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.

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.”

Now, for there to even be such a thing as an prize for “Excellence in Television Journalism” in an age where a desperate thirst for ratings has caused most TV “news” to become little more than glorified infotainment, is a bit like passing out awards for fiscal responsibility to members of Congress.  But for Katie Couric, the poster child of this “infotainmentification” of news, to be the recipient of such an oxymoronic honor is much like if that aforementioned trophy for frugal spending in Congress went to John Murtha or Barney Frank. 

But what makes this situation so particularly galling is the specific reason why Couric is being honored for her “excellence in journalism.”  Couric is being presented with the award for “Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign.” 

What was it that Couric did that was so “special?” The judges singled her out solely for “her extraordinary, persistent and detailed multi-part interviews with Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.” 

Of course there is no disputing that the perception created by that interview and the ensuing media and entertainment coverage of it clearly had enormous impact on how Barack Obama got elected, but is this the kind of “achievement” that journalism is supposed to be honoring? (If it is, shouldn’t the award really go to Tina Fey?)  And is there any doubt whatsoever that had Couric asked the exact same questions and Palin had been perceived as having performed well (or if one of her softball interviews with Barack Obama had brought down his candidacy) that there would be no awards for her from USC or anyone else of note? 

So it’s obvious Couric is being rewarded for the political result of her interview (the shooting down of a conservative superstar just in time to save the Obama campaign) and not the “journalism” of it, but that truth is not even the most outrageous aspect of this absurdity. That lies in the reality that not only shouldn’t Couric be getting rewarded for that Palin interview, in a world where journalism still mattered at all she would have been roundly condemned for it. 

How do I know this? Because I have devoted most of the last eight months of my life to telling the real story behind the media coverage of the 2008 election with my documentary “Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.” The focal point of my film is the exclusive interview I did with Governor Palin from her home in Wasilla where she reveals more than enough evidence to completely discredit Couric’s USC award.     

Even though my Palin interview has gotten a ridiculous amount of media coverage, nearly every TV “journalist” has somehow missed the most important revelation regarding the Couric/Palin showdown. That dealt with how Couric’s agenda-driven obsession with trapping the Governor on the abortion issue convinced Palin that she was in enemy territory and that nothing Couric asked was to be trusted or taken on face value. 

Here are two clips on this specific topic from my interview with Palin.

Palin on Couric’s questioning on abortion issue

Palin on disagreement with Couric over abortion

Abortion was not the only issue where Couric’s intentions were clearly not “journalistic” in nature. Here, Katie bizarrely asked Palin for an example of when John McCain had ever been in favor of tighter regulation in the financial realm other than his outspoken efforts with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is was kind of like inquiring, “other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?” 

Couric’s question to Palin

But it wasn’t just the very odd tactic of taking by far the most important answer off the table (rendering the question meaningless except for its “gotcha” quality) that put this episode into the level of “Media Malpractice.” The way that the exchange was played on the air made it seem to many (including at least one prominent Fox News reporter), that Palin could not answer the question at all and was only able to meekly respond, “I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” 

Here, Palin says the false notion that she hadn’t cited the obvious “Fannie and Freddy” example wasn’t the only misimpression left by the editing of the CBS interview. 

Palin on how the Couric interview was edited

Selective editing also left the impression (thanks to an in-artful Palin attempt to actually answer the question the way Couric asked it) that the Governor mistakenly thought that the Wall Street bailout bill was actually about “health-care.” 

Here’s what really happened there. 

Palin on being taken out of context

The most infamous moment of the Couric/Palin interview was the unforgettable, “What do you read?” question (and the very quick and not nearly as innocent as it might appear, “but which ones specifically, I’m curious…” Couric follow up). Here is Palin’s perspective on why her non-answer was so misunderstood. 

Palin on the “what do you read” issue

Other than the abortion answer which is the key to unlocking the context of the Couric interview, the two Palin clips from my interview that have been vastly under-reported (obviously because they couldn’t possibly compete with the “substance” of the “catfight” clips involving Plain taking on Couric, Fey and Caroline Kennedy) deal with the overall magnitude of what transpired here and why anyone who cares about the truth or the nature of our news media should be open to the overwhelming evidence in my film, regardless of their political persuasion.

Palin on the media’s “seek and destroy” mission against her candidacy

Palin on the state of the media

USC and Walter Cronkite should be embarrassed giving this award to Katie Couric. Of course, it is quite possible they just don’t know the facts of why that is so obviously the case. I hope to take care of that ignorance (the corresponding liberal agenda I can’t do anything about) on the day of the awards ceremony. While I was not able to get a ticket, I plan to be at the event handing out copies of “Media Malpractice” to any of the attendees who want to know the facts.   

I am sure I will be received warmly. After all, isn’t getting the facts what journalism is supposed to be all about? 

John Ziegler can be reached at talktozig@aol.com and you can find out more about the film at www.HowObamaGotElected.com

Whether anyone chooses to notice or not, President Obama put himself out on the very edge of a very long and fragile limb on the issue of how to handle terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.  For a guy who is a master at not taking any real position at all (or, when he is really at his “best” taking all possible sides to an issue simultaneously) , Obama showed an absolutely unbelievable recklessness in his response to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of his closing of the prison camp.

In fact, if it turns out that we do have another 9/11 and there is even a shred of evidence that the closing of Guantanamo had anything to do with our inability to prevent it,  I don’t think that Obama could have closed off any more of his plausible escape hatches if he had actually tried to do so.

Let’s go through just some of the highlights of what could end up one day serving as Obama’s political obituary (one so strong that even his many cheerleaders in the news media may have a tough time dismissing it).

Obama told Steve Kroft, “I mean, the fact of the matter is, after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many– how many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn’t made us safer.”

Was this really the President of the United States speaking?

Since Guantanamo was opened we have a 100% record in fending off terrorist attacks in this country. Do we know that the way we have dealt with terror suspects is the reason for this success rate, or even a main cause for it? No.  But would you really wager your entire Presidency (not to mention the safety of the American people) that it isn’t, especially when the only people who will benefit are likely to be dregs of humanity who have evil intent towards the United States?

Of course this is the same Obama who made a heavy bet against the surge in Iraq and was never forced by the media or the McCain campaign to pay up on that, so perhaps he is not irrational to think he could get away with such a risky and ill-conceived gambit.

Then Obama dropped this little number on the nation, “What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of– Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.”

Did Obama really just correlate being Arab and Muslim with being a terrorist? I thought that was the exact kind of politically incorrect Bush-ism that supposedly got Arabs and Muslims to hate us in the first place and which, rather ironically, Obama was decrying while making that statement. It should also be pointed out that Mr. “Citizen of the World” doesn’t seem to know or care that many who belong to Al Qaeda consider themselves Asian or African and not Arab.

But then, in typical Obama style, when confronted on what to actually do about the problem that some terror suspects who have been let go even by the draconian Bush Administration have gone right back to the battlefield, the President immediately took refuge in a position that is only possible in the utopia that is Obamaland.

Obama pontificated, “Well there is no doubt that– we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals that we’ve got to– make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up.”

Really? So if we were already being way too hard on these suspects (many of whom obviously just found themselves in Guantanamo by mere accident) before the Messiah got to call the shots, how exactly is it that we are going to finally do a “particularly effective job” of weeding out the truly bad guys when the holes in the filter are going to get demonstratively larger?  

Obama continued, “Do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter– down the block? Of course not.”

Kroft, suddenly remembering for a moment that he is supposed to play the role of a “journalist” (a vocation now usually only seen in museums), asked the obvious question, “What do you do with those people?” Obama responded, “Well, I think we’re going to have to figure out a mechanism to make sure that they’re not released and do us harm.”

You mean like the one we already had before you took office?

In case you are one of those who just has faith that Obama simply knows what he’s doing because he’s so smart, knowledgeable and well-spoken, let me let you in on a little secret. He doesn’t even understand the basic facts of the situation.

No one noticed during the campaign, but just after he secured the nomination Obama revealed how incredibly ignorant he really is on this issue of the history leading up to 9/11 and the terror camp at Guantanamo.  

I know this because I produced a film called “Blocking the Path to 9/11″ which detailed Obama’s massive factual blunder on this issue in the scene below.

–

So, instead of any of this “trivia,” the only thing negative most Americans got out of Obama’s “60 Minutes” interview was about his laughter over the economy. Well, if this wasn’t so serious it certainly would be funny. Right now I guess it still is. Let’s hope Obama’s incredible luck helps keeps it that way. Before long, we may not have much more on which to rely to keep us safe.

This week’s Washington Times column:

Pretty much everyone I respect in media and politics recommended I not go on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher.” But on Friday night, I defied that wisdom and had the time of my life.

I sparred with Mr. Maher, Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson and a MoveOn.org audience from hell that booed my sentences before they were completed. Unfortunately, my wife and in-laws, who watched from the green room, were not as enamored with the experience as I was.

Since the salad days of ABC’s “Politically Incorrect,” which minted countless right-wing pundits and best-selling authors, conservatives have rightly assessed the HBO version of the Maher show as R-rated and shockingly hostile to their worldview. So most opt out.

I totally see why. But I think that’s exactly the wrong strategy.

The problem with the withdrawal approach is that it cedes the popular culture debate to the other side. We figure talk radio, a certain cable news network and some independent Internet venues will allow for us to get our ideas out to the masses. Well, those few outlets are greatly outnumbered. They are also isolated and targeted for destruction by the activist left. The sitting president (using taxpayer money) is now leading the charge.

In my neighborhood at least, this strategy of avoiding engagement with the other side isn’t working out so well.

People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. “Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?”

This army of the emboldened and gleefully ill-informed is growing. Groupthink happens, and we must take it on head-on.

One must get a copy of John Ziegler’s “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted” to understand the extent to which the traditional media have become an organized enemy aimed at conservatism, its leaders and its institutions. It was the tag team of entertainment (Tina Fey) and news (Katie Couric) that worked to take Sarah Palin down.

We can’t win the political war until we take on the Hollywood and mainstream media battles.

You can read the column in full here.

–

As we’ve seen with John Ziegler’s important and well-made “Media Malpractice,” there’s a place and need for the political documentary, both on the left and right, but when it comes to the art of telling a story through film, that’s not the end game, it’s merely the opening kickoff. Though a documentary, “Brothers at War” is a reminder of what the goal line looks like.

Change, if I may use that term, will only come when fresh, talented filmmakers use their passion to seek truth through the art of telling a story. Whether that’s done through documentary or narrative doesn’t matter. “Truth” is what matters. “Story” is what matters. Exposing and deconstructing liberal Hollywood serves a purpose, but it’s playing defense. We need artists.

Jake Rademacher is an artist – a first time filmmaker who used the art of film to find the truth and tell the story of three brothers who loved each other but had a hard time being friends.  His story may be set in Iraq, but the power of it is that it could have been set anywhere. The themes and ideas that drive Rademacher transcend war and politics and agenda.

But what comes from an unflinching look at the story of three brothers is a stirring truth about the extraordinary men and women who serve this country and offer their lives for those they’ve never met. And no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how honorable, no matter how professionally crafted, no filmmaker who set out to document the valor of the United States Military could do it as well as Rademacher because that’s not what he set out to do, but it is what he found.

Those of you who believe in what this site and our contributors stand for can relate to the idea that constantly opposing something is frustrating and exhausting, with “Brothers at War” something has come along that we can and should support.

–

For information on how to bring ”Brothers at War” to a theatre near you, please visit the website. 

–

Gabe Ledeen’s insightful review is here. And here are the links to a Politico story and a Ain’t It Cool News interview with Rademacher and producer Gary Sinise.

–

Below is the film’s current release schedule:

3/13/2009

• Columbus, GA (near Fort Benning), Carmike 15 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Fayetteville, NC (near Fort Bragg), Carmike 12 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Jacksonville, NC (near Camp LeJeune), Carmike 16 – http://www.carmike.com/
• Chicago, IL AMC River East – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Washington DC Landmark E Street Cinema – Landmark Theatres – http://landmarktheatres.com/
• Arlington, VA AMC Shirlington – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/

3/20/2009

• Akron (Ohio National Guard), Regal Interstate Park 18 – Regal Cinemas – http://regalcinemas.com/

3/27/2009

• Augusta, GA (near Fort Gordon, US Army)
• Savannah, GA (near Fort Stewart, US Army), Coming Soon
• Shreveport, LA (near Barksdale AFB, US Air Force) Cinemark Tinseltown 17 – http://www.cinemark.com/
• Clarksville, TN (near Fort Campbell, US Army) Carmike Governor’s Square 10 – Carmike – http://www.carmike.com/
• Hampton, VA (near Langley AFB, US Air Force), AMC Hampton Towne Center 24 – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Newport News, VA (near Fort Eustis, US Army), AMC Kiln Creek 20 – AMC – http://www.amctheatres.com/
• Norfolk, VA (near Norfolk Naval Station, US Navy), Coming Soon
• Killeen, TX (near Fort Hood), Hollywood Stadium 14 – Hollywood Theaters – http://gohollywood.com/
• San Antonio, TX – Bijou at the Crossroads – Santikos – http://www.santikos.com/
• Cleveland Heights (Ohio National Guard), Cedar Lee Cinema
• Dayton (near Wright-Patterson AFB, US Air Force), Regal Hollywood 20-Fairfield Commons – Regal Cinemas – http://regalcinemas.com/
• Decatur, IL Carmike Hickory Pointe 12 – Carmike – http://www.carmike.com/
• Tacoma, WA (near Fort Lewis), Coming Soon
• Oceanside, CA (near Camp Pendleton) Regal Oceanside 16 – http://regalcinemas.com/
• Monterey, CA (near Presidio of Monterrey, DOD), Osio Cinema

Last week I released my documentary film “Media Malpractice… How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted“ and appeared on numerous major media outlets to explain and promote the film. You can see most of those, often hilarious, appearances for yourself here.

This is a diary of sorts of my promotional tour. 

Sunday February 22nd: 

For weeks we had geared our entire rollout to revolve around a long scheduled live appearance on the “Today Show” which would center around us having given them the exclusive on the rest of the Sarah Palin interview that I had done back in January (believe me NBC was not my first choice and the thick irony of doing this with the network that was featured most in my film was not lost on me).

I flew from Los Angeles to New York with my publicist on the project, Michael Wright…  As soon as we stepped off the plane Michael had a message from the “Today Show” producer who had set up the interview.  They were going to bump us from Monday to Tuesday because of the Academy Awards coverage they would be doing. This development was particularly galling because twice during negotiations I had mentioned to them that they might not want to do the segment the morning after the Oscars, but they insisted.

Now, we were facing total disaster. If we allowed the interview to get moved to Tuesday we would run right into the wall to wall coverage of President Obama’s faux “State of the Union” speech that night and we would get no traction. Plus, I had e-mailed our list of 50,000 supporters alerting them to the appearance on Monday. In my mind there was no way Tuesday was a viable option. I felt like six months of incredibly hard work and well over $100,000 of my own money was about to be flushed away.

After much (often heated) discussion with Michael, I was convinced that the “Today Show” was simply expressing a preference based on the notion that they could push us around and that we should basically call their bluff. We had a very clear agreement with them that we could only be bumped for “breaking news,” which the Oscars were obviously not.

Eventually they gave in and put us back on Monday morning in the prime 7:35 am slot, but it was an extremely draining way to start what was going to be a long week and I think it may have subconsciously impacted how I handled the eventual appearance on the show.

–

Monday February 23rd:

After getting maybe two hours of sleep (the events of Sunday combined with the time difference created a toxic mix), we walked from our hotel over to the “Today Show” studios. Having not really eaten dinner the night before, I was disappointed to find that the fixings in the green room at even the vaunted “Today Show” are rather lame. I guess times are tough all over (though I somehow guess that if a celebrity had been scheduled that day the food would have been a little better).

Eventually, I was brought out to the set. Unfortunately, because of the timing of the segment there was no chance for pleasantries (not that I am a “pleasantries” kind of guy) with Matt Lauer, who would be doing the interview with me. This was because as soon as he sat down they immediately played the set up piece from Norah O’Donnell about the rest of the Palin interview that I had given them the exclusive on.

I knew I needed pay close attention to make sure I could immediately call them out on anything in the piece that was blatant distortion, which, knowing the history of Norah O’Donnell I fully expected to happen. I had debated internally how I would handle that circumstance and whether it was a smart idea to “blow up” the entire interview over whatever acts of “media malpractice” O’Donnell chose to perform.

Much to my surprise, O’Donnell went in a totally different direction. While there were some subtle shots taken at Palin by mischaracterizing the general nature of my interview with her, in general O’Donnell seemed to try make the interview seem as boring and non-newsworthy as possible. To this day I am completely befuddled by the clips that NBC chose to air from over 30 minutes of largely explosive stuff that they had been given exclusively.  In fact, the longest clip they broadcast was Palin’s innocuous first answer to my first question of her. This was like having the major highlight from the Super Bowl come from pre-game warm ups. I have to wonder if it was done out of just plain old laziness.

Meanwhile I instantly needed to decide how I was going to handle the biggest interview of my life and, since I was not positive that the more dangerous road made sense, I decided to take the safer route. Under the same circumstances I think anyone else would have done the same thing, but given 20/20 hindsight I think I would have done it differently if I had to do it over.

This is not to say the Lauer interview was not without sparks. I was proud that I got him to admit that the media-created perception of Sarah Palin as an “idiot” is a lie, but frankly he was just too nice to me for me to go on a full out attack without looking like a complete ass (as a “conservative,” straight, white, non-celebrity male I start such situations with at least two strikes already counted against me).

Unlike most conservatives who have the lone goal of getting re-invited when they go on high-profile liberal shows, I usually let it all hang out, but Lauer, I guess to his credit, did not allow me an opportunity to do really do that. Still, I had made my points and did not back down. As for Lauer, he could not have been less offended by my barbs at him. After the interview when I mentioned that we were both avid golfers he whispered (why, I don’t know) to me that he had played Augusta National that weekend and his group had to wait for the frost to melt before teeing off. Tough life, Matt.

 Immediately after getting off the set I was taken to the MSNBC studios for an appearance on “Morning Joe,” which was incredibly frustrating because I knew that the host Joe Scarborough was going to love my film, at least in part because he played a fairly prominent and positive role in it. Unfortunately there was no way to get him to see the film before the show and with his 13 different co-hosts (at least it felt that way) we weren’t really able to get much beyond the surface. About the only memorable moment was when Pat Buchanan facetiously asked me (in perfect deadpan) if there was one network that was worse than any of the others and Joe stepped in before I could give the obvious answer of the very network on which we were appearing.  I also made a bet with co-host Mika that her opinion of Sarah Palin would change when she saw this film, but I have not yet heard back from her on what the result of that wager was.

 As I was leaving the set of “Morning Joe” I was approached by a producer who asked if I would do an interview with none other than Norah O’Donnell. Even though she would be in DC and I was only planning to do in-studio interviews on this trip, I couldn’t resist the chance to let her have it for what she did with the “Today Show” set-up piece and how absurd it was in the first place that she would be chosen to do the story because just a couple of weeks before she had incorrectly stated on the air that Sarah Palin had called Barack Obama a “terrorist” during the campaign.

When we showed up for the interview we were informed that because Andrea Mitchell (one of the key targets of my film) was sick and that O’Donnell would have to sub for her and could not do the interview. I told them I only wanted to do the interview with her and apparently they moved mountains to get her immediately to the set, possibly under the delusion that I was requesting her out of respect or admiration.

What resulted was an interview that may have been truly unique in the history of cable news networks. I started the interview by thanking her for giving me fodder for my next film “Media Malpractice 2: The Sequel” (still only in the imaginary stage) and then I proceeded to tell her that she should have been fired rather than rewarded for her Palin/Obama “terrorist” comment. The hilarity ensued from there. I highly recommend you seeing the whole story here.

One other thing happened while I was on the MSNBC set that I found to be interesting. For the third straight time that day one member of the studio crew had made a concerted effort to approach me and essentially thank me for doing the film. I guess when you work for NBC? MSNBC and are forced to be subjected to their coverage all the time, it makes quite an impact.

Later that afternoon we got our first cancellation of an interview. We had been tentatively booked to do an interview with CNN’s Olbermann-wannabe Rick Sanchez, which I was really looking forward to because he would give me even more fodder than O’Donnell (and he isn’t even cute). Unfortunately, he apparently chickened out. It was a very wise decision on his part. I would have destroyed him.

That night I made my first live appearance on the legendary O’Reilly Factor. Considering the immense stature of the show, the green room was really small and, on this night, literally overflowing with guests. The experience of being brought into the set with Bill is almost surreal and a little like I have imagined an audience with the Pope might be. Bill was short, firm, polite and a real pro on the air.  On that show it is much more important what Bill says than what you say and since he essentially endorsed the film, I was thrilled.

– 

 Tuesday February 24th: 

Perhaps the most surprising development of the trip was the way my first CNN interview went on “American Morning.” I was incredibly impressed that Kiran Chetry, the person doing my live interview, actually took the time to speak to me in the green room before we went on the air. Even rarer than that sincere effort was that she was incredibly open and honest about how she at first had been drawn to Sarah Palin and then was turned off to her by certain events. The result was perhaps the most interesting interview I did the entire week. She has promised to watch the film once I can get it to her. I hope that it might help her see that she was duped by the very industry in which she works.

This was also the only appearance that I am aware of where the most newsworthy clip of my Sarah Palin interview was actually played. How in the world her saying, “Obviously something big took place in the mainstream media deciding to SEEK and DESTROY this candidacy of Sarah Palin’s because of what she represents in a conservative movement,” is not a major news story is completely baffling to me.

My other CNN interview that day was for “Showbiz Tonight.” Having to follow a full segment of “Octomom” developments made me quickly realize exactly where I stood in the media hierarchy. Still, I seemed to make at least some impact on the anchor, so it was not a lost cause.

By far the most fun interview of the week was on the Glenn Beck Show. If doing O’Reilly is like meeting the Pope, doing Glenn’s show is like hanging out with the Court Jester. He is incredibly entertaining and relaxed, especially for a guy who has never done live TV before his now incredibly successful Fox News show. He also loved the film and seemed to be amused by me, so that was also a big boost.

I did one interview on this day that was solely for the purpose of revenge. Largely due to my extreme interest in (and very tangential involvement in) the O.J. Simpson case, as well as my friendship with Kim Goldman, I have long hated former book publisher Judith Regan for essentially paying the double murderer for his bogus confessional, “If I Did It” book. When her producer asked me on her Sirius radio show (clearly having no idea of why that would be a really bad idea) I couldn’t resist. The results were almost exactly as I expected. When the segment ended she was completely out of sorts and I was basically tossed out of the studio. I felt great about it.

Wednesday February 25th: 

I head to Washington, DC for CPAC to do an in-studio appearance on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”  While I have disagreed with Great in the past, she deserves real credit for seeing early on the power and impact of the Sarah Palin story. I have joked with her in the past that she has gone to Wasilla so often that she gets her mail delivered there. I think the Palin’s are even considering building an addition onto their house for her.

Thursday February 26th: 

For the first time we are actually going to publicly show parts of the film. Even though you would think this would be nerve racking, I am so confident in the content of the work that actually showing the film is about the least stressful portion of the week.

Our showing of the entire Palin interview at CPAC goes well and our premiere of the actual film at the National Press Club gets greeted by a standing ovation (largely because the vast majority of the invited media decided to not attend, gee, I wonder why). Even AOL’s liberal blogger Tommy Christopher, gave the film a big thumbs up.

Friday February 27th:  

Most of this day is spent enduring radio row at CPAC which is essentially like some sort of chaotic penis measuring contest where guests are booked and dumped on a moment’s notice based on their Q- rating in the conservative media. At one point I got temporarily bumped on a national show for 9/11 conspiracy nut Jerome Corsi. That hurt.

Later in the afternoon I was in the lobby of the hotel meeting a reporter to give him a copy of “Media Malpractice” when left-wing blogger Max Blumenthal approached me and, without even bothering to ask permission, starts asking me questions on camera about how I didn’t use my full name in one of my numerous attempts to get Max to do an interview for my 2008 film, “Blocking the Path to 9/11.”

Since I had been seeking a chance to question Max about his dastardly and incredibly destructive efforts to get the “Path to 9/11″ censored with lies and distortions, I figured I would engage rather do what he would have done, which of course would have been to run away. The ensuing exchange got rather heated and of course I was giving him the power to edit the tape to try to make himself look less bad (which he, largely unsuccessfully, attempted to do). I hope that he will eventually fulfill his promise of posting the entire video as well as to debate me on the substance of my damning allegations against him. I will not be holding my breath.

On this day I also got bumped from interviews with Bob Schieffer and Anderson Cooper.  They add their names to the list of apparent cowards like Chris Matthews, Campbell Brown and Rick Sanchez who have booked me during this saga only to later chicken out for no apparent reason. Even MSNBC’s David Shuster who made a  HUGE deal about interviewing me twice in one day when the Palin interview was originally released and saying I was welcome back anytime, never called.  David, I thought we had something special.

Saturday February 28th:

Max Blumenthal didn’t show up for a debate I had set up with Tommy Christopher. I’m hardly surprised. 

The panel I’m on at CPAC is a complete joke and a total injustice to the incredibly important topic of the news media. 

I’m  now ill — probably got something from hanging out with Blumenthal too long.

Sunday, March 1st:

I return home to Los Angeles and as sick as I am I’m hoping the “Today Show” doesn’t cancel the ride home they promised. Thankfully, they stand by their commitment. Now, if I can keep my badly neglected fiancée from killing me, I should be ok.

Monday, March 2nd:

I won’t even find out until the next day (which really shows how small and isolated the MSNBC audience is) but Keith Olbermann names me one of the “Worst People in the World,” for a speech I gave at CPAC in which I said that those on the conservative side who sell-out for liberal media approval should be punished. 

If you watch the video, I urge you to see if you can find the five lies and distortions Olby spews in his short commentary on my words. The most hurtful was him calling me a “failed sportscaster.” That was actually one my few careers I was really good at! The most blatant and harmful falsehood was him claiming I “scared Sarah Palin” when I showed her his picture. This is just not true. I showed her my first film “Blocking the Path to 9/11“ and when she saw his picture on the back cover she groaned and said, “That guy is so evil. What is wrong with him?”

I would expect nothing less from Olbermann and I consider his attack a badge of honor.

Wednesday, March 3rd:

Today I head out for Seattle, the first stop of our national tour.

Editor’s Note: You can purchase “Media Malpractice” at this link.

This dealt with the set-up segment to my appearance on the “Today Show” (video below) yesterday. The “Today Show” was given exclusive access to the unreleased portions of my Sarah Palin interview and NBC reporter Norah O’Donnell was given these clips and chosen to do the story on the Palin interview that would air just before and lead into my interview with Matt Lauer.

–

What O’Donnell chose to air was striking for two reasons. First, it so badly missed all the best Palin sound bites I can only conclude (despite any logic to this theory) that NBC did so on purpose. No one could be so incompetent as to take 43 minutes of great stuff and literally use the very first answer in the interview (which was hardly noteworthy) and none of the best clips. Second, O’Donnell’s editorial choices went out of their way to diminish and ignore Governor Palin’s very credible objections to very specific episodes of media malpractice. But the news media, especially NBC, trying to make Palin look bad is hardly new.

That NBC allowed Norah O’Donnell to do the piece to begin with is interesting. Last month when snippets of the Palin interview were released, she and I had a memorable on-air confrontation that did not go as planned.

–

Even more extraordinary than this conflict of interest is that just after our confrontation, O’Donnell said on-air that that Palin had called Barack Obama a “terrorist.” 

Now in a media world that was remotely sane, O’Donnell would have been fired for making such a false statement. Instead, she ends up dictating which Palin clips will be seen on the “Today Show,” the largest audience likely to ever see them. And while I was tempted to address this during my interview with Lauer, I refrained (a split-second decision I may end up regretting), and instead chose to confront O’Donnell directly when she interviewed me later in the day on MSNBC.

The video speaks for itself:

–

To me, this tells you everything you need to know about why I had to make this film.

Related:

Exclusive: Big Hollywood first look at “Media Malpractice”

A Revealing Morning With Sarah Palin

Reaction To My Palin Interview Proves The Point