Now VJ could have listed some of these false statements, but instead she barked a lazy “of course they’re biased”– a statement you’d expect from a pierced Greenpeace volunteer, not a White House adviser.

But let’s focus on what she really said:

She claims America doesn’t have time for such “distortions.” Replace “distortions” with “debate,” and you’ve got the real truth. The administration wanted to push health care reform like a hot knife through butter, but the public wised up and said, “hold on there, pal.” Jarrett also said Americans should be allowed to reach their own judgment – which is odd since it was the Dems, not Fox News, who were trying to preempt the conversation. I mean, let’s not also forget their take on the global warming debate: the debate is over! But you can bet when the debate does start over the climate change bill –VJ will blame Fox News for preventing the debate!

By starting it!

You follow?

Cuz I sure don’t!

Finally, there’s VJ’s description of their spat with Fox News as part of the White House’s strategy to “speak truth to power.” Okay, the last time I checked, in order to “speak truth to power,” the dynamic has to be the little guy vs. something hugely powerful. How hilarious is it that even when they’re in power, the left still wants to speak truth to power – which, theoretically, is them!

But if they’re so desperate to speak truth to power: here are some powers they can speak truth to (besides a cable news network): Iran, North Korea, Russia, George Soros. But I suppose speaking truth to those powers takes more balls than sniping at Fox News.

So much for the hyper-masculine environment of the Oval Office we’ve heard so much about. This isn’t a White House, it’s a dollhouse.

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably racist.

Tonight we’ve got the awesome Mike Baker, the swell Ann Coulter and the charming Noelle Hancock – as well as Ambassador Bolton.

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

The reason I felt that way initially, was that after several days of the news media cherry picking snippets from my interview with her in an out of context way that appeared designed to make Palin seem whiny and weak (the exact opposite of what she actually was during the interview), she had a couple of choices. Basically she could try to pretend the interview and the issue of how the media lied to destroy her candidacy didn’t really exist, lick her wounds, mitigate whatever perceived political damage there might have been (though with her base the interview was CLEARLY a huge hit) and never speak of the topic again, or she could continue the fight for the truth regardless of the potential consequences.  

The vast majority of politicians (like George W. Bush) would curl up into the fetal position and concede defeat to the media in such situations, and I have to confess that I feared Palin may wilt under the same pressure that shattered the previous administration. But when the Governor called me that weekend and I mentioned learning the lessons of George Bush not fighting back against the news media, it was immediately obvious to me that Palin “got it.” 

Well, that was clearly confirmed by a stem winder of a speech she gave this week at a Lincoln Day Dinner in Alaska. If there was any doubt about Palin standing strong in her desire to correct the historical record about her, her family and her VP candidacy, it now appears to have vanished.  As reported prominently today by AOL/CNN (it took a shocking long time for the speech to be reported on at all in the “lower 48,” and if you go through the photo gallery most of the quotes are from my interview, and a “Big Hollywood” column of mine regarding Keith Olbermann is misreported), Palin continued to express many of the themes that she outlined in my documentary.  

Governor Palin plainly stated the obvious reality (as proven beyond a doubt in “Media Malpractice”) that there was an “unprecedented level of media slant” against her during the campaign. She also verified a personal theory of mine as to why Palin, in her own words, was “naïve” about how the news media would treat her.  

She declared, “Some in the media actually participated in not so much the ‘who-what-where-when-why’ objective reporting on candidates and positions, those five W’s that I learned when I had a journalism degree so many years ago in college, when the world of journalism was quite different than it is today.”    

Who could blame someone who graduated in the 80’s during a year in journalism when there was at least some self restraint on the inherent liberal agenda (I always find it amusing that Sam Donaldson, the scourge of conservatives during the Reagan years, now seems downright fair in retrospect) for being more than a bit shocked that the rules had been completely changed without anyone officially doing so. 

“No, things have changed,” she said. “But complaining? Or whining? Absolutely not. But I am going to call it like I see it. It doesn’t do any good to whine about any of this. But I can call it like I see it. Sometimes it gets me in a lot of trouble when I speak candidly, and I speak from the heart and I do such a thing. But I am going to.”

No, Sarah Palin has clearly learned the lessons of George W. Bush, and anyone who cares about fairness and justice in the media should be thankful for that reality.

If they would have told me I’d be glad to have made the journey (even with a seven-hour, weather-aided stop in Seattle), I would have told them Sarah Palin had a better chance to be John McCain’s running-mate. Of course, as we all now know this turned out to be true. And even though I still have the flu I got just before the trip, I’m thrilled to have experienced minus-eleven degrees in Alaska.

Obviously, I was there to interview Governor Palin for my forthcoming documentary about the media coverage of election 2008. My understanding is that the only reason Governor Palin did this interview (while rejecting hundreds of other requests) is because of her sincere devotion to setting the record straight on what really happened during the campaign and to determine why the news coverage was as dangerously slanted as it so clearly was.

Largely because of absurd claims by Democrats that she was violating ethics rules by answering campaign questions on state grounds (one of several ways in which the Democrats in Alaska, who used to love her, are now fully invested in the “take Sarah Palin down” industry), we did the interview at the Palin home. At 9 a.m., without a security guard or handler in sight, Bristol Palin, eight days removed from giving birth, politely answered the door and Governor Palin, not yet fully put together, rushed out to tell myself and my crew to make ourselves at home.

One of the things you quickly learn when you visit the Palins is that the legend created around who they are and how they live is no myth. It appears to be absolutely real and everything about them seems 100% sincere. From the stuffed hunting trophies on the wall, to Track’s military photo by the TV set, to Piper’s crayon school projects on the refrigerator door – everything is exactly as you imagined.

What’s particularly valuable about my perspective is that I am not Charlie Gibson, Matt Lauer or Greta Van Susteren (who I understand now gets her mail delivered to the Palin home) — the conductors of the three most prominent interviews done in this Wasilla home on a frozen lake at the end of a drive with the sign “Palins” posted on a tree. I am virtually unknown nationally and there was absolutely no reason for anything to be done differently as “show” for us. We saw the genuine Sarah Palin and it is patently obvious this is the only one who exists.

She is the real deal.

As a former TV sportscaster and radio talk show host I’ve interviewed a lot big-time “celebrities,” and can honestly say that even though you could argue Sarah Palin was the most prominent, she is also by far the nicest, most sincere and seemingly honest subject I’ve ever questioned.

For context, I admit to being a Sarah Palin fan even before she was named John McCain’s VP candidate. I attended her convention speech and consider it by far to be the finest I have ever personally witnessed. But being a world-class cynic I also wondered if maybe there was at least some truth to the negative media narrative created about her. Maybe she really wasn’t that smart, maybe she was indeed a “diva” or a “wack job.” Well, if any of those smears are remotely true, Palin should move to LA permanently because she’s a far better actor (not to mention better looking) than the vast majority of actresses in Hollywood.

Our interview started early and ended late (ask Barbara Walters how often that happens at this level). The Governor fully answered every question, even though some of them brought up media episodes which clearly upset her. When the subject turned to her kids being targeted, she was even a little emotional. She then posed for pictures and signed autographs for the entire crew, and casually discussed all sorts of topics, including how the local newspaper is absurdly still trailing the “story” that her youngest son is not really hers (this, while Todd walked around with Trig on his back and Bristol cared for Trip, her newborn, in a nearby bedroom; even Trig conspiracy theorist Andrew Sullivan would have had a hard time not seeing the insanity in his own delusion).

The madness of the local paper’s efforts to prove Trig is really not Sarah’s baby is not all we learned in post interview conversations. Conservatives will be thrilled to know she immediately “got” and seemed to fully appreciate my joke that Pete Wilson (and not Arnold Schwarzenegger) would go down as the last Republican Governor in the history of California. If that wasn’t enough, when she looked at the back cover of my first film (“Blocking the Path to 9/11” www.blockingthepath.com) and saw the photo of one of the film’s targets, Keith Olbermann, she literally let out a shriek (after reviewing the tape it was clearly more of a “groan”) and, pointing to his photograph, declared, “THAT guy is so EVIL! What is wroing with him? ” (this quote was augmented when the writer was able to view said tape)

Beyond the great interview for the film (from which there is still plenty of tremendous stuff yet to come), the most important part of my visit to the Palin home was learning there’s a big difference between thinking something is true and knowing for sure it is. I now know Sarah Palin is exactly who I thought she was.

I also know, with moral certitude, that the media assassination of her, her character and family, was one of the greatest public injustices of our time and that I’m totally justified in devoting my life to correcting the historical record in my forthcoming film, “Media Malpractice… How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Smeared.”