Vanity Fair “edits” Sarah Palin’s resignation speech

In the latest round of Sarah Palin bashing, Vanity Fair has sunk to an all-time low and is apparently now recruiting writers in a jr. high playground. We’re led to believe that “V.F.’s red-pencil-wielding executive literary editor, Wayne Lawson” has given Palin a knock-out punch. What bothers me is the ignorance of both the “editors” of this particular piece, and that of their readers.

 

The "evidence."

Certainly the likes of a major magazine’s “red-pencil-wielding executive literary editor,” with the help of said magazine’s “research and copy departments” are literate enough to realize that they are editing a transcript from Federal News Service. I’m not even employed by a major magazine, much less a “red-pencil-wielding” anything, and I can see the text plainly typed at the top of the page. The Huffington Post crew obviously skipped that obvious point when they decided to post the article.

My guess is the brains behind the hit-job decided that their readers were easily fooled and wouldn’t mind their trickery–after all, in the MSM, a joke with Sarah Palin as the punch line is worth a thousand words. Am I the only person in America who can spot a fake document when I see it? Does no one else realize that the magazine went to the trouble to falsify a hard-copy background to insinuate that Sarah Palin wrote the document and read from it? This point is especially important because the Palin-hating audience of this audience goes so far as to claim she is a narcissist because “she typed the word “applause” at the end.” This same reader goes on to degrade Sarah Palin by stating that he can picture her sitting on her “bear rug” and listening to audio of applauses in the same way that other people listen to whale calls. The ignorance and thirst for blood is mind-blowing.

The “colorful” results from the dutiful editing team are laughable at best. They imply that Palin’s words are in error, when in most instances, they are nothing of the sort. The first paragraph is a prime example. Palin states that she appreciates speaking directly to the people that she serves as governor. The editors mark through this as if it is improper. It is most certainly not improper, nor does it go against the code of the English language. The only thing that the editors achieved by that “correction” was to add more color to the falsified document, thereby creating the illusion of Sarah Palin’s ignorance. Sadly, it reminds me of a child on a playground with low self-esteem making fun of another child for having a name that the bully dislikes. There is nothing particularly wrong or offensive about the name, the bully just cannot think of anything better to say and will feel better if he insults someone else. It’s pathetic and I would hope that there are still Americans out there who can see through such tactics.

The editors go on to “correct” Palin by nixing the phrase “This is a source of inspiration for my family,” but apparently the editors are overpaid and have possibly had their intellect run off in the same manner that they claim Palin’s speech writers did. Palin was clearly referring to Lake Lucille when she said “This is a source of inspiration,” but again, the editors thought that more red ink would make her look bad, so they erroneously applied it.

In the second paragraph, the “editors” insert a comma behind what they have assumed is Palin’s period. Maybe it’s just me, but I think that Borat is the only person who would give a speech and say the words, “period…pause…begin sentence.” No, it’s not just me, the editors were wrong AGAIN. Sarah Palin did not transcribe her speech, she spoke the words, and even those at the Federal News Service cannot determine if her intent was a pause for a comma or a pause for a period. Yet again, the addition of red ink leaves the naive reader with the assumption that Palin created some writing faux pas. Regardless if there was an intended period or comma, the statement is not grammatically incorrect as it was spoken by Palin. “It’s the eve of our celebration of independence as a nation.” This is the “error” that the overpriced editors have called her on. Wow! The audacity of Palin to make a statement. There is not one thing wrong with that statement.

Move forward four words and you will see them at work again, “It’s a time to remember our nation’s dear souls who sacrificed so selflessly…” This is not incorrect, it does not make her look ignorant. The editors replaced the phrase “our nation’s dear” with the word “those.” Granted the replacement is grammatically correct, BUT SO IS THE ORIGINAL PHRASE! This is no different than a woman telling a girlfriend she should wear a red dress when the friend wants to wear the exact same dress in blue–the friend is still clothed properly, the girlfriend just happens to prefer a different hue. A matter of taste does not make someone else’s efforts flawed, regardless of how much red, blue, or green ink one uses.

In the next sentence the editors replace “centuries” with “233 years.” I’m sorry, did I miss that day in elementary school? Is 200+ years not equal to the word “centuries?” Of course it is, but again, they wanted that gotcha moment because the MSM is hell-bent on hammering the nail in Palin’s coffin. I could go on and on, as the entire piece is filled with this sort of false “correction” and it is like pouring blood in shark infested waters for VF’s readers. I don’t know if I’m more outraged at the tactics of these so-called editors or at their readers for not realizing they’ve been duped. For anyone doubting the lengths that the magazine went through to create the illusion of an authentic speech mysteriously picked up by some Palin insider, don’t take my word for it. Read the article with your eyes open this time. There are the tell-tale staple holes and corner creases which would lead an unsuspecting reader to believe this was THE document that Palin used. The editors even attempted to correct the FNS by removing the ellipses as if Palin was so stupid that she placed ellipses at the beginning of her speech. The editors can’t be bothered with the fact that the Federal News Service is an independent source who typed up this transcription while listening to Palin’s speech because to do so would mean that they couldn’t credit Palin for those pesky ellipses and the lack of an extra space after the location and date of her speech. That would mean less color, less punch and let’s face it, less of an impact in their smear campaign.

While the HuffPo commenters were busy verbally pummeling Palin for her “lack of writing skills” and accusing her of not having a journalism degree or writing her latest op-ed, the VF editors were having the last laugh. They knew that their readers weren’t very observant and they didn’t care. They don’t get paid to inform, they get paid to sensationalize and they do that well. Just look at the photo evidence before your eyes. The supposed background is a crumpled up piece of paper which has been unfolded, but oddly enough, the text flows in a seamless line across the page. There is a fake coffee stain on the first page. The writer of this article is a fraud and should be exposed as such. The only thing Palin is guilty of is speaking off-the-cuff to her constituents, I don’t fault her for that. I would rather my elected representatives give it to me straight, even if that means that they get a name wrong, and even if it means they use the word “so” when someone else might have used the word “therefore.” If anyone knows the true source behind this editing, perhaps I’ve got the perfect Christmas gift for your acquaintance…a brand new thesaurus! I for one am embarrassed that as Americans we’ve allowed our media to sink to this level.