If it’s not a fact why don’t you say so?

Today I was listening to NPR at work while they were interviewing a McCain staffer about Barack Obama’s policies. The staffer went on to spout the McCain mantra that Obama is going to move us all into socialism. At this point the host interrupted the staffer briefly to remind the listener that they can sort out the truth of these claims by looking at the fact checking sub head under the Election 2008 coverage at npr.org.

Since when does a news organization not give us the whole story. I understand that with political reporting you have to be nice to both sides and let everyone have their  fair share and say their carefully scripted talking points. But if something is untrue and you know it’s untrue and you have the facts at your fingertips that tell everyone its untrue then why don’t you say something. Oh you might lose the uncredible source as a source? Damn. The campaign might not talk to you again? Shoot. It’s your responsiblity as a national news organization to inform your listerners (and readers) for innaccuracies as soon as they occur. Just like putting a correction in the newspaper, it’s your responsibility to say “Whoa, champ. The Socialist Party nominee is actually Brian Moore.”

I know that cultivating sources is difficult. It’s like becoming their best friend while at the same time remaining impartial. But if you know what they’re saying is an outright lie, untrue and will misinform your viewership it is your responsibility as a journalist to stand up and do what’s right. Call the staffers liars.

The other irony: I can’t even find this fact-checking page the host referred to. But it doesn’t even matter anymore.

Remember to vote tomorrow, every one!

There I go again, voting with my ovaries

All this talk over the last few days about McCain’s running mate has really started to irk me. Almost every time I hear people talk about his new running mate Sarah Palin there inevitably has to come some idiotic remark about how Palin is going to sway moderate women voters to vote Republican simply because she’s a woman – like it’s some promise we girls made as kids when we were in our tree houses talking about boys.

Maybe I don’t speak for every woman in America, but if I voted for McCain/Palin simply because Palin’s a woman wouldn’t that make me an idiot? Wouldn’t that defeat the whole purpose of our great grandmothers fighting for the right to vote like mine did? Heaven forbid I actually do something like watch a debate or listen to a candidate’s policies or *gasp* learn about their previous experiences. That might cut into my crying time or making dinner for my boyfriend.

I also hear that Palin makes women “feel good” so therefore we will vote for her. Apparently that’s how she snuck away with the governor’s race four years ago in Alaska if The New York TImes is to be believed. Lots of things make me feel good. Hot chocolate makes me feel good, buying something on sale makes me feel good, getting my paycheck makes me feel good. Do I want a sales rack and a cup of hot chocolate running the country? (Maybe.)

The fact that all these analysts can’t seem to look beyond this narrow-minded view of women voters is just so infuriating. “Obama’s hot, women will vote for him,” “Palin’s a woman so they’ll vote for her.” What ever happened to people listening to the issues and not judging this like some kind of tragic wet T-shirt contest? If this bullshit is going to continue I may just have to write in “Sales Rack/Hot Chocolate” for my vote. It would be stupid and pointless, but hey, it would make me feel good.