like it. My guess is that it is because we can’t believe that people really believe this crap (trust me, the evidence is overwhelming that they do) and that , with only occasional access to talk radio and Fox News,  it is just too hard to correct so we move on to other more pressing matters.

While this view is understandable, it is also remarkably shortsighted. Much like Obama was elected largely because Republicanism was killed by a series of unreputed legends over the previous ten years (Clinton was impeached for sex, Bush stole Florida, Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, Bush caused Katrina, Republicans caused the economic meltdown, etc.), the same death by a thousand lies could befall Palin.

Regardless of your view of her, our side just doesn’t have nearly enough talent to allow anyone like her to be needlessly taken out. On the bright side, the outrageous coverage of Palin’s first major post resignation speech proves that the news media is convinced that they haven’t yet finished the job.

This narrative is not primarily about why I am no longer doing a talk show at KGIL in Los Angeles (though that tale itself is fascinating and infuriating and necessary for proper context). Instead, I wish to focus on what transpired after I was told (at least partially inaccurately) by KGIL that they would be flipping the station to all music and that my contract would be paid out.

The radio reporter of the Orange County Register, Gary Lycan, e-mailed me for comment for a story he was doing on why I was off the air and whether it had anything to do with my association with Sarah Palin. I immediately responded that a Palin connection here was totally absurd, that instead this was part of a botched format change (KGIL only partially switched to music at first) and that I would like to speak to him. He never called me or sought further comment. Instead he proceeded to write probably the most ridiculous piece of garbage [see below] ever produced about me in an allegedly reputable (and supposedly non-liberal!) outlet.  

Ziegler Doc 9 08 –

Lycan not only played the non-existent Palin angle to the hilt (while including some of his own insulting opinions about why I have championed her cause, disguised as completely un-sourced “some said”), he implied that I had left my last show early for nefarious reasons when I had made it clear on the air I had a prior public engagement. He even finagled whether I will actually get married to my fiance into a major element of the “news” story.

Outraged, I immediately called the OC Register (for whom I have written numerous columns over the past couple years), and Jeffery Miller, the Arts & Entertainment Editor, graciously agreed to remove most of the journalistically indefensible material posted online. Miller also offered me the opportunity to write my side of the story.

After a few days to think about it (and after nearly everything KGIL promised in our separation agreement turned out to be a lie), I decided to take Miller up on his offer. I wrote an incredibly benign, “just the facts” description of what I actually saw take place in the bizarre final weeks at KGIL, and I submitted it to Miller for his approval. In an e-mail exchange I made it clear that I wanted the article both online and in the paper itself. He unequivocally stated the piece would appear unedited in that Sunday’s paper. Moments after he e-mailed me that my account was posted on the website, I received a Google Alert that this was indeed the case.

Just before that, my lawyer received an angry call from KGIL complaining about the content of my article. When I asked Miller how this was possible, he sheepishly (in an e-mail) admitted that he had given the article to Gary Lycan by mistake before publishing it and that Lycan had sent it to KGIL. Now I fully understand wanting to get comment from KGIL after it is posted, but to have Lycan be in the loop (when much of the article criticizes his work as a “reporter”), is a blatant and massive conflict of interest.

A little later, I noticed that, without any notification/explanation, the piece I had written had been taken down from the OC Register website. The next day Miller wrote to me (in yet another e-mail) that KGIL had laughably threatened legal action against them for publishing my version of the facts and that they were having their lawyers make sure they were in the clear. I told Miller that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the law could easily comprehend the ludicrousness of KGIL’s threat against the Register, and he agreed. I was told to expect a final decision at any moment.

It was not until the next day (a Thursday) that I finally got a voice message from Miller saying that the article would indeed be put back up online but he just needed to speak to me about it. When we talked he told me that the lawyers had concluded (surprise!) that there was no legal jeopardy for the paper in printing the article but that it would NOT, as previously agreed to by e-mail, be in the Sunday paper (it is important to note that I would never have taken the risk in writing the article without an it would be in the Sunday paper). He claimed that this was because the piece might have to be edited if there was a last second ad that came in but that he wanted the piece left intact.

My BS detector went off immediately and I told him he was lying to me and that I wanted to speak to his superior. Eventually I got a call from Rebecca Allen, who was immediately extremely and almost bizarrely defensive and sensitive. Apparently she wanted me to listen and not be heard, even though it was her paper’s breaking of a clearly written agreement that would burn someone who had simply taken up the paper’s offer to tell their version of the truth about a matter of public interest.

She scoffed at the notion that the decision not to publish the article in the paper had anything to do with advertising or editing, and basically admitted that this was their way of coming to a nonsensical compromise. When I simply tried to inquire as to the reasoning behind (or lack thereof) and the ramifications of such a decision, she abruptly and rudely hung up on me.

Perhaps the most patently unprofessional element of all of this is that she never actually said they were reversing their position or that they no longer planned (as they had stated just two hours earlier) to put the account on their website. But I knew that was the way it was going to turn out.

How pathetic is that? I just simply presumed that nothing other than personal animus (originating from me having called them on their cowardice and incompetence) would drive an alleged journalistic institution to go back on several agreements and decide not to publish a highly credible version of the truth. There was a time when what was clearly journalistically right and wrong (or at least the fear of looking completely silly) would have trumped all other factors at a reputable newspaper. Clearly, those days are gone forever.

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the Register did not re-post my column. Up until after Allen hung up on me, there was still a cache version of the piece but that’s disappeared, as well. In a rich irony (considering my many on-air run-ins with the network) the only credible evidence left on the web that the article ever existed comes from this MSNBC version of the OC Register story. The MSNBC edition contains only the beginning and links to the now dead OC Register account. Here is a link to my website where it can be found in its entirety.

I want to make clear that the significance of this story is not that it happened to me (that is simply the only reason it has been told at all – because I happen to have this pathological compulsion to tell the truth even when it’s not in my self interest to do so), but rather because it is a crystal clear case-study on just how repugnant the rotting corpse of journalism (not to mention human nature) has become….

And just how rare and difficult it is for the real truth of any matter to  come out in any significant way.

Moments after I heard the news I did a radio interview and predicted that the news media would destroy her in their transparent quest to pave the way for Barack Obama’s historic election. I had no idea just how right that “blink” calculation would be and I certainly never would have guessed that I would become a small part of that story by dedicating my life and fortune to documenting just how unbelievably bad it would get.

The last twelve months of Sarah Palin’s life truly bring new meaning to the phrase “what a difference a year makes.” I strongly believe that no public figure in modern America has ever endured more stress, pressure and unfair scrutiny in a more dignified fashion than she has over the past year (though what George W. Bush tolerated over the last three years of his presidency probably comes in a close second).

On August 28th of last year Sarah Palin was a largely unknown governor considered to be a rising star largely because of her willingness to take on Republicans in a way that had endeared her to Democrats. Today she is an ex-governor wrongly perceived by most of the country and virtually all of the news media as an erratic, unqualified, lightweight and ultra-partisan Republican who can’t even mange her own family. 

What did she do exactly to deserve this unfortunate perception? I have literally gone around the country (screening my film “Media Malpractice” which features an exclusive interview with then Governor Palin) and asked numerous media outlets that question and I have yet to get a remotely sensible answer.

The best I can come up with (oddly, this is hardly ever mentioned when the topic comes up) is that, after having to deal with three or four sittings with a Katie Couric who was clearly out to get her, she did not name a supreme court case with which she disagrees other than Roe v. Wade. Other than that, my documentary proves that every other alleged transgression that she committed has been either blown out of proportion or simply made up by a news media that obviously had both a political and financial agenda against her. When you consider all of the whopper-sized blunders committed by her campaign counterpart Joe Biden, the unfair treatment of Palin does become, at least based on the live audience reactions to my film, rather hilarious.

On top of this, I wish you to consider the unique circumstances Palin was dealing with while she went through the last year, circumstances that a remotely fair media would have considered a remarkably successful and nearly error-free year.

If, in just one spin around the sun, you had given birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome (that even mainstream media outlets would not fully accept as really belonging to you even though there was no other biological possibility), had your unmarried teenage daughter’s pregnancy (and later, her sex life) become fodder for massive worldwide coverage, had your first child sent to Iraq, had your fourteen-year-old, non-public figure daughter become the subject of rape jokes on national television, had your reputation and character destroyed by lies intended to foster the election of a man you knew would forever change/destroy the country you love, were prevented from doing your day job by a group of loser bloggers who lay awake at night (probably under the roof of their parents’ homes) dreaming of being interviewed by Keith Olbermann, and were thrown under the bus by numerous people on your “side” because they decided it was in their self-interest to do so — what are the chances you would not be left in the fetal position in a pool of your own drool?

But instead of cracking under this unprecedented pressure, Sarah Palin has proven her courage (and perhaps wisdom) by simply pivoting. While I disagreed with the timing of her decision to resign as Governor (mostly because I knew it would be misperceived as “quitting” by those who didn’t understand the facts on the ground in Alaska), I know it was done out of intentions that in a just world would be rewarded and not condemned. So far, it has also proven to be remarkably effective. After all, what other housewife from Wasilla, Alaska could have possibly altered the course of the health care debate (and possibly the entire Obama presidency) by simply posting some strong and well-footnoted opinions on her Facebook page?!

So, what have we learned from Sarah Palin’s remarkable year? Hopefully, we have learned a lot.

Among other things, we should have learned…

That surprise announcements can often create more long-term perception problems than they are worth (at least when they come from Republicans).

That to the media if you are a young, good looking, charismatic,  non-white male without a long resume and  are a conservative running for Vice-President, you are an embarrassment to the country. But if you are a young, good-looking, charismatic, non-white male without a long resume and are a socialist running for President, you are the Second Coming.

That the candidate who told the truth the most during the 2008 campaign was Sarah Palin.

That the media is perfectly willing and able to destroy someone’s character simply because it suits their political and economic agenda and will stop at nothing to do so.

That there are far too many high-profile “conservatives” willing to sell out their “cause” to gain favor with the news media and that there is almost no accountability for their treason.

That the left understands that this is a war where “assassinating” leaders of the other side is perfectly acceptable, while the right seems to still think that this is a picnic and that the Sarah Palins of the world grow on trees.

That the only people more threatened by a highly successful and good looking mom than liberal women, are Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, David Letterman and Bill Maher.

That the power of being a celebrity is far greater than the power of being Governor of Alaska.

That the ex-boyfriend of the daughter of the ex-Governor of Alaska can get treated as a media star if it is perceived to hurt a prominent conservative.

That more character was revealed in Sarah Palin over the past twelve months than America probably deserves in a politician.

That August 29th, 2008 was a seminal moment in our politics and media which has changed, perhaps forever, the rules of engagement in a way that may make it impossible for conservatives to ever fully recover and should truly frighten all fair-minded Americans.

If we don’t heed these lessons, then we will deserve what we will inevitably get.

Her resignation has been a classic example. 

First, let’s make it clear that, despite what MSNBC has implied on numerous occasions, I am NOT Governor Palin’s spokesperson, and I was not in on any official discussions about her decision to leave office (or any other of her decisions for that matter). However, I was not at all stunned by her decision. 

In fact, I had been predicting on my radio show and off (more boldly off the air because I didn’t have any direct inside knowledge and was concerned that someone “connected” to Palin making such a prediction might spark news coverage of the possibility) that something like this was going to happen. In retrospect, the only thing that should really be “shocking” about her decision is that the very same news media that’s targeted her reputation for assassination for most of the last year, was also so completely incompetent that they didn’t see the incredibly obvious signs that Palin was about to make a dramatic change in her career direction. 

My first inkling of this reality came when I screened “Media Malpractice” in Anchorage in May. There were rampant rumors there that something was up and it was obvious to me that the pressure she and her administration were under was far greater than anyone in the “lower 48″ (including someone like myself who was following events closely) could possibly comprehend. When I left Alaska I started to wonder how in the world anyone in her position could even hope to get anything done, or why, under the conditions she was facing, anyone would even bother trying. But I had come to see Sarah Palin as something of a “Superwoman” who was not bound by the limitations of mere mortal mothers of five and I figured maybe I was just being too pessimistic. 

However, when I started my new Los Angeles radio show and Palin graciously agreed to be my first guest, I did make sure to ask her point blank whether she ever considered walking away from public office because of the attacks on her family and the dastardly attempts to destroy her ability to do her job. Her response at the time startled me with its honesty (she’s the only national politician with whom I have ever had that experience). Looking back, I strongly believe her answer is important to providing the full context as to how and why she made this decision, as well as how she views her future. You can hear the remarkable interchange here: 

–

Now, I guess I can understand how the mainstream news media would miss/ignore something that happens on a conservative radio show (we all know that that “news” isn’t really “news” if it originates on conservative talk radio), but it has been truly startling that this sound bite has, to my knowledge, still not been played by even one news program even though it was made publicly available in the immediate aftermath of her resignation when the cable “news” channels were desperate for any content on this issue as well as any context for understanding what she did. In this case, I flat out blame the ineptitude rampant in today’s “news” organizations which was greatly exacerbated by the realities of a holiday weekend. 

The clip proves to me that the decision was (just as Palin said) in the works for months, which is an extremely important fact because it goes to her credibility as well as eliminating many of the bogus theories as to why she decided to step down (sudden scandal, the Vanity Fair hit piece, Letterman flap, etc.). But in case that isn’t enough proof for you, how then would you explain what happened three days later when Matt Lauer asked her on the “Today Show” about 2012? Palin very clearly said, “I don’t need a title to effect change,” a statement that slid right past Lauer and every other apparently deaf member of the news media. 

But those weren’t the only breadcrumbs Palin left in the weeks leading up to her “Independence Day.” I found it particularly amusing that when Palin said in one of her post-resignation interviews that “If I die politically, I die, so be it,” this was breathlessly reported as Palin admitting her resignation had hurt her chances of ever being President (as if she was too stupid to know that obvious reality when she made the decision). What the ignorant/lazy media hoards failed to realize is that Palin had made almost the exact same statement in a public speech in the weeks leading up to her resignation. 

In short, Palin’s resignation has been misreported and misperceived because of the horrendously biased and incomplete coverage of her over the past ten months. It’s not just that a completely phony narrative has been created by the media which makes it easy for people to think of her as stupid, incompetent, overly ambitious, diva-like, nutty and capable of massive lies (the LA Times and NY Times published rumors she faked the pregnancy of her down syndrome child!!). If possible, it is actually even worse than all of that.  

Even if they were capable of seeing through the obviously grotesquely flawed media created caricature of her, the vast majority of the public simply doesn’t have enough information to connect all the dots themselves and put her move into its proper context. (I must state here that while in a rational world this should have been taken care of by the news media, Palin and her people should have realized this was not going to be the case and made more of an effort to lay the educational foundation for the resignation to be properly interpreted.)  

For instance, how in the world can anyone fully understand why Palin took this action unless they know this is not the first time she’s done something like this? How many people are aware that in 2004 (almost exactly the same amount of time before her election as Governor as there is now before the 2012 primaries) Palin put her political career in jeopardy and resigned out of principle from a cushy government job as the chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission? My guess is very, very few. 

I’m sure most members of the news media know nothing about this basic and relevant fact from Palin’s background because I’ve done my own “poll.” Every time a media inquiry to discuss Palin’s resignation came my way I made a point of asking the reporter if they knew about this episode. So far I have yet to find even one who had a clue, and this sample includes a writer from The New York Times!!  

As maddening as this kind of incompetence is, the most insane element of the reaction to Palin’s resignation is the complete inability of the vast majority of the press — and at least some of the public — to even comprehend the possibility that she just might be telling the truth about how and why she came to this decision. 

This will evidently come as a complete shock to nearly every member of the media elite, but not everyone in public life is a manipulative and cynical liar, and not every person who has a shot at being President must live their lives to pursue that end no matter the costs to the public good, their family and their personal sanity. The Sarah Palin I know is at least one person in that position who is sufficiently well-grounded and secure enough in themselves and their values to not succumb to this illness of hyper-ambition. She is more than capable of putting something else above her own selfish, short-term political self-interest. You would think that a just society might reward that kind of person and not crucify them, but it has been long since clear that we don’t live in that kind of place.  

The bottom line is that Sarah Palin resigned simply because she was no longer allowed to do her job in a way that benefited her state and family. She saw that if she stayed on as Governor it would cost the state millions of dollars in wasted time and resources and doom it to gridlock. She knew that it would also continue to cost her family hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against false and maliciously filed ethics complaints. And she had simply had enough of her children being fodder for inappropriate public attacks. 

That’s it. Those are the facts and I’m positive there’s nothing else. There is ABSOLUTELY no hidden scandal (or as CNN’s hack Rick Sanchez “reported,” an unplanned pregnancy) and this was NOT a poorly executed ploy to ignite a 2012 Presidential run. Sarah Palin simply came to the “remarkable” conclusion that stepping down was the right thing to do for the greater good. How sad is it that so many in media (including a whole lot of “conservatives”) can’t even begin to see this obvious reality.  

I know that whatever I say is discounted because I created a film largely about Sarah Palin, and I have made it clear that I have personal admiration for her (I guess I would be more credible if I was a liberal who didn’t know anything about her), but I have never been more confident in any public declaration I have ever made. The media-created perception of this woman is the most corruptly inaccurate I’ve ever seen, and their attacks on her and her family are the most outrageous and dangerous I’ve ever been aware of. 

Every single American, regardless of their politics, should be frightened by what’s happened to Sarah Palin. I truly believe that if they knew just how false the impression of her is they’ve been spoon fed for the sake of ratings, political agenda and, as she herself said, “blood sport,” there would be an uprising. 

There’s a lot of blame to go around for how and why this has been allowed to happen, but I want to make special mention of some my conservative media “friends” (that is just an expression, I don’t really have many friends in the media) who have once again revealed just how weak, shortsighted and willing to sell out they really are. Regardless of what you think of Sarah Palin, every single conservative who attacks her by buying into media-created falsehoods so they can curry favor with the media elite should be seen as traitors to the movement. You have been duped and used as cover for a public lynching. 

The latest to fall into this trap is CPAC’s Chairman David Keene who ripped Palin (mimicking a false claim put forward by several prominent conservative commentators) for “whining” about press coverage and declared her unfit for a Presidential run. Could someone PLEASE show me just ONE legitimate example (no one making the claim has even bothered to try) of where Palin has “whined” about something that has been said about her publicly?! Are these people saying you can’t set the record straight about lies? Are you not supposed to fight back against illegitimate attacks? Gee, that strategy worked so well for President Bush. And these are the so called leaders of the movement? No wonder we are where we are.

Along the same lines, I have been astonished that a majority of conservative media members have completely skipped over an incredibly important phase in the process of accepting that Palin is not likely to be elected President in 2012… 

Outrage. 

Are we really so numb that we jump right from shock to acceptance and even criticism of the victim without bothering to express outrage over the crime itself?!! Have conservatives really become that wussified? Can you imagine how the left/media would react if one of their stars had been taken out in such a vicious and unprecedentedly inappropriate manner??!  Michael Jackson’s funeral might have even been preempted! 

For all the left’s many flaws, you have to give them this, they play for keeps. They understand this is a war. If the apparent destruction of Sarah Palin doesn’t make conservatives wake up and realize that they’re bringing butter knives to gun fights and must start protecting their warriors, there simply won’t be anyone left standing to carry the flag. 

As for what the future holds for Sarah Palin, I honestly don’t know (and I don’t think she does either). My personal belief is, barring a catastrophe, that the only person with the potential to beat Obama in 2012 is Tiger Woods, but he’ll be doing more important things. I told Palin after my first interview with her that I hoped she held her fire until 2016 when the Messiah was no longer a factor and the media narrative would be all about her comeback. I still believe that scenario is more than viable. 

I do know that what we’ve learned about Sarah Palin over the past ten months has proven that she’s a remarkable person. It just saddens me that the real story has not been told. I wish we lived in a country where character like this was rewarded or that we even deserved a leader like her. Unfortunately, I fear we do not. 

However, I take solace in the knowledge that Sarah Palin disagrees with me on this point, and that she doesn’t need her ultimate reward to include living in the White House.

While I have suffered greatly because of this stance I took, I have tried hard to not complain too much about what happened because I know to do so would be embarrassingly selfish and shortsighted. After all, the tiny risk I took and the price I paid is absolutely nothing in comparison the risk that every single member of our military takes on a regular basis and the real price that far too many are forced to pay every single day.

I am in awe at what our military has accomplished in Iraq despite having most of the public and the vast majority of the media totally abandon them. In my view, what has been accomplished there, against all odds, is perhaps the greatest achievement in the history of our military and perhaps any volunteer force in modern times.

I certainly I love my country, but what it is that inspires men and women to volunteer for military service when the benefits are so sparse and the burdens so great is beyond my comprehension. We are all incredibly lucky to live in a nation that, despite all of its faults, still have enough courageous young people to serve it in ways that allow “chicken hawks” (as the left loves to describe conservative commentators who never served in the military) to worry about things that in comparison don’t seem all that significant.

Thank you for all you do for us. I wish we appreciated you in a way that was nearly as significant as what you deserve.

First, let me tell you what really happened, and then I can explain what we should all learn from this.  Here’s the timeline… 

Monday, June 8th: Letterman uses Palin’s trip to New York to unleash a torrent of  ”comic” attacks on her and her family. The entire “Top Ten” list is devoted to the Governor and includes cracks about her updating her “slutty” wardrobe and possessing illegal drugs. The monologue includes a “joke” about Palin’s “daughter” getting “knocked up” at a Yankees game by Alex Rodriquez during the 7th inning stretch while her mother and a stadium full of spectators presumably watched.  

Tuesday, June 9th: As I’m getting ready for the second edition of my new Los Angeles radio talk show, I see a story on the Drudge Report about Letterman’s “Top Ten” list. Governor Palin was previously scheduled as a guest on that show because she’s basically the “star” of my documentary. I wanted her as my first guest on my new program and she was gracious enough to make the time for that to happen. When I speak to her off the air just before we go live, I ask if she’s aware of what Letterman had done the night before, she says she’s not. I quickly tell her about the “Top Ten” and the “slutty” comments but say nothing about the “daughter” “joke” because I wasn’t yet aware of it. 

During my extensive interview with Governor Palin I ask her about Letterman’s “slutty” comments and she, as usual, takes the high road and offers only a mild rebuke of Letterman, calling him “pretty pathetic.”  

While that clip from my interview makes the rounds for the rest of the day, the “spat” really doesn’t get that much play at first and Drudge even takes the entire issue off his site. However, it is important to note that there was plenty of information out in the public domain before Letterman’s taping that night which should have given the host and his staff all the facts they needed to realize that the only “daughter” with Palin on her New York trip was a 14-year-old, non-public figure, Willow. There is no apology from Letterman that night. 

Wednesday June 10th: Much to my surprise I’m asked on MSNBC to discuss my interview with Governor Palin and the Letterman comments. I’m particularly stunned when I’m told I’ll be interviewed by Norah O’Donnell, with whom I’ve had on-air tussles in the past. Well, clearly O’Donnell either gets cold feet or simply chickens out when she finds out it’s her job to interview me (I was laughably told by the MSNBC producer that this change of plans – a plan I was given 25 minutes before the show — is due to “breaking news” of the Chrysler Supreme Court decision from the previous evening!).   

Instead I’m “interviewed” by Contessa Brewer, and you can judge for yourself how that went: 

– 

I later find out that what Brewer thought was an analogous situation in her own life was when Don Imus (oh, the irony!) said she had a large ass. Yeah Contessa, that’s pretty much the same as what Letterman said about Palin and her family! 

Rush Limbaugh plays the highlights of what is likely my last MSNBC appearance (twice) on his show, and the video of this exchange is quickly all over the Internet. 

Later, Governor Palin and her husband Todd release scathing statements condemning Letterman for his “rape joke” about Willow.  That night Letteman mocks their statement, lamely claims that the joke was about Bristol not Willow (which, by the way, I think is a valid distinction but one which is not consistent with the facts), invites Governor Palin (while creepily urging Todd to stay home) on his show to further increase his ratings, and proceeds to retell the very same jokes for which he is allegedly “apologizing.” 

Thursday June 11th:  Governor Palin’s spokesperson (contrary to Contessa Brewer’s claims, that is NOT me) says she will not be coming on Letterman’s show and half jokingly says that it would probably be a good idea to keep Willow away from Letterman. This last statement would not (surprise!) be put in the proper context by the news media because they either didn’t know, or didn’t care, that Letterman had been making numerous overt references to his sexual attraction to the Governor for an extended period of time and of course he has just joked (whether he realized it or not) about a public sex act with Willow. 

During most of the day the leftwing media goes into overdrive in their efforts to protect Letterman and even demonize Palin for having the gall to protect her daughter’s dignity. The bogus apology is largely accepted by the media and receives almost none of the scathing criticism it so richly deserved. At this point Don Imus must have been thinking back to his groveling to Al Sharpton after the “nappy headed hoes” outrage and wondered, “What the hell is going on here?!” 

Shockingly, Keith Olbermann (who is both a Letterman sycophant and possessor one of the nastiest cases of Palin Derangement Syndrome in captivity) is one of the worst offenders in this crusade.  He calls the Palins “opportunists” and his guest Margaret Carlson sells out her entire gender for future spots on Olbermann’s show by declaring that Palin should be considered “one of the worst people in the world” for having strongly stood up (in a written statement for heaven’s sake!) for her 14-year-old daughter.  The National Organization for Women of course says nothing and does not call for Letterman’s firing as they did for Imus. 

Friday June 12th: Governor Palin goes on The Today Show to discuss a major development in her efforts to get a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48.  Matt Lauer, like a kid being forced to wait at the top of the steps before being allowed to see what’s under the Christmas tree, barely makes it through the “substance” so he can grill Palin about why she’s so offended by the host of a major show on CBS making rape jokes about her 14-year-old daughter. For some reason Lauer asks her how she found out about the Letterman attacks and she accurately (of course) mentions the events exactly as they happened on my show and gives my program an unnecessary, but still appreciated, mention. 

Later that day I’m made aware of a website (that contrary to numerous allegedly reputable news outlets is NOT mine) www.firedavidletterman.com which is planning some sort of rally outside of Letterman’s theater early the next week. Long story short, I agree to be one of their spokespeople/advisors and promise to speak at the rally if my new radio station can get a studio in New York City in time. 

Monday June 15th:  I make an appearance on Fox News Channel to discuss the rally and why I think what Letterman did was far worse than what Imus was fired for. My radio station (KGIL in Los Angeles) is able to get a studio for me to do my show the next day in NYC, so that afternoon I head to LAX to catch the next flight across the country so I can speak at the rally. 

As I am getting on the plane I get a call from a producer of the CBS Early Show telling me that Letterman had “sincerely” apologized and asking me if the rally is still on with the clear implication that this should be enough to call the whole thing off (the same presumption would dominate nearly every one of the dozens of media inquires I would field after that). The producer books me on the show for the next morning, but I’m pretty sure he’s going to cancel once he puts it up the flag pole and CBS makes it clear from the higher ups that they’re still supporting their guy (one of the obvious signs the Imus MSNBC show was toast was when NBC news spent an entire first segment of the Nightly News obsessing over the “nappy headed hoes” issue). Sure enough, I soon have a message on my voicemail canceling my booking on the CBS Early Show. 

No one involved with the movement/rally/website really gives any thought to canceling because of Letterman’s belated apology. I’m just glad he essentially admitted that we were right. I also wonder what new information or event (other than watching Mark Shields on PBS criticize him; who knew Letterman watches PBS, or that Mark Shields was still alive?!) has suddenly changed the circumstances since Letterman had all the information he needed to apologize a week earlier and did no such thing.  However, knowing the media like I do, I’m sure they’ll use this as the “move on” moment they are desperately searching for and that the environment for Tuesday’s rally is going to be even more difficult than I previously feared.   

Tuesday June 16th: I’m awaken very early with media calls for me to react to Governor Palin “accepting” Letterman’s apology (contrary to the claims of Contessa Brewer and others, I am not part of Sarah Palin’s decision making process nor even in the loop). While I totally understand why she did it (one of the thousands of disadvantages she faces, thanks to the media agenda against her, is no flexibility when it comes to not taking the highest of roads. She would surely have been skewered had she had done anything other than show how classy she really in fully accepting Letterman’s second apology), I must confess that I knew her acceptance of the apology was going to derail our message. The media now had everything they needed to move on from a story that made them very uncomfortable because it forced them to either defend Sarah Palin or expose themselves as blatant hypocrites. Of course, this would mark the first time in recorded history that the national news media has accepted as credible anything Sarah Palin has said. 

In-between numerous radio and television interviews, and in the wildest kind of irony, I was able to do my radio show from, I kid you not, the CBS News building.  This is hilarious not just because Letterman’s show is on CBS, but because I was just arrested at USC for trying to expose Katie Couric’s Walter Cronkite Journalism Award for her Sarah Palin interview as the fraud that it is. For most people this situation would be off the charts on the bizarro meter, but my life is so strange and I was so busy that the whole thing barely fazed me. Sadly, Katie and I didn’t run into each other in the lobby.  

After my show, I take a cab to the Ed Sullivan Theater. My expectations for what is about to transpire are extremely low. None of the heavy hitters in the conservative media (not to mention NOW) had stepped forward to help out the cause, and thus far most of the coverage of the rally was national and not local. The people who were organizing this event (again, contrary to numerous “news” accounts, that was NOT me) did not seem to have their act together and I was very concerned that even the basics for this kind of happening would not be properly in place.  I warned them many times about various aspects of the basic logistics and they assured me it would be taken care of. They also seemed confident that the crowd would be at least a couple hundred people (over 300 had indicated they would be there), which I thought would be fine. To me the size of the crowd had nothing to do with anything. This was about right and wrong. But I also know the way the game is played. 

When I arrived about 10 minutes before the scheduled start time, it was clear this thing would be a disaster. The small crowd was splintered by numerous members of the news media who were clearly dedicated to interviewing the craziest people they could find to represent “all” the protesters. One guy (later determined to be a plant from a satellite radio show) screamed and carried on like a lunatic. Things only get worse from there. 

I immediately recognized that some of the people the owner of fire-david-letterman.com (a guy in Nashville, of all places) had put in charge of organizing the event were the same individuals who had royally screwed me in a NYC screening of my film originally intended for the “PUMA” organization (a pro-Hillary faction that I soon learned was mostly full of complete lunatics with racist and man-hating tendencies who had absolutely no ability to get people to any event of any kind). Now I’m sure we’re doomed. 

Sure enough, no large crowd arrives. Worse than that, the audio set-up lacks a speaker system and there’s no power source (Fox News originally offered to plug the extension cord into their live truck but then apparently decided that might not send the right message; I’m quite sure that CNN and the local stations who were there would have fallen over themselves to help — without fear of repercussion — if Al Sharpton needed electricity). The woman who was supposed to know how to set up the audio system hadn’t yet arrived and the back-up bullhorn could barely outdo a church mouse. 

It is a nightmare. 

Seeking to make the best of a horrible situation and with no other viable options, I call a press conference. About half the media not distracted by the nut-jobs, gather and I proceed to give an address and then take questions. Here’s the video: 

Part 1: 

– 

Part 2:

– 

After I finish up and sign autographs for a few fans of my film, I have a decision to make: Either stay and watch the rest of the ship sink, or make a scheduled appearance on CNN Headline News. I decide on the TV show (some bloggers have charged that I just left, never even spoke, or split early for no reason — neither of which is remotely accurate). But even though I had to endure some jackass faux “independent” on the CNN television panel outrageously claim that this was all an attempt at publicity for Governor Palin and me, it was probably the right call.   

As I fly back to LA that night I’m very depressed. I know the left-wing nuts on the Internet are going to have a field day with what happened and that the true point of all of this is likely to get lost. I get in too late to catch David Letterman do a somewhat humorous “Top Ten” list on the things overheard at the Fire David Letterman rally. He should have added, “Who’s that geeky white guy who wishes he had never spent $1,000 and 14 hours traveling from LA to be here?”  

Wednesday June 17th : Though sure the media will let the story completely  die, I’m shocked when e-mails arrive indicating Olive Garden restaurants has pulled their advertising from the Letterman show. I leak the strongly worded e-mails to Politico.com and they indicate that the story will break as soon as they can verify it. 

Thursday June 18th:  Sure enough, Politico confirms the Olive Garden story and it runs prominently (it gets the most page views that day). Drudge runs it, as well as Big Hollywood and Hotair. Weirdly, the article they run has several inaccuracies about me (once again, I did not organize the rally, and the firedavidletterman.com website is not mine). The reporter promises to correct the errors, but never does. He also never adds to the story our verification that Hellman’s/Whole Foods has pulled online advertising from Letterman.  

The reporter claims this is because he’s too busy dealing with a New York Times report (from a reporter who has written a book largely about Letterman) that indicates Olive Garden is denying the story. Politico does not back off the story, but does let Olive Garden off the hook for their obvious reversal/disingenuousness. The media’s allowing Letterman to dodge another bullet. My guess is that the chamber is now empty. 

In conclusion, I wish to share some general thoughts and observations on this whole saga. 

For a guy who’s received WAY more hate mail in my life than 99.99% of the population, even I’m shocked by the volume and intensity of angry e-mails over this matter.  They’re almost all the same; high on profanity and insults (for some reason “douchebag” is a favorite with this crowd) and extremely low on substance and logic. 

The left-wing blogs have been seemingly obsessed with me — as if anything about me changes the basic facts of the story – but it’s obvious they can’t win this argument on the facts so they’ve chosen to make me the issue. Here’s an incomplete list of reasons they give for why my role in this story is illegitimate. 

1. I’ve been fired many times for saying things on talk shows. (Ah, hello! That’s exactly why I am credible on this issue, and nothing I got fired for was nearly as egregious as what Letterman said. If I had said something as bad or worse and NOT gotten fired, THEN that would be a legitimate issue.) 

2. I wrote a little-noticed book called ‘The Death of Free Speech.” (In which I lay out the “rules” for broadcast speech as determined by the news media, many of which were clearly violated by Letterman. I was simply trying to either get some equity or at least expose the massive double standard when it comes to the arbitrary enforcement of these rules, especially when the target is Sarah Palin.) 

3. In an out of context interview for a reality show (which I doubt ever aired) put together by a left winger trying to make me look bad when I suddenly became someone they cared enough about to attack, I once said that most women are irrational and that the key to dating is to find a woman with a manageable degree of irrationality. (It is a shame they missed the section where I joke about a 14-year-old girl getting raped in public by an adult while her mother watches, because THAT might have been remotely relevant to this matter.) 

4. I’m just a media whore. (So is there another way to get one’s message out when you don’t have a national television talk show? Please let me know if there is, because frankly no one hates the absurdity of appearing as a guest on TV talk shows more than me.)

5. I’m doing this simply to make money from my film. (Really? If anyone knew how much money and work and risk I have put into this film/cause and how little money I’m likely to make when all’s said and done, or how many copies of the film I’ve donated because that’s how strongly I believe in the message, they couldn’t possibly think money is anywhere near my prime motivation. I can also assure you that I have made no profit from this specific episode.) 

6. I personally like Sarah Palin. (Yep. You got me. I guess we should wait for one of the millions who seem to hate her to devote their time, money and reputation to defend her. Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I should just shut up about the truth of the media agenda against her – a mission I’ve devoted my life to exposing — because, after all, I am biased, and even worse, actually know what I’m talking about.) 

7. Other comedians had said things almost as horrible about Palin and her family and there was no outrage. (This might be my favorite bit of liberal “logic.” So, because others got away with verbal manslaughter, we should Letterman get away with comparative murder??) 

Yes, much vitriol has been thrown my direction, but I’m not as bothered by that as I am by what has been once again allowed to happen to the Palin family because — despite what you might read on left-wing blogs — this is obviously NOT ABOUT ME. 

This is about a woman who has seen her character and reputation attacked relentlessly and illegitimately by a news media with a clear agenda. She’s been accused of faking the pregnancy of a down-syndrome baby, had the details of her teenage daughter’s sex life discussed on Larry King Live (well after the election), watched one of her previously unscathed children joked about in the most heinous way imaginable, and then gets accused of trying to get media attention when she releases a statement expressing outrage. Is there another parent in this country who wouldn’t have completely lost it at this point, even if they weren’t also the highly successful governor of our largest state? 

Regardless of your political persuasion, what happened to the Palins should be of grave concern. What should sadden and frighten all of us is that we are now in the process of clearly setting a precedent that there are no rules or standards when it comes to attacking a particular public person (and their private family). Sarah Palin and her family have done absolutely nothing to deserve this treatment. The media simply decided they don’t like them. 

Thankfully, my sense is that the Palins are probably uniquely suited to survive and prosper through an unprecedented firestorm that has gone on for almost a year now. But just because they are tough enough to take it, doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be stopped or at least condemned.

For those that may have missed the incredible video of the incident, here is how the episode was played on Fox News Channel: 

While that report provided a good overview of what happened, there is a lot more to say about this situation, largely because there has been so much misinformation, so many irresponsible accusations, and so much blatant hypocrisy in the general reaction to the remarkable videotape. 

Now, one would think that there wouldn’t be much confusion about a situation that was videotaped in its entirety by not one but two cameras who were acting largely independently of the primary actors (we have posted a nearly real-time version of the entire affair at www.HowObamaGotElected.com), but unfortunately that is clearly the case. I would like to try to address some of these issues here. 

First, one of the ways that those on the left have used to try to avoid having to hold their nose and support the free speech rights of a rabble-rousing “conservative,” is that USC is a “private” school and therefore they had the right to kick me out for no purpose. I even saw one prominent blog with the headline “Ziegler Arrested for Trespassing on Private Property,” which is just laughably false. 

While USC is indeed a “private” school, this does not in any way legally make their property like that of a private residence. First, they take federal tax money, and second it has a very “open” campus and the area I was in has direct access from a public street without even a gate blocking the way. At any given moment there are many people walking on the sidewalks where I was arrested who are neither students, faculty nor invited guests of the University. I had every right to be there (outside the building where the award ceremony took place) and I did nothing to provoke or warrant being handcuffed, arrested or removed from the property. It is very clear the only reason that happened was because of my previously expressed political opinion on what was going on that day. In short, I was targeted for different treatment because of my beliefs. 

The next tactic many have tried, in order to avoid facing their own politically induced hypocrisy on free speech, is to minimize the incident by saying that I was not “arrested” and that what happened was not a big deal. 

While in the end I was not charged (I was told that I would indeed be booked at LAPD headquarters), that was only because higher authorities saw that the campus police “arrest” was clearly problematic if not completely bogus. After I was already “arrested,” they shifted gears and told me that I basically had two choices: leave the premises or be charged along with the two photographers who did not work for me and who in no way bargained for such a situation. Not wanting to put them in jeopardy and seeing that I could not possibly do anything further to achieve my original goal of educating those attending the awards, I decided, under threat of prosecution, to leave the grounds. 

But make no mistake, I was arrested. I was handcuffed and detained against my will for an extended period of time with my microphone and blackberry taken from me. The photographers were also told to stop shooting under threat of arrest themselves. And, as the video clearly shows, my wrists were significantly bruised by the handcuffs that I had rightly complained were put on way too tight. 

All of this happened obviously not because of my actions but because of my political view on the proceedings. In effect, I was being punished, repressed, and physically harmed as a form of prior restraint because they anticipated that I might do something to disrupt the proceedings based on my prior writings and commentary on the event (in which I never claimed I would do anything more than exactly what I tried to; give away copies of my film as an educational exercise). No matter how hard liberals try to rationalize it, this makes this a very obvious case of a blatant free speech violation. 

Another way that commentators (including some on the right) have attempted to ignore the very serious First Amendment implications of this case, is to say that I set this up as some sort of publicity stunt to promote my film. 

First of all, this could not be more irrelevant to the constitutional issues involved here. Second of all, I ask you to consider how the media would have reacted if the exact same events had happened to Michael Moore (which of course it wouldn’t because as a liberal he would never have anything to get upset about at a major academic institution and, even if he did, he would automatically get far more leeway from the authorities). I don’t think anyone could possibly argue that vast portions of the new media would ignore the episode despite the amazing video and the fact that it was up on Drudge for well over 24 hours. 

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, while obviously I welcome anything that raises awareness of my film and its truth, THIS WAS NOT A PUBLICITY STUNT and I had absolutely zero intention or expectation of anything like this happening. I honestly thought that I would go, ask a few embarrassing questions of the authorities, give away my film, and hopefully be able to speak to some of those who were going to the event so that I could share with them the real truth of the matter. 

For those cynics out there (I am one, by the way) who still don’t believe me, I ask you to answer the following questions. 

If this was a publicity stunt, why didn’t I force the authorities to book me so that I would get a mug shot and face formal charges which would exponentially increase the media coverage of the event? 

If I anticipated anything like what occurred, why did I park my car in a metered parking space where if I was gone for more than an hour the chances of my car being towed would be extremely high? 

If I wanted this to occur, why did I not have any scripted lines ready to go or any sort of publicity machine mobilized to take advantage of the news potential of the incident? Why did I have to call my lawyer after I got kicked off the property to see if what the law said about what one could do at a “private” university. 

While I completely understand the skepticism, any objective look at the facts or at who I am as a person will force you to conclude that my motives were actually rather pure here. 

The last bastion of scoundrels looking to distract from the real issues in this case is to focus on me as an individual and transparently distort some of the more colorful stories of my past as a way of destroying me personally. Not only is this a deceitful and clearly politically motivated scheme, but in many ways it is also the most dangerous tactic. For if we do not protect the free speech rights of the most unpopular or misunderstood among us, then we allow the free speech rights of everyone to be precariously weakened. 

As you can see in the videotape, I am essentially laughing through most of the ordeal. I think this was out of shock more than anything else.  Since this happened, my emotions have turned much more towards anger and sadness for what this means for the state of our freedoms in this rapidly changing country. 

One of the things that has infuriated me most since the arrest has been USC’s e-mail response to the many people who have complained on my behalf over what they saw on the videotape. 

Here is the e-mail that the Dean of the USC journalism school is sending out. In bold is where I have commented on the parts that are lies, distortions, or nonsensical statements. 

Thank you for your communication about the recent incident that took place at the Cronkite Awards ceremony involving an individual named John Ziegler. I want you to know the background of the situation. 

In the days before his appearance on our campus, Mr. Ziegler publicly stated an intention to “demonstrate” (not true. I used the word ”protest” and later sent out a private e-mail to my website’s mailing list telling my “followers” NOT to come or protest, my op-ed and press release on the matter said only that I would be giving out copies of my film) against the presentation of a journalism award to Katie Couric. USC was happy to accommodate Ziegler and provided him with a designated area where he could register his protest (not true. that was not offered until after I was handcuffed and was irrelevant because I was not “protesting” but rather asking questions), be seen by attendees at the event, as well as students, and pass out whatever materials he wished.  
 
On the day of the award ceremony, Mr. Ziegler arrived on campus with two cameramen (not true. we arrived separately and they did not work for me), not as a demonstrator, but as a journalist (really?? that’s very interesting and certainly not how they treated me), and demanded (false, I asked and never even pursued entering, only asking for a rationale for why I was not allowed to) that he and his cameramen be allowed to enter the Davidson Center to cover the event. There was in fact, pool coverage set up because the room was not large enough to accommodate multiple camera crews. He was told he could have that feed, which he refused (not true, I would have been happy to have the feed and inquired as to how to get it).  After being told repeatedly that the event was by invitation only, he contended he had a right to roam up and down the entryway with his cameramen (I didn’t have the right to be on an “open” campus that takes federal money??!), and he persisted in refusing to comply with the University’s request that he stay within a designated area (not true, that was after I was handcuffed) . After repeated requests for compliance, Mr. Ziegler was given the choice of either being arrested or leaving campus. He chose to leave campus (false, after being handcuffed. I was told I was under arrest and would be booked, then the LAPD and some higher ups arrived and I was told to leave or I would be booked and the camera people would be as well).
 
The University both respects and facilitates freedom of speech and expression on campus (just not for conservative filmmakers asking about bogus awards given to liberal media members), but also reserves the right to set reasonable ground-rules to avoid disruption to its operations and protect the rights of others (which was in no way endangered in this situation). We at the Annenberg School have a powerful and evident commitment to protecting and promoting freedom of expression and the rights of the press (really??). I respect your feelings about how this incident was handled (gee, I wonder why!).

Sincerely,

Ernest J. Wilson III

Dean and Walter H. Annenberg Chair in Communication

Wow. If that that e-mail is any indication of the type of journalism Dean Wilson is teaching future journalists at USC, things are far worse than even I thought! What is most amazing to me is that the whole thing is on videotape and they are still blatantly lying about how things transpired!

The bottom line here is that what happened to me was a grave injustice that should concern every freedom-loving American regardless of their political persuasion.

Just like I will not be intimidated in my crusade to correct the historical record about what really happened with regard to the media coverage of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential election, I will not allow media hypocrisy, apathy and hatred of conservatives to stop me from making sure the free speech rights of all Americans are as fully protected as possible.

I plan to aggressively pursue my legal rights in this matter (already, USC has stupidly rejected an incredibly generous settlement offer that included no money, but rather only an apology and a full page in the school newspaper) and intend to formally announce those plans soon. 

John Ziegler is the author of the “The Death of Free Speech” and the producer of “Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.”