Laid to Rest (?)

5/17/2011

In keeping with the spirit of interviewing other journalists and experts for my blog, I contacted Patrick Dougherty, Senior Vice President and Editor of the Anchorage Daily News.

I invited him to have an email “sit down” to discuss this story that will not die. I wanted to further the story that his newspaper was working on two years ago that prompted the testy email exchange between him and Mrs. Palin about why the theories on Trig Palin’s birth would not go away. I saw this as an opportunity to explain how and why newspapers might view, and treat, information differently from bloggers.

Mr. Dougherty graciously declined my invitation. He said that the story of persistent rumors does not interest him any more than President Obama’s birth certificate conspiracy. I pressed the point that his paper was closer to the Palin story due to his earlier efforts to lay it to rest. And of course due the Anchorage Daily News’ geographical proximity and role as the paper of record for Alaska and its government.

Still, he declined my offer. Our emails have been pleasant and polite. And I accepted his answer.

But I would not be who I am if I did not ask one further question. Could Mr. Dougherty confirm the oft repeated statement that Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson brought an attorney with her to an interview at the Anchorage Daily News?

He provided me with this answer, as well as permission to paste it directly into this post:

No, that's a myth. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson never came to the Daily News for an interview. As far as I know, she has never been near the ADN building. In the telephone interview or interviews we had with her (I don't recall whether it was one or more than one), there was no mention of her having an attorney or thinking about involving one, nor was there ever any explicit or implied threat of legal action against the newspaper, which would have immediately involved me personally. It's a complete invention that doesn't appear to have ever been attributed to named, knowledgeable source.

I thank Mr. Dougherty for taking the time to clarify this point.

In our emails, Mr. Dougherty referred me to his blog page for further reading on his coverage about the Daily News’ coverage of the Trig controversy at the time.

Scrolling down a bit, you can find a list of posts dated around January 13, 2009, addressing the rumors, the story and of course the recap of Mr. Dougherty's exchange with the then governor.

But in particular, I found this post interesting. In it, Mr. Dougherty explains to another Alaskan journalist why he would not pursue the Trig story:

I think most competent journalists would recognize "the persistence of bizarre claims surrounding the birth of any governor's son" as the basis of a potentially interesting story. Most competent journalists would also understand that the story doesn't work if it can't show that the claims are false. For the purpose of a newspaper story, it's only a "bizarre conspiracy theory" if we can demonstrate that it's untrue, which is why we wanted to document the truth. Up until now, we have had no interest in proving to the real doubters that Trig was indeed Sarah Palin's baby.

I don’t understand this part: Most competent journalists would also understand that the story doesn't work if it can't show that the claims are false.

I think a story about why a story will not die is a valid story. It involves stating the rumors, interviewing one or two people who persist in stating the rumors are true, asking for their proof if they have it, and then interviewing, indeed even giving the last word to, in this case, Mrs. Palin, for her side of the story. When she refused to cooperate, that, in this competent journalist’s view, was indeed part of the story. Or perhaps I’m just incompetent.

Is it true that journalists only report a story if they could prove that it is not true? What if a reporter ended up learning that the claims were true? Or in the end had to report that they could not, in fact, debunk the rumors, no matter how hard they tried?

And while I can fully appreciate someone not wishing to learn that something truly bizarre has taken place, no less in the office of the governor, I don’t believe it is up to a journalist to avoid a story because it won’t prove what he or she wants it to prove, which is that the rumors are baseless.

As I’ve said before, I can truly see both sides of this story - and I could envision two possible outcomes. And since there is no clear, consistent, public account of the birth of Trig Palin, it is understandable why bloggers persist in trying to learn the truth. And it is apparent to me why a newspaper of record, or any reputable medium, wants solid, factual proof in order to report a story.

But there is, in my opinion, still a story here about why the story won’t go away. Especially now in view of the fact that a sitting governor was able to conceal the paternity of his “love child” for ten years from his family and the public. Ten years! How many medical professionals, government officials, and friends of both Mr. Schwarzennegger and his personal employee knew and kept it quiet?

I will leave off with a link to this article in MediaMatters that Mr. Dougherty also posts in his blog.

The crux of the article is that Mrs. Palin distorted the truth about the Trig stories by blaming the MSM for running with them when, in fact, they did not (author Eric Boehlert does a thorough job shooting her down and disproving her version of events.) If she could "make things up" about the media, could she make things up to the media? It is admirable that journalists and bloggers are trying to put the “bizarre conspiracy theory” to rest – whether it’s true, or not.

So I say to anyone out there listening, as Andrew Sullivan, who thoroughly documented the provable Lies of Sarah Palin said so succinctly to John McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt: Prove it.

CA Guy

5/17/2011 06:57:36 am

Pop psychology 102: People under undue stress often telegraph their true intentions unwittingly. In the same way a poker player might have a "tell", Mr. Dougherty may have been letting the world know that someone was squeezing him to bury this line of inquiry. It's pretty obvious that Mrs. Palin's "tell" is a combination of utterly inappropriate coquettish behavior and faux bravado. Coupled with veiled threats about his paper's funding, it leave you wanting more real information, not less. I wonder what the Guvernator's poker face was like back those many years ago?

mistah charley, ph.d.

5/17/2011 07:58:16 am

1) I wonder if it could be discovered who first said that CBJ came to the ADN to be interviewed with her lawyer in tow? Or at least the first time this assertion was made in the blogosphere. Is the source of what has been just called a "myth" discoverable? Because I certainly have seen this assertion, and I may have repeated it myself (although I won't do it again.) Although the reporter wouldn't confirm or deny this to Brad Scharlott, you have gotten the editor on record about it.

One further point the editor could have clarified, but which we apparently have to arrive at by inference: Did CBJ ever say unambiguously to the ADN that she had been present at Trig's birth to Sarah, or that she knew that Sarah had given birth to Trig? Because if she had said so, then presumably the rumors could have been laid to rest. Since the rumors weren't laid to rest, one has must conclude CBJ never said such a thing to the ADN.

2) Your point about "we can't run any story about the rumor if we can't conclusively lay it to rest" is an excellent one - yes, this is a decision by ADN, not something that necessarily flowed from the situation. "We can't conclusively lay this rumor to rest" is ALSO a story. As is "Sarah Palin WON'T prove that she gave birth to Trig."

Great work.

Palintologist

5/17/2011 08:28:45 am

Palin does not want to put it to rest either way.
If she actually is Trig’s mother she gets to use babygate as a rallying cry to stir up her base, receive more donations to her PAC and continue on the speaking circuit. This gives her a chance to be the winning beauty queen indefinitely. One big pageant. If she is not, the gravy train is over. There is no reason to disclose either unless, like Arnold, she is about to be outed.

ProChoiceGrandma

5/17/2011 08:32:33 am

The ONLY two people that I have seen mention anything about babygate on television are as follows:

1. The first was Greta Van Susteren in “Sarah Palin American Woman” Part 4:

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=1yEfhx9lv3w&feature=related

Beginning at 0:55, Greta says:
“The Governor and her family step into the political spotlight and nasty rumors emerge about the birth of the Governor’s son, Trig. How does the Governor fight back?”
Pray tell, Greta, how DID “the Governor” fight back? The explanation must have ended up on the cutting room floor, because Greta neglected to say anything further about it. So it remains unanswered, by her anyway.

2. The second person who mentioned it on television was Pat Buchanan on Hardball:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/buchanan-palin

MATTHEWS: Pat, can you think of something that the media, the national media, has reported about her that‘s not true? She talks about how our fighting forces overseas—and we‘re all for them—how we have to do them the favor, basically, or the honor of not telling bad stories about her. What has been said that‘s not true by the media about Sarah Palin? What‘s she talking about?

BUCHANAN: Well, I don‘t know. When it started off—I don‘t know where the source was—the allegation was floating all over the place, reported by the media, that Bristol‘s child—rather, the child she was born with, with Down syndrome, was actually Bristol Palin‘s. It was a horrible, ugly thing. And I think that‘s wounded her. There‘s no doubt her…

MATTHEWS: Well, who was reporting that in the media, “The New York Times,” “The Washington Post,” the networks?

BUCHANAN: Well, I was hearing it—well, look…

MATTHEWS: I never heard anybody report that.

BUCHANAN: Mike Barnicle, quite frankly, was one of the fellows who was telling me about it when we were out there in Denver. But Chris, she can answer that thing.

berta wilder

5/17/2011 08:37:02 am

"And the fact the Cathy-Baldwin Johnson brought her own lawyer with her when she was interviewed by Lisa Demer from the ADN at the end of 2008 also speaks volumes "

Maybe speaking with Lisa Demer about CBJ having a lawyer with her...I think this may have happened at the Mat-SU hospital and not at the ADN offices?

Found this here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LtiK3V_LblAJ:www.palindeception.com/blog/2009/04/myspace-part-three.html+Cathy+Baldwin+Johnson+%22lawyer+present%22+palin&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

Brad Scharlott

5/17/2011 08:39:03 am

I don't believe Dougherty when he says or suggests CBJ was not interviewed by his paper. I believe she was but only after getting a promise of absolute confidentiality. Hence, Dougherty's willingness to comment on that, but nothing else. In the ethics of journalism, lying to protect a promise like that is generally considered kosher. Recall that Palin wrote to Dougherty that CBJ had already "set the record straight" for the paper (in the email from her that he published). What else could she be referring to?

Palintologist

5/17/2011 08:44:20 am

Dear Ms. Novak,
I will venture to say that you and Mr. Dougherty have different journalistic goals, you are trying to develop a discourse and break a story and he is probably trying to save his job. It makes perfect sense. The reporter in you can’t fathom giving up as easily as he did when you smell a good story.

BlueberryT

5/17/2011 08:45:40 am

This may seem like a small point, but I never had the impression that the interview took place at the ADN office. Lisa Demer was the reporter, and I had the impression that it took place at CBJ's workplace or another location. The way Dougherty responded begs the question, because he seems to focus on the location of the interview, which is irrelevant.

Brad Scharlott

5/17/2011 08:45:59 am

As a follow-up to the above: If she was interviewed by the paper, then she must not have confirmed that Sarah was Trig's mother. If she had confirmed it, the paper would have gone with the story.

Indeed, why did ADN shelve the story after putting Demer on it? The scenario I suggest would explain it.

Molly

5/17/2011 08:55:47 am

Well Laura, I must admit I love your way of thinking. It brings a nice, fresh take on this sordid story. Keep up the good work.

curiouser

5/17/2011 09:36:06 am

Thank you, Laura! Since I've been questioning the CBJ-lawyer story, I appreciate that you asked. You put Dougherty's decision to abort the story on thin ice. It frustrates me that he said, in his email to Palin, "I want to be very clear on this: I have from the beginning and do now consider the conspiracy theories about Trig's birth to be nutty nonsense." He never told his readers why be believed the theories were nonsense. We do know that he KNOWS the fake pregnancy rumor started in March when Sarah announced the pregnancy. He KNOWS the rumor was based on Sarah not appearing pregnant and wasn't a mere fabrication for political gain. He knows Sarah refused to provide objective documentation to put the rumor to rest. I guess he didn't think Palin was nutty enough to attempt such a hoax back. That was back in Jan. 2009. Hasn’t her nuttiness and willingness to lie about anything been proven? Does he still believe Sarah to be above trying to fool the public?

curiouser

5/17/2011 09:41:30 am

@Brad Scharlott - Dougherty did say the ADN interviewed CBJ: "In the telephone interview or interviews we had with her (I don't recall whether it was one or more than one)...". I agree with your conclusion that it makes sense he would have confirmed a CBJ statement that Sarah gave birth to Trig. The 'spiral of silence' seems to be in full force at the ADN.

Brad Scharlott

5/17/2011 09:54:34 am

@curiouser: right after the miraculous birth, Lisa Demer published the article quoting CBJ as saying she induced labor. That is the only "interview" the paper has ever acknowledged, as far as I can tell -- I put quotes around "interview" because normally you would not use that word in relation to a quick phone call, which is apparently all that Demer had with CBJ. But O'Malley, in her hatchet job on my paper, tried to suggest (without actually saying this) that CBJ confirmed Palin's story in an interview. When I contacted Demer about that, she said O'Malley was referring to the brief phone call. They are playing games with the truth up there.

5/17/2011 10:39:50 am

Maybe that story--a "bizarre conspiracy theory"--doesn't work if it turns out to be true. But other stories do work if it turns out to be true: a bizarre occurrence; bizarre (perhaps mentally ill) behavior by an elected official and national candidate; and fraudulently obtaining votes and money from a so-called pro-life base.

The editor is really saying none of *those* stories matter, that Palin's faking giving birth to Trig is irrelevant.

Thanks for trying, Laura, and for clearing up the "lawyering up" issue.

crystalwolfakacaligrl

5/17/2011 12:00:57 pm

Doesn't the SOA have a contract with the ADN? Just sayin?
Someone needs to contact Patrick of policalgates and ask him about this. I remember it that CBJ came to the ADN WITH a Lawyer?
Of course we are talking Alaska, things go missing, lost etc.

KarenJ

5/17/2011 12:08:37 pm

"Most competent journalists would also understand that the story doesn't work if it can't show that the claims are false."

That statement, to me, means that Pat Dougherty KNEW the claims (rumors that SP wasn't the bio mother of Trig) were NOT false, and if he pursued those claims/rumors and printed the findings, the Palin administration AND the Palins personally would come down on him hard.

She raked Dougherty over the coals for what little he did, scratching around the edge of the rumor story, so it's not hard to believe his pain would be felt exponentially if he went forward.

crystalwolfakacaligrl

5/17/2011 12:09:22 pm

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/07/sarah-palins-faked-pregnancy-big-push.html

a post by Blueberry Tart:
8. The Anchorage Daily News tried to put the rumors to rest, but couldn’t… Pat Dougherty, ADN Editor, said that he assigned reporter Lisa Demer to try to put an end to the rumors that Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig. However, he was unable to do so. Here is the exchange.

9. Sarah’s doctor refused to confirm the story… In the course of this attempt by ADN to refute the rumors, Lisa Demer interviewed Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, Sarah Palin’s personal physician. The doctor attended the interview in the company of her personal lawyer. When Ms. Demer asked the doctor whether she was present at Trig’s birth, Dr. Baldwin-Johnson refused to confirm that she had been there and, on advice of counsel, refused to answer any more questions. She has not spoken again on this subject, and in fact has maintained a low profile even in her own community since that time. The election-eve letter, purportedly from Dr. CBJ (but released by the McCain-Palin Campaign) was never authenticated by her or anyone else. Numerous problems with the letter cast doubt on its authenticity; none of these problems were ever addressed by anyone.
****************
Where is everyone getting this info? Was it a mass hallucination?
Somebody's lying and I don't think its us...just sayin'

crystalwolfakacaligrl

5/17/2011 12:14:33 pm

also more recent post by BBT
http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/04/weekly-roundup-april-11-17-2011-another.html

"I want to make a few more comments, so apologies for the length of this "summary." I find O’Malley’s statement “Why would the doctor lie for her. That’s right; she wouldn’t.” to be especially interesting in light of CBJ’s refusal to answer Lisa Demer’s questions and the fact that she attended the Demer interview with her lawyer, who advised her to remain silent. C’mon, O’Malley, please tell the whole truth behind that statement -- your shading of the truth seems deliberately deceptive. I'm quite certain that if I am aware of this, then O'Malley is too, which makes her article all the more disingenuous. "

Banyan

5/17/2011 12:39:16 pm

FWIW:
I have one (there may have been more) of LIsa Demer's articles:

Direct quotes from CBJ (according to Demer):

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. [referring to the middle of the night phone call she allegedly had with Palin, who was then in Texas.]....

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said.

Indirect quotes from Baldwin-Johnson, as cited by Demer:

This was going to be Palin's last flight anyway, her doctor said.

Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.

(Demer, L. "Palin's Child Diagnosed with Down Syndrome." ADN, April 22, 2008)

ginny

5/17/2011 12:45:27 pm

Thanks for giving it a try, and least getting the one semi-answer that you were able to. Seems to me that there is a lot of CYA going on in the world of journalism, both locally in AK and nationally. What pathetic excuses for journalists.

Anon55

5/17/2011 12:48:53 pm

As much as I think Pat Dougherty was wrong not to pursue the story of why the conspiracy rumors would not die, I think we have to take him at his word that Dr. Baldwin-Johnson did not involve counsel in her dealings with the ADN. As much as Mr. Dougherty may be misguided or lack courage, I don't think there is a basis to accuse him of lying.

One would think that if Dr. Baldwin-Johnson had given an off-the-record interview where her counsel was present, Mr. Dougherty would have simply refused to engage with Laura one way or the other on the subject.

So, I give Mr. Dougherty the benefit of the doubt that he is being truthful on this point.

BluedogAK

5/17/2011 01:33:54 pm

Thank you, thank you, thank you for running down this info about the lawyer and CBJ. I have tried finding the origins of those claims on the Web and was never able to figure out the original source.

Your comments about why this is still newsworthy are so on target. What has bothered me about Mr. Dougherty's stance from the beginning was his assumption that the story was a "bizarro" conspiracy that needed to be put to rest, rather than a persistent rumor that needed to be investigated. That's not the brand of journalism I learned in Alaska, and it's especially disappointing coming from a newspaper that was once one of the best in the country.

It's particularly odd since Michael Carey is a very well-respected Alaska journalist and former ADN columnist who seemed interested in talking about it in his PBS interview with Ray Suarez in September 2008. That's the one where Carey brought up rumors of her fake pregnancy and said, "... that story has been around for quite a while. I first heard it when a lawyer who I like very much and is a very smart guy presented this to me as the absolute truth."

Maybe he'd be worth talking to?

Bandit

5/17/2011 01:46:25 pm

Trying to get either a straight or an even remotely honest answer out of Julia O'Malley will prove impossible. It appears as if she takes "poetic license" and makes things up as they suit her.

She completely lack journalistic curiousity and has no integrity whatsoever.

They've been covering this up for so long, they began to believe their own lies. It is very possible that Lisa Demer did interview CBJ and the location was not identified which gave the impression they were at the ADN. This then give them complete deniability that she was NOT interviewed at the ADN.

I could have possibly swallowed a bit of Dougherty's statements if Julia O'Malley wasn't swimming in her lying swill and they're giving her cover. When you employ writers totally lacking in character, who are so star struck and hero worshipping their subject, you will get a barrel of lies packaged as the truth.

The ADN has a long history of Palin Derangement Syndrome. Evidently worshipping Palin is in their official Mission Statement. The truth has been left out.

Anon55

5/17/2011 02:00:55 pm

Let me add that I think the focus on whether or not Dr. Baldwin-Johnson had a lawyer present during interviews is a "red herring" which distracts from the big picture.

The big picture is this. Right after Trig was "born" on April 18, Dr. Baldwin-Johnson told the ADN in a short telephone interview that she had induced labor and that it wasn't unreasonable for Palin to fly.

Then when the ADN was thinking of doing a story on why the "nutty nonsense" that Sarah Palin was not the birth mother of Trig, Lisa Demer apparently contacted Dr. Baldwin-Johnson again and Dr. Baldwin-Johnson would not go on the record and confirm that she had delivered Trig and that Sarah Palin was Trig's birth mother.

I think we all know that if Dr. Baldwin-Johnson HAD been willing to make those statements, the ADN would have run with the article. I can see the article now. It would have read, "Dr. Baldwin-Johnson, a well-respected Valley doctor, chuckled and said, 'what nutty nonsense. Of course, I delivered Trig and, of course, Governor Palin is his birth mother."

voiceinwind

5/17/2011 02:04:43 pm

Thanks for all your efforts, Laura.

FWIW, I remember seeing a clip of CBJ being interviewed with an attorney standing sorta behind her. I don't know where they were or who was interviewing CBJ or even what the question was, but CBJ answered with a short answer. She did not answer the next question posed, the interview was stopped by CBJ (with lawyer at her ear). I wish I could remember the question she refused to answer, but I don't remember it being out of line.

I was very disappointed that Pat would not answer any questions. His comment about not being interested in persistent rumors any more than President Obama's birth certificate conspiracy says a lot to me. Anyway, thanks, again.

Cracklin' Charlie

5/17/2011 02:40:11 pm

Who is the story supposed to be "working" for?
In two of the four sentences in his statement, did he just say that they were unable to confirm that the story was untrue? I think he may have just said the story is true.

SLQ

5/17/2011 02:47:24 pm

@Brad -- Yes, it does appear they are playing a shell game, doesn't it? What does a "reputable" news organization have to hide?

Anon55

5/17/2011 03:12:41 pm

@ voiceinwind. I remember no video interview with Dr. Baldwin-Johnson and I have been following this pretty closely right from the beginning. And CBJ certainly wouldn't have been interviewed on video by the ADN, so that can't be where the what now seems to be completely unsubstantiated story began that CBJ appeared at the ADN with her attorney.

Red herrings, people. Red herrings. Keep you eye on the ball.

dr Who

5/17/2011 03:46:21 pm

I don't like the way he basically states that this is not an important issue. He's implying that even if she faked it, it wouldn't be relevant anyhow. Didn't he say this?
And comparing this to Obamas birth story is a cop out. He truly cant be that stupid that he can't see that. President Obama did not use his birth story as a political tool and he has provided the information a number of times. Sarah uses the story of Trig as a political prop- come on, can he not know this? And she could easily put the story to rest but she doesn't!! She deceives people every day by implying he chose life- she gets paid a lot for this lie!
I wonder what Mr Dougherty would say if you asked him how would he feel if he learns this was a hoax. Is it an important story then?? Or would he continue to say that it isn't important??
I think the truth will come out and it will be interesting to see how the ADN handles it then. I find his non- inquisitive demeanor appalling for someone in journalism. He's so quick to talk about who is a reputable journalist or not but he didn't take this story seriously at all. How can anyone not listen to Sarahs wild ride story and know there is a BIG LIE in there somewhere. She's a proven known liar. They could have chosen to do serious work on this but they immediately categorized it as conspiracy nonsense.
If Sarah lied and did not give birth, that IS an important story. Sarah should provide the evidence and then we can all stop. The big question is WHY doesn't she put a stop to all this for the sake of Trig and her family. If she's the birth mother, what's the big deal. No caring mother would let this go on and on and on for years without tring even once to put it to rest. This is why the story won't die. Her story isn't credible and the fact she doesn't stop the talk speaks volumes!
And Mr Dougherty, I'm not a conspiracy person. I'm a doctor and a mother. And there is something very inaccurate in Sarahs story., And your dismissing the importance of this removes you from the category of " credible journalist" to " coward."

curiouser

5/17/2011 03:48:40 pm

Brad - Apologies for misunderstanding your comment. I appreciate the clarification.

Lidia

5/17/2011 03:50:25 pm

PCG: excellent background on this issue. It’s amazing that the only hints in the MSM about the Trig controversy were brought to the table by the right wing!

--------------
To pick up on what mistah charley mentioned, about what CBJ actually said to the ADN, I would go back to some of the contemporary articles, Laura, and you will see that they use a number of statements about what CBJ did or said, without quoting her directly.

In at least some cases I am convinced that the ADN was just taking straight stenography from Sarah as to what CBJ had said and done, and writing it as fact.

--------------
BlueberryT, I caught that, too! Why focus on saying that CBJ never went to the ADN’s offices? Good statement analysis! :-)

=>> Likewise, the fact that she didn’t mention lawyering up ON THE PHONE means nothing; it still leaves open the possibility that she had a lawyer accompanying her at a meeting, possibly anywhere else but at the ADN.

=>> Continuing along these lines, of course there would be no threat of legal action AGAINST DOUGHERTY OR THE ADN… the reason for the lawyer would be to protect CBJ from making statements that would open HER up to legal action.

Dougherty is being extremely weaselly, to the point of bizarreness, on a number of points!! Why??

(sorry for the all-caps, but it seems like bolding and italicizing don’t work in Laura’s comment threads)

voiceinwind

5/17/2011 10:17:02 pm

@anon55 I have been following this since screechy walked out on the national stage and I found that wild ride interview on video. Anyway, that's my memory, it's in my head. CBJ was soft spoken, timid, standing to the right.

MicMac

5/17/2011 10:29:02 pm

I can think of one thing an ADN journalist could do that would effectively prove that Palin did not give birth to Trig, an at risk infant, in MatSu on April 18, 2008. Request that the hospital provide a list of all doctors present at the hospital on that date. I can't imagine that would violate HIPPA for any one individual, and would properly be seen as in the public domain. Not only might it show that CBJ was not present,nor any other OBGYN for that matter, but if there was no pediatric specialist on board that night either, that would indicate that no delivery of a special needs infant took place on that date. Most deliveries these days have a pediatrician to attend to the baby upon birth, but for an at risk child this would be mandatory. No one appears to have attempted this.

OzMud link

5/17/2011 10:38:40 pm

Ms. Novak,

It's late and I'm just enjoying a cuppa and my daily blog-read before retiring so please forgive me for not providing names or details but - in the back of my mind I'm thinking there are so many documentaries published on unsolved crimes, books about possible frauds, famous kidnappings, robberies, conspiracy theories etc. that Mr. Dougherty's insistence of a story without a definitive end is not newsworthy simply doesn't ring true.

Watergate would never have been uncovered without a newspaper editor initially believing in his reporters gut instincts about an unsubstantiated rumour.

If Sarah Palin only pretended to give birth to Trig and legally adopted him, that goes to her credit for taking on a child with Down Syndrome and should be applauded.

But if, in the process, she pretended to be pregnant to the extent she wore a prosthesis and presented him to the nation as a child she not only bore but was currently nursing (she was quoted saying she was getting used to being on the blackberry and breast pump in the wee hours) during the 2008 campaign - well that demonstrates the degree to which she'll lie to paint a false picture of herself just to further her own ambition.

The problem I keep butting into after reading comments like Mr. Dougherty's is this - why aren't his journalistic hackles flaring at the complete lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that Sarah Palin is Trig's biological mother?

Nobody remembers an 8th month pregnant woman on four lengthy airline flights in four days. No one. Not one piece of documentation has ever surfaced or been presented. Not one RN or orderlyh has an anecdote about assisting the governor with her labour or delivery. Not one.

Why isn't Mr. Dougherty even the slightest bit curious?

-Oz

rubbernecking

5/17/2011 11:03:11 pm

Laura, thanks for the behind-the-scenes at the real difficult challenges of fact checking this story.

I'd love if you'd consider a factual analysis of the risks of the Wild Ride exactly as described in Palin's own press release release and published biography. According to her own written accounts, she gambled that she could predict her rate of labor for over 10 hours. She gambled that she would have no flight delays or a missed traveled segment. Spell out why very few women would take those same odds. Describe a scenario where her flight is unable to land in Seattle because of weather and she is forced to deliver in the plane.

A majority of Americans have never experienced childbirth. Describe for them the challenges on an inflight delivery.

I think this a story that would be discussed on several blogs: parenting, health, jezebel, etc. It requires no conspiracy, no font analysis, no suspicion of video or photography manipulation. It simply asks that you take Palin at her own words.

Brad Scharlott

5/17/2011 11:16:15 pm

Crystal - If someone present at the purported meeting between CBJ (with lawyer) and ADN revealed what took place, I imagine they would say, "This is for deep background only. You may may not state that someone at the meeting revealed what transpired." Hence, no one (in this hypothetical scenario) would say outright the reason for the certainty that the meeting took place.

Again, let me point to the odd fact that the only thing Dougherty will go on the record as saying is that CBJ did NOT go to ADN office with her lawyer. Why is he bothering to say anything? Here's why, in my view. He has seen the persistent rumors about a meeting (wherever it might have truly occurred) between CBJ and ADN, and thus knows someone spilled the beans, thus violating the confidentiality the paper promised CBJ; so he feels personal responsibility to kill the rumor, even if it involves telling half-truths. Thus, oddly enough, to my way of thinking, the very fact that he has gone to the trouble to kill the rumor suggests the rumor has a basis in fact.

Molly

5/17/2011 11:20:44 pm

I was just listening to the interview Palin gave to the press about the wild ride three days after the "birth." One can clearly hear the camera's clicking in the background. Where did all of those photos go?

MicMac

5/17/2011 11:25:17 pm

Sorry to be tiresome on this subject, but it irks me that no journalist has seen fit to investigate exactly which doctors were on duty at MatSu when Palin "delivered." It is a public health matter that an at risk infant was supposedly delivered in a hospital that apparently did not have competent facilities and/or staff to adequately care for such a delivery. MatSu should be investigated in this regard - if Trig actually was delivered there, was that malpractice? Should any other prospective mother of a DS baby consider delivering at MatSu? Or be allowed to? How many other infants with DS or similarly life threatening conditions have been born at MatSu? I believe this topic alone is worthy of journalistic investigation. And would not violate HIPPA laws.

I also believe that HIPPA laws allow a hospital to disclose that any patient has been "treated and released" or "died."

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/faq/facility_directories/485.html

Therefore, it appears that MatSu could disclose whether or not Sarah Palin was actually "treated and released" on April 18, 2008. Or not.

voiceinwind

5/17/2011 11:25:56 pm

dr Who, thank you for your comment; better than I could express. Pat's linking the fake pregnancy to President Obama was somewhat condescending and dismissive to me. Michael Carey, an ADN columnist, said in an interview on video at the RNC convention that there was an attorney that told him it was absolute truth Palin was not pregnant and that her pregnancy had been faked. Where there's smoke there's fire. ADN dropped the ball. Palin has continually attacked President Obama since walking out on the national stage. And folks are still talking about Palin being the GOP presidential candidate.

When I think about my experiences with amino fluid leakage and that wild ride story, the statement that stewardesses being unaware, the fact that Palin's announcement that she was seven months pregnant was a complete surprise the day after McCain became the GOP presidential candidate and all those pictures that show no pregnancy that could produce a six pound baby less than six weeks later, I believe Palin lied.

And a baby with special needs is continually being used for political and monetary gain. The Palins millionaires because of Trig. Anyway, I appreciated your comment.

Ennealogic link

5/17/2011 11:27:42 pm

Laura, you wrote:

"If she could "make things up" about the media, could she make things up to the media?"

The answer to this, if one is to believe ones own eyes and ears, as well as the Dunn, Bailey and McGinniss books that are now being released, is a resounding YES. She and her inner circle made things up ALL THE TIME, and were instrumental in getting those lies placed in the media as well.

Or, as my kids might have said, "It's a no-brainer."

crystalwolfakacaligrl

5/17/2011 11:36:15 pm

I find it very difficult to beleive the ADN ed.
For example this story reported 4.22.08 and MODIFIED on 10.20.08? When everyone is asking questions about TriG?
There are quotes from CBJ in this article.
*****************
Palins' child diagnosed with Down syndrome (04/22/08)

FAMILY FEELS BLESSED: Back at work already, governor says she wasn't in labor in Texas.

By LISA DEMER
[email protected]

Published: April 22nd, 2008 12:04 AM
Last Modified: October 20th, 2008 02:15 PM

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2008/04/22/382864/palins-child-diagnosed-with-down.html#ixzz1Mi7VQih4
******************
"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

*****************
??????????

MicMac

5/17/2011 11:38:48 pm

Also, CBJs comment that the flight to Texas was her last scheduled flight before delivery is a lie. Palin's record schedule clearly indicates a pre-planned trip to WDC in the last week of April, two weeks before her supposed due date. it was still on the schedule, and the email records shows Palin still contemplating taking it, one week after she "gave birth" to Trig. (This trip appears to have been scrapped at the last minute, with no explanation given, but there was bad weather that weekend in Alaska.) In any case, a woman who is really pregnant doesn't schedule a plane ride two weeks before she is due to give birth.

Ivyfree

5/17/2011 11:45:02 pm

"Lisa Demer was the reporter, and I had the impression that it took place at CBJ's workplace or another location."

I can't source it, but I had the understanding that CBJ arrived for a luncheon interview- I thought it was at a restaurant- and had the attorney with her. I agree that Daugherty claiming CBJ was never at the ADN building is a red herring. Maybe that never happened, but if so, why not say, "No, that's not true. Lisa told me she tried to talk to CBJ in person and CBJ wouldn't cooperate." But suddenly coming out with "CBJ was never at the ADN building"? That's disingenuous.

"If Sarah lied and did not give birth, that IS an important story. Sarah should provide the evidence and then we can all stop."

So disproving the nutty story was a priority 3 years ago, but now it's not a story worth discussing? Either Sarah lied or she spoke the truth. Either way, it's a story. After all, Sarah claims to be so deeply offended by it all. Well, as deep as she goes. Maybe as deep as a piepan.

The story is that Sarah gave birth. It's not true, and she can't prove that it is- because you can't prove a negative. We, however, can point to pictures showing her flat, dated to one month prior to her public presentation of Trig.

And the proof it's not true goes back to that picture of Sarah with the dark suit on and the pink scarf with black ends on it. That belly is flat. Sarah's 5'4", thereabouts. There is no place for that baby to be, not a seven-month pregnant baby. She's lying, and she lied for political gain, and used that baby as a prop, and it is offensive that she would use a phony story about a kid with DS as a vote-getter. It's offensive to Trig's human dignity.

Molly

5/17/2011 11:45:31 pm

I just went back to have a look at Palin's Deceptions and here is what Audrey had to say about it in September, 2008.

"And now, months later, the story is being spun even more firmly. In the New York Times article which has been widely republished, when she's questioned about her decision to travel, it is stated categorically that "Around 4 a.m. on the day of her presentation, Palin stirred in her hotel room to an unusual sensation. She guessed she was leaking amniotic fluid, she …called her doctor back home. Go ahead and give the speech, said the doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, who declined to comment for this article." But then, the article goes on to say, "In fact, Palin was not yet in labor, and her doctor thought she had time."

(Comment: Which doctor thought she had time? The one who would not comment on the article? So.. then... who said Palin wasn't in labor? Palin?)

The entire saga from the time it allegedly began at 4 AM on Thursday April 17th until when the birth occurred at 6:30 AM on Friday April 18th is full of holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Much of the time, the story reads like the efforts of people who don't have their stories straight and have to keep backtracking. (For example, Palin saying she called her doctor as soon as she felt something happening, and the doctor saying by the time Palin called her, things had "settled down." These are in direct contradiction to each other.) And, perhaps most glaring of all, is Cathy Baldwin Johnson's utter lack of any decisive statements about the birth whatsoever. Never once has this physician gone on record to say that "Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother," or even that she was actually at the birth. She has not spoken to anyone about this since the few very tepid statements she gave to the press in April. Now she won't comment at all."

http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

tina

5/17/2011 11:50:50 pm

Yes, exactly, to Anon55, CBJ's silence was (and still is) deafening.
I keep asking myself why I care about this and sometimes wonder if Dougherty has the right of it, that it doesn't really matter. And then, someone like OzMud hits the nail on the head! It does matter, because SP is still on the political scene, taking money from folks who believe the false persona she has developed. There is no limit to "the degree to which she'll lie to paint a false picture of herself just to further her own ambition." She needs to be stopped. And as a 'rill' working mother, who has gone through pregnancy, labor, and childbirth five times, I personally am affronted that another woman would fake this.

Palintologist

5/17/2011 11:55:04 pm

@Molly the article goes on to say, "In fact, Palin was not yet in labor, and her doctor thought she had time."

Of course she had time, because labor was never going to start until hell freezez over

rubbernecking

5/18/2011 12:10:11 am

I recommend using primary sources: her own press release and her book. Don't let her blame big bad media for twisting her words.

Here's the internet archive of her office's press release. It was captured on May 1, 2008 by an automated archive bot:

http://replay.web.archive.org/20080720142421/http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1098&type=1

In an earlier post, I recommended describing child birth for readers who have never experienced it for themselves. Here's Palin's own (hysterical) description of the birth of her first child from Going Rogue:

All through my perfect, healthy pregnancy, I had pictured this peaceful Earth Mother birth experience, the lights low in the delivery room, maybe even some of the nature-sound music playing in the background. Like a pioneer woman, I would bravely deliver our firstborn, Todd beaming beside me, with the Alaska wilderness waiting outside to welcome our son, the newest addition to Nature's grand march of creatures great and small.

Instead, by the time the nurses got me prepped, I was sweating and panting, trying to do those infernal breathing techniques, when what I really wanted to do was scream bloody murder and beg for drugs. Blessed Mother of Jesus, I finally got them!

The delivery room was chaos...

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wx00mzMRGH8C&lpg=PP1&dq=going%20rogue&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q=Earth%20Mother%20birth%20experience&f=false

crystalwolfakacaligrl

5/18/2011 12:14:09 am

Interesting comment here: http://bit.ly/kR35nT

Anonymous said...

Gryphon, PD is LYING by omission/careful wording.

It's true what he said, that CBJ did not ever bring an attorney TO THE OFFICES OF THE NEWSPAPER.

What he's ever so careful to avoid saying, in a masterfully inept game of Covering Ass: CBJ **DID** bring her personal counsel WITH HER TO THE INTERVIEW CONDUCTED AT HER OFFICE by the ADN's Lisa Demer.

I fear Dougherty's words will obfuscate one of the most important facts in this case: CBJ refused to, on the advice of counsel, confirm that a) SHE WAS PRESENT AT THE BIRTH OF TRIG PAXSON VAN PALIN and/or b) THAT SARAH LOUISE HEATH PALIN BIRTHED THE CHILD KNOWN AS TRIG PALIN.

PLEASE Gryphen, ask Lisa herself before putting the seal of gospel truth on the words of Pat Faux-erty...possibly the only person in AK to groom Sarah's image as much as she herself does.

People need to know that beyond the exchange of emails, there was at least one very heated phone call between PD and SP, wherein he finally lost his temper with her and said "why won't you just release the [blanking] birth certificate? what is WRONG with you?!"
SP hung up on him and at that point, PD has found himself squarely between the rock (journalistic truth/integrity) and the hard place (halfway up Palin's bum).
<snip>
read more anon @ 5:10 am

5/18/2011 12:15:05 am

@voiceinwind. So maybe it is a TV interview where CBJ lawyered up?

lilybart

5/18/2011 12:16:32 am

There are so many holes in the story but the photos are clear, no baby. I just don't know why that isn't enough for the media to ask real questions.

But then we are told that a media person IS going to publish an investigative book on this, so Woo Hoo!

voiceinwind

5/18/2011 12:17:27 am

MicMac, in the last few years, any time I go to the emergency room at my local hospital, I have to sign a document stating whether or not I allow the hospital to disclose my being there if someone calls asking if I am a patient.

You have raised a lot of good points. I think someone tried to find out how many babies with DS had been born in the area but couldn't find out. There's bound to be a way to find out the hospital was used as a cover. I wonder if the licensing folks can be asked to investigate since the doctor said Palin induced indicating no emergency at her community hospital with no NICU and Palin said the baby was born in Anchorage.

Lilybart

5/18/2011 12:18:04 am

MY birth story is not full of holes, no conflicting statements, no need to question my maternity....how weird that any woman's birth story is full of holes! Unless they have dementia, how could they not remember the EXACT details?

CRAZY.

rubbernecking

5/18/2011 12:25:07 am

The "Wild Ride" deserves analysis for the same reason Greg Mortenson's "Three Cups of Tea" deserved analysis.

In both cases, the author formally published the tale and the author is making a large salary retelling this story in public. The Wild Ride is her story and it was her choice to keep telling it publicly.

Debunking Mortenson does not mean you are opposed to educating Afghan girls. We can acknowledge that Mortenson did a worthy thing by raising awareness of an important issue. Good intentions, however, do not justify peddling fiction as fact for $$.

Frozen

5/18/2011 12:39:57 am

VITW - I remember seeing CBJ with atty on the tube too.

voiceinwind

5/18/2011 12:54:58 am

B, I just can't remember...I do lean towards teevee because I feel like I was standing while watching CBJ. I know I was standing watching Palin and her family when they walked out on the national stage at the RNC convention. Funny how my mind works. Anyway, I just remember seeing CBJ standing at an angle and the attorney was not standing beside her, but a little behind her. My teevee stays on cnn or msnbc. I know I watched that wild ride interview on the internet during the campaign but I have not seen it since, just the audio and transcript. I remember watching that video on the internet because I watched it three times in a row because I couldn't believe it. But that interview with CBJ was so short, a snip; I didn't watch it over and over. I'll probably wake up in the middle of the night weeks from now remembering it plain as day. I'm always a day late and a dollar short.

5/18/2011 01:02:11 am

voicewind and anon55, I also remember that interview with Dr CBJ.

Dr Who

5/18/2011 01:05:07 am

It seems that Lisa Demer should be interviewed. Has anyone tried? My guess is that she will decline. It would be interesting to hear her reason for declining, if she would give one.

Dougherty has no credibility and should be held accountable for the very very shoddy job he did with this story.

rubbernecking

5/18/2011 01:06:59 am

Question for journalists who won't cover this story:

If the Wild Ride is true, should the person who made those decisions have any influence as a moral or political leader?

If the Wild Ride is false, should we enable a person who chose to grow her fame and fortune by retelling it dozens of times?

We can have different opinions about abortion, or Trig's maternity, or the sins of the country doctors.

We all have an obligation as citizens to evaluate the judgment and trustworthiness of people who seek or try to influence our presidential elections. Why won't any journalist write this story?

voiceinwind

5/18/2011 01:09:28 am

Frozen, thanks...I am slow so it takes me a while to generate comments typos and all, so I didn't read your comment until after I clicked.

crystalwolfakacaligrl

5/18/2011 01:25:28 am

http://bit.ly/mbvTNA
Thank you, Sarah Palin! Finally, I have the perfect opportunity to tell the world the story which I had mentioned in several comments before, but not in a blogpost.

In the autumn of 2008, the ADN was actually researching the "fake pregnancy rumors", and the ADN-reporter Lisa Demer was assigned to research and write the story. The ADN asked to interview Cathy Baldwin-Johnson about the details of the pregnancy. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson was hesitant at first, but then agreed to do the interview - and we have been told that Sarah Palin's doctor Cathy Baldwin-Johnson brought her lawyer with her to the interview with the ADN.

(If everything is fine and you have nothing to hide, you bring your lawyer to an interview with a newspaper? Of course, what else? After all, lawyers just have too much time these days!)

Asked by the ADN if Cathy Baldwin-Johnson delivered Trig, we were told that she answered that she "cannot confirm it". The ADN then didn't press further.

This story was never published by the ADN, but we received this information through a reliable source. You will find no reference of this story anywhere else. When I mentioned this interview in my "angry email" to ADN-editor Pat Dougherty several weeks ago (amongst a few other things), he didn't respond to the matter of this interview at all.

So there you have it. The ADN are apparently Trig Truthers! Don't tell Pat Dougherty, it might make him feel uneasy, because after all, the State of Alaska so graciously showers the ADN with presents!
**********************
Please talk with Patrick or Kathleen formally of palingates now of Politicalgates!

crystalwolfakacaligrl

5/18/2011 01:27:58 am

http://bit.ly/mbvTNA
"Thank you, Sarah Palin! Finally, I have the perfect opportunity to tell the world the story which I had mentioned in several comments before, but not in a blogpost.

In the autumn of 2008, the ADN was actually researching the "fake pregnancy rumors", and the ADN-reporter Lisa Demer was assigned to research and write the story. The ADN asked to interview Cathy Baldwin-Johnson about the details of the pregnancy. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson was hesitant at first, but then agreed to do the interview - and we have been told that Sarah Palin's doctor Cathy Baldwin-Johnson brought her lawyer with her to the interview with the ADN.

(If everything is fine and you have nothing to hide, you bring your lawyer to an interview with a newspaper? Of course, what else? After all, lawyers just have too much time these days!)

Asked by the ADN if Cathy Baldwin-Johnson delivered Trig, we were told that she answered that she "cannot confirm it". The ADN then didn't press further.

This story was never published by the ADN, but we received this information through a reliable source. You will find no reference of this story anywhere else. When I mentioned this interview in my "angry email" to ADN-editor Pat Dougherty several weeks ago (amongst a few other things), he didn't respond to the matter of this interview at all."
*********
Please talk to Patrick of Policalgates or Kathleen

melly

5/18/2011 01:48:28 am

Thanks, Laura, and all of you here looking for the truth. Great comments and analyses. I've been asking about the lawyer rumor for a long time, and you've used it to create a fresh opening to the real story.

I do think you left the door open for Pat to answer as he did. The meeting in question might have taken place somewhere other than the ADN offices.

Sharon_Too_Also

5/18/2011 02:14:57 am

Probably like a lot of you, I've been switching back and forth between IM and here. And with Laura;s interview with Dougherty and the Anonymous @ 5.10 AM post at IM (partially re-posted above), things have gotten a lot clearer this morning.

I think that it is very important to keep the heat on Dougherty because I am now convinced that he does know the truth, no matter how much he would like to wish it away.

Anonymous said he was "between a rock and a hard place", to which I say :no shit". Folks, just look at what it's going to do to his reputation and legacy WHEN another major MSM breaks the story. The political scandal of the decade was sitting on his doorstep and he threw it away? How'd you like that on your professional bio?

Brad please jump in here anytime - am I right?

He's got to be losing sleep at night and I think we should help him out with his nightmares. Keep the pressure on and don't let up - we know how to be tenacious, don't we?

Rationalist

5/18/2011 02:26:22 am

Whew. What a great discussion. Thank you, Laura, for your diligent efforts to REPORT!

Crystalwolf - that's a very interesting comment from IM. Sounds like someone who works at the ADN.

You know, this morning I was feeling like "f this. I cannot spend any more time worrying about whether the truth comes out about Palin's faked pregnancy. People are not ready to hear it, and maybe it will come out someday but I have to move on."

But then, reading this excellent discussion, I thought - maybe it's not so far away. I mean - Laura - is it possible to get Mat-su to answer that question about who was on staff the night of 4/18/08? Would Business Insider run an article about your efforts to get an answer from them?

Obviously Pat Dougherty is covering his ass. Lisa Demer - I've emailed back and forth with her and so has Brad Scharlott and Andrew Sullivan (and probably some of you too) and she is pretty much *over* this whole story. She is unlikely And Julia O'Malley has an agenda. So the ADN is useless.

What about Rolling Stone magazine? What about pitching "The Conspiracy That Wouldn't Die" to them?

DebinOH

5/18/2011 02:28:05 am

Well, the only thing I got out of this was that SP essentially wrote him an email saying that he/his paper was telling lies about her/Levi. Since he answered her back showing that he/his paper was not lying never got an answer back.

Hmmmmmmmmm so he just proved she lies again.

I will not repeat that CBJ had a lawyer present when interviewed by anyone again, but I still have a hard time believing that people can still remember seeing it. I remember it vaguely but it was so long ago.

How is any reporter ever going to get to the truth when no one will talk? All I know is that I would NEVER let my family go through all this crap.

hellothere

5/18/2011 02:38:15 am

the article goes on to say, "In fact, Palin was not yet in labor, and her doctor thought she had time."

If WGE was only 8 months pregnant (max), if she had shown up at the hospital not in labor, they would've sent her home, not induced her. NO doctor would induce labor at 8 months. Period. I had a scheduled delivery and the earliest they would let me have the baby was 10 days before my due date.

daisydem

5/18/2011 02:42:42 am

Thanks to all of you who are still here posting and commenting on this story ... this story that needs to be told truthfully and asap, especially you Laura, and Brad and all the commenters, some who like myself, have been immersed in this story for over two years. And thank you to the anonymous who commented at IM this morning (5:10am): I think you know what you are talking about. Mr. Dougherty is playing a word game with us and yes, it is disingenious of him.

curiouser

5/18/2011 03:40:07 am

Brad Scharlott - "Recall that Palin wrote to Dougherty that CBJ had already "set the record straight" for the paper (in the email from her that he published). What else could she be referring to?"

Couldn’t Palin have been referring to CBJ's first, and possibly only, interview for the 4/22 ADN article? Palin's intent seems to be more to shut down inquiry than to be factual. Certainly, though, CBJ did ‘set the record straight’ that she wasn’t involved in Palin’s ‘wild ride’ decisions, contradicting the impression Palin had previously presented to the press.

My favorite part of the Palin-Dougherty email is exchange is from Palin: “Pat, we have cooperated. I told you I gave birth to Trig.”

Amy in Texas

5/18/2011 03:43:54 am

Rationalist and Dr. Scharlott: It would seen Lisa Demer is the key. You say you have e-mailed back and forth with her.

What did she say? Where did she meet CBJ? Was her lawyer with her?

Will Lisa give you any of these details? If not, that's suspicious, isn't it?

Thank you in advance for answering these questions for us.

Rationalist

5/18/2011 04:20:17 am

Amy in Texas and all:

This is what Lisa Demer had to say to me in 2009. Two emails:

"We looked into those rumors last year and just didn't find anything to
support them. The story of Trig's birth is rather amazing but it's not
beyond belief. Just because many women wouldn't get on a plane if they
thought they were in early labor doesn't mean no one would do it.

You've probably seen what Pat Dougherty wrote on his editor's blog but
just in case, here is a link to his most recent post:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/136646

To see all of his posts on the topic, you'd have to start at the
beginning of his blog and click through.

I can't get into the details of reporting that was never published but
just be assured that I spent some time on it.

Hope that helps."

I wrote back thanking her for taking the time and asking on what basis the ADN had decided Palin was telling the truth. This was her response:

"I am loaded down with other things so one quick point: Check my math but Trig was born in mid April and Bristol's baby Tripp in late December. So there's the question of who was the mom if not Sarah.

As to her belly, check the video from the documentary filmmakers, the one where she patted her belly and commented that her abs were tight. I don't have that at my fingertips but you should be able to find it. Her belly isn't flat, though granted, it's not huge either."

* * *

My sense is she is a busy reporter for a small newspaper with zero interest in pursuing the story. Unlike her editor, who knows his paper will be internationally ridiculed if it turns out that he dropped the ball on breaking it.

curiouser

5/18/2011 04:21:21 am

crystalwolf - Thanks for the palingates link. Following a link at that post and then on to another led to Patrick's first blog post mention of his correspondence with Dougherty.

“Several days ago I shot off an “angry letter” to Pat Dougherty, complaining about the lack of coverage. I also asked him whether the rumor was true that Sarah Palin apparently threatened to sue the ADN. I also mentioned the MTV video and Michael Carey’s interview from September 2008.” [note there's no mention of CBJ]

The post also includes Dougherty's response.

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/09/sarah-palins-babygate-by-patrick.html

I couldn't find a copy of the actual correspondence in Patrick's saved documents list.

http://www.box.net/shared/4ehka8vp11/4/31987008

Karen

5/18/2011 04:27:13 am

Ask any mother you know to provide proof of the legitimacy of one of their children in the form of a baby book, sonogram/ultrasound image, appointment card, birth certificate, prenatal appointment paperwork, insurance invoice, photo of her pregnancy, DNA, handwritten notes on a calendar indicating due date, ANY. THING.

See if it takes more than 10 minutes for that mother to come up with a shred of evidence. The fact that she won't hunt up something, anything, to stop the speculation is answer in itself. That is why women are crying Bullshit.

The libelous claims about President Obama's place of origin dealt with records and recollections that were over 50 years old. This is a mere three years ago.

Whatsgoingonhere

5/18/2011 04:48:43 am

Laura in your post you have the following-

I pressed the point that his paper was closer to the Palin story due to his earlier efforts to lay it to rest. And of course due the Anchorage Daily News’ geographical proximity and role as the paper of record for Alaska and its government.

I recalled a recent exchange between Patrick Doherty and another Alaskan blogger. This was at "What Do I Know".

"Writing For the ADN - Trolls and All"

About ten days ago, I called Anchorage Daily News editor Pat Dougherty and asked why the ADN hadn't run anything on redistricting, except a couple of cut and pasted press releases. How the maps are drawn will determine who gets elected to state office for the next ten years. They're no longer a paper of record he said. We just don't have the staff. Sean's in Juneau. There's lots of things to cover, we have to make choices. I suggested at least they publish the Anchorage district maps proposed by the board. He said he'd look into it. Then he asked if I would write a commentary. I wasn't thrilled, but decided I had a responsibility as a citizen to take the opportunity to share what I knew. (I realize that might sound sappy, but it's exactly how I felt about it.)

http://whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2011/05/writing-for-adn-trolls-and-all.html

Choices,priorities,and limitations; one can draw their own conclusions. The ADN is sinking fast and the most recent retirements are just another chapter in the long decline.

crystalwolfakacaligrl

5/18/2011 04:53:41 am

Curiouser: They always get confounded that TriG was born 4.18 so it couldn't be Bristol's? Hello their are pics from 2007 (that the ADN changed to 2006) that clearly show Bristol w/baby bump. If taken during the summer she could of had T1 in Dec/early Jan and be going to checkups when her accident happened.
Also in Oct of 2008 "Cajun Boy" said he had a source that was going to out babygate. He finally revealed (as I recall) it was someone at ADN. All the people on the blog called and pestered PD. next thing you know the source shuts up....!JMO but could of been Lisa Demer.

FrostyAK

5/18/2011 05:27:19 am

Folks, we have to remember that ADN is a corporate owned newspaper (McClatchey). Dougherty gets his marching orders from above. Yes, he is a corporate shill, nothing more, nothing less.

Dougherty has been shutting down negative comments on $palin for nearly 3 years. I went through about 20 aliases before I quit commenting altogether.

Today, ADN takes in most of it's money from the state of AK. Who now runs AK? $palin's lapdog parnell (aka Captain Zero, and palin in a suit). He has been covering for the Wicked Witch of Wasilla for a LONG time, and owes his current job to her. Dougherty isn't about to throw the golden goose under the bus.

If corporate HQ and/or the State of AK tell him (and his staff) to stop answering ANY questions about the fake pregnancy rumor, and to bury any past references to it, then he will. Or he will edit the past. Hopefully someone was able to screen capture EVERYTHING, because it will disappear, like the state pictures of $palin did.

Prof Brad has it right, there is a huge conspiracy/spiral of silence. Follow the money to it's roots.

Sharon_Too_Also

5/18/2011 06:00:13 am

@ FrostyAK

Way to go, you burst my bubble. I guess I'm just from the wrong era. You know, the one where peoples personal and professional reputations mattered.

betsy s

5/18/2011 07:05:10 am

Just to add to the shell game. The baby in the kitchen (Triggy Bear) we know as Ruffles. He/she is about a month old and has extremely deformed ears. This baby is not the chubby thing photographed "in the hall" at the hospital, held by SP's mother. Ruffles is the baby photographed at the shower (deformed ear showing) and on the cover of US Mag (ears hidden in shawl). Ruffles is most likely an FAS baby and would be unacceptable as SP's child. But a DS baby would be a plus to affect the pro-life crowd. CBJ could arrange a replacement, church records burned up, as Nurse Miller did also.

betsy s

5/18/2011 07:15:12 am

Forgot to add that picture in SP's kitchen (she's in shorts, looking not at all post pregnancy) was taken May 3rd, Levi's birthday--his cake is in the background. Ruffles could be about three weeks old, not a very well-looking baby. I'm thinking that Bristol was the mom anytime from March, and April 18th was the release date.

MicMac

5/18/2011 07:41:57 am

Just so I am perfectly clear here - re: "the sins of country doctors" I don't actually think that MatSu did anything wrong regarding the actual delivery of Trig, because I don't believe he was born there. I am suggesting, however, that if ADN or any other journalist/blogger were to look into this angle as a public interest story - after all, it was highly irregular for Trig to have been born there, by choice rather than emergency - and if a story were to be written to question this, and pressure put on the hospital for information regarding birth procedures, licensing, facilities, staff competence, etc. - how long do you think it would take for MatSu to step up to the plate and defend itself? Possibly by stating that Trig was not born there, after all. Are the mothers of Wasilla under the impression that MatSu can handle high risk births now? That Family Practitioners are competent to handle high risk or DS births? If so, that is incorrect. And the public should be so informed by good, investigative journalism.

Rationalist

5/18/2011 07:49:32 am

i like your idea, Micmac. Laura?

daisydem

5/18/2011 08:34:43 am

Just skimming through more of the comments above since I was here this morning, I see where it is stated that the rumor(s) [her not being pregnant; Bristol being pregnant -which actually started before March] and this is very important that it be stressed when/if this goes mainstream - these rumors were in existent long before it was made known that she was the V.P. candidate for the GOP. When I first googled her to find out more information, this the storyline that came up and the ADN articles from April/May 2008 were there, as of course very soon was Palin's Deceptions which began because of this story. The rumors were started there in Wasilla and Anchorage, in AK, and not by the Democratic Party. I still want to know what the photographers/reporters for the article in Vogue saw/heard when they did the photoshoot in December of 2007 for the issue in which she appears juxtaposed with the article on Kathleen Sibelius (something like "A Profile of Two Governors") in February 2008. This article piqued my curiosity about her and Sibelius, then I forgot all about it until I heard her name as the VP candidate. I dug out the article: the pictures have Sibelius in a long, slinky, form-fitting evening gown at a cocktail soiree; Palin in an oversized parka/coat leaning against a plane, and also just her from the back walking across a field. Looking at the pics now; it almost does not look like her. I don't know if any attempt has been made to contact Vogue about these photos or any others that might have been taken. I do know that for a photo shoot many, many photos are usually snapped, then the undesired ones are eliminated (but I bet not destroyed) and they choose the ones to use, retouch, edit, whatever. What did this crew see or hear?

Rationalist

5/18/2011 10:01:04 am

daisydem - You make a good point. There's a lot of revisionism going around now (like, for example, that the MSM was harassing Palin about the pregnancy rumors in 2008). Anyway, after reading your comment I just went and looked up the photographer, Jonathan Becker. In an image search, I found some more of the Vogue pictures. Most of them are in the parka, but this one shows that she was using Piper as a stomach shield even back then.

http://www.jonathanbecker.com/photographs-i/album/images/21_2007-041-002_Sarah_Palin_003.jpg

Boy, I'd love to see the rest of those pictures too. Anyone have any connection to legendary photographer Jonathan Becker?

On the other hand, if Palin can say with a straight face that she wasn't showing at 7 months, she can certainly claim she wasn't showing at five.

comeonpeople

5/18/2011 11:12:21 am

MicMac ,Voice in Wind, rationalist, Laura,
Invrstigating MaSu and CBj is a good route. I made a JCAHO complaint, but it was outside the staute of limitations. I'm kicking myself becasue this is the route i thought all along would be fruitful, and everyone, including Audrey back in the beginning was negative on the idea. CBJ as a family practice physician should not deliver a high risk premie, unless, by the standards of the AAFP she does continuing education and attends a certain number of high risk births to hone her skills. So, one route isd to see if she has the apporpriate credentials to even have been Palins doctor and deliver Tri-G. Then there is the whole issue of MatSu not having a NICU or a pediatric intensivist and allowing the birth to be there. Complaints against CBj with the medical board are probably outside the statute of limitations by now as well. Letters to the AAFp are worthy, esp since shewas the Fsmliy practice physician of the year 2002, nominated by none other than Sarah Palin. JCAHO told me that despite the time frame being to long, if enough people raised concerns they could look into it. I dont know if JCAHO complaints were raised earlier inside the statute of limitations. Anyway, it seems on a public service level, there is no reason not to question CBj about her ridiculous advice and the safety risks of Matsu delivering kids without a nicu.

Anon55

5/18/2011 11:39:39 am

I think the Vogue pictures were shot in December 2007 or even earlier. You have to remember there is a long lead time for a monthly magazine and if Palin was in the February issue, that means the magazine probably was already on the stands in mid or late January.

Laura Novak link

5/18/2011 12:19:38 pm

Thank you ALL! Too many things to comment on now, and I have to call it a night. But I would like Anon 5:10 to contact me on my page. I know they didn't write the entire comment here, but if they are checking, know that I'd like to hear from you confidentially.

And if anyone "sees" them again on IM, tell them to contact me here. Please. I'm very curious about something he/she said. Thank you all again. More tomorrow!

MicMac

5/18/2011 12:34:43 pm

Thank you, comeonpeople. But it's not too late for ADN to investigate the overall issue of MatSu accepting a known DS baby birth, with a mother over 40, following a long plane ride, with reported amniotic fluid leaking. That is still a relevant topic. And it being the Governor of Alaska and all! Unbelievable. It's a public interest/public safety issue, that goes against all medical protocol and standards of which I am aware. Either MatSu really did this, and should answer to some very hard questions from the media, or they didn't do this and should fess up to defend their own reputation.

Anon55

5/18/2011 02:28:12 pm

I think the dam is about to burst. Joe McGinnis is a dishin' on his blog that his upcoming book has an interview with Gary Wheeler, who was chief of security for Sarah when she was governor, and that the interview will be of interest to believers in Babygate.

The only reason I can think of that Joe is giving away the store so soon is that he knows the dam is about to burst.

Ingrid

5/18/2011 02:47:38 pm

Amazing reporting, Laura.

You've made me care about a story I initially didn't care about. Keep asking the questions!

AKRNC

5/18/2011 03:39:52 pm

More great reporting, Laura. Thank you for keeping this story out in the open. The comments on here are so intelligent and obviously a great deal of thought has gone into them.

I was sorry to hear that the idea of MatSu delivering Trig was beyond the statute of limitations but thought of another way to possibly go after the high-risk delivery. Why did they feel it reasonable to allegedly deliver Trig with Anchorage a 30 minute drive by ambulance or an even faster helicopter transfer is something we'd all like to know but we could also ask just how common these high risk deliveries are at MatSu now that they have "delivered" Trig Palin, the son of a sitting Governor?? Has MatSu become a prime site for high-risk deliveries? Of course not, but it doesn't hurt to ask because they might unknowingly admit that there is NO reason for them to have delivered Trig by going out of their way to explain WHY they don't do high-risk deliveries even after he was "born" at MatSu. It could be worth a try, IMO.

Lidia17

5/18/2011 07:58:28 pm

tina, you said you have to ask yourself why we should care about this. My point of view is, it’s not ONLY that Palin is evil/deceptive, it’s not ONLY that she is grifting on the basis of being “Tri-G’s mom” and fleecing people, it’s not ONLY that the Republican party was depraved and desperate enough to run with Palin.

IT’s THAT NO JOURNALISTS WILL UNMASK THIS DECEPTION!!!

Think about how silly and minor a person Palin is, relatively speaking.

Think about the ridiculousness of her lies.

Think about the sheer VOLUME of her lies.

AND STILL NO “SERIOUS” MEDIA OUTLET WILL TAKE HER ON??

This is the DEATH OF DEMOCRACY.

There is NO DEMOCRACY without an informed electorate.

Hundreds of craven reporters and editors and media-outlet owners, Pat Dougherty first among them, decided that IT WASN’T WORTH THEIR TIME AND ENERGY to tell the American people that the REPUBLICAN PARTY had mounted A CLINICALLY INSANE PERSON to be—possibly—the PRESIDENT OF THE USA.

THIS IS HIGH TREASON!!!

I think even many Trig-Truthers have lost perspective on this!

Can we look at ourselves in the mirror and say that America is any better than STALIN’S RUSSIA!?!

NO WE CANNOT.

Because if the media conglomerates continue to lie about Sarah Palin and cover up for HER stupid bullshit… ask yourselves… WHAT WOULDN’T THEY COVER UP!?!?!?!

YES. I AM SHOUTING!!!

WHAT WOULDN’T THEY COVER UP!!?!?

NOTHING!!!!

Nothing.

They would cover up ANYthing.

And far from letting this squalid matter sink into oblivion, THEY ARE STILL PROPOSING HER. They still pretend to take her SERIOUSLY!

“America” is OVER.
There is no more “America”, if there ever was such a thing.
There is only a bunch of greedy, depraved, people convincing each other of bullshit.

We happened to dodge a bullet, but there’s a little company called Diebold out there, and it didn’t have to work out the way it did. We can’t just say “no harm, no foul”. The harm is REAL.

----------
“when another major MSM breaks the story” (Sharon_Also_Too)
Weel, ya know what, Sharon? I have a hard time seeing that happening. Because at this late date ANYthing that they come out with is going to make them look BAD, BAD, BAD. I see this going to get “broken” maybe thirty years from now, when all the protagonists and should-have-been-first-responders are dead.

Look at Dunn’s book. It appears to have fallen into a mediatical black hole.

It SHOULD be the talk of the town, but the MSM is mum.

Forget whether ADN is a “paper of record”… there ARE no more “papers of record”. There are no records! What we think are records are false and unreliable. This is INTENTIONAL.

All that’s missing is an actual building for the “Ministry of Truth”!

Lidia17

5/18/2011 08:05:39 pm

I wish there were an edit button! I didn't mean to overlook the millions of Soviet famine victims, of course!

I should have written "is American any better than Stalin's Russia ON THIS SCORE?"

Sorry, I do get exercised about this. :-(

comeonpeople

5/18/2011 08:57:47 pm

Lidia17. I feel your pain. I agree with you 110%.

Heidi3

5/18/2011 10:24:16 pm

Lidia17, you are not alone in your feelings! Thousands of us are equally as furious about the media's complicity in this charade, at this point almost more so than the pure evil that is Sarah Palin. And that's exactly what this is: a cover-your-arse charade, DIRECTED by self-serving corporations. The obvious word-parsing by Dougherty is proof positive, if even on a local, but KEY scale. Where the hell is the publicity for Dunn's book?!?

rubbernecking

5/18/2011 10:40:45 pm

A journalist who worked on the Schwarenegger story in 2003 for LA Times has an interesting piece at ProPublica.

http://www.propublica.org/article/schwarzenegger-and-dsk-when-powerful-men-cross-lines

The author writes how difficult it was to get sources to participate in the story. Some she was unable to convince, including a woman rumored to the mother of a lovechild.

And get this, LA Times actually ran a story in 2003 using the information from sources who reluctantly agreed to participate. Schwartzenegger was elected anyway. The reporter and paper were deluged with angry mail and calls from people convinced the article was a smear job. The sources who participated felt betrayed and angry.

I think some of you are over-simplifying how difficult it can be get to get sources to participate. I also think that some people in AK have not had good experiences participating with outside press and blogs. I'm thinking of a Vanity Fair piece which made some of the named sources appear as flakey. IM also had some long running disagreement with one of the main palin blogs.

Unfortunately, some past behavior by other journalists and researchers in AK may have inadvertently poisoned a few wells.

Molly

5/18/2011 10:44:12 pm

Heidi, I agree with you about the media. The silence from the media about Dunn's book is proof positive of their complicity in this whole wretched affair.

Lydia....don't apologize...we all feel the same way.

MicMac

5/18/2011 11:27:31 pm

I have sent an email to Dougherty, asking him why the ADN never investigated the irregularity of MatSu admitting Palin for a high risk delivery, without competent staff or a NICU available. Why MatSu did not immediately direct Sarah to Anchorage, which should have been the case under these particular circumstances.

"Proof" indeed. It's sitting right under Dougherty's nose.

rubbernecking

5/19/2011 12:11:07 am

There's a closed information loop within some of the research circles on this story. One of the shibboleths is "An FP cannot deliver a DS baby." It is stated as an inconvertible fact by several different commentators--despite that Laura has interviewed two physicians on this very blog who do not confirm this assessment. See her interviews on 4/22 and 4/28.

Now there's a thread about a media conspiracy and we're warned "silence from the media about Dunn's book is proof positive of their complicity."

Except...ADN published a piece about the Dunn book a week ago. Is this now "proof positive" they're not involved in the complicity?? I've personally read the review at Christian Science Monitor. And the book was only released on May 10th! When 20 reviews are available will the comments change to "the negative reviews are proof positive?"

I sense that some of you have developed friendships and a level of shared trust from working together on this story so long. It's admirable but one downside is this trust makes it easier to introduce mistaken ideas that get amplified by people within your trust circle. You seem to discount the opinions of people outside your trust circle--including physicians identified as outside experts by the host of the blog you are posting on.

P.S. I don't believe Palin has been honest about the circumstances of Trig's birth. I agree you are correct to question her story; I disagree with some of the "smoking guns" offered as proof.

Molly

5/19/2011 12:51:29 am

@Rubbernecking. The media are not doing their job and they are enabling Palin. There are numerous issues they could have gone after to show her utter incompetence, but they have been silent. By their silence, I do believe they are complicit in promoting her, because it suits their purposes. And that includes not promoting Dunn's book. I didn't see the ADN review and I wasn't talking about the ADN specifically - I was referring to the media in general. It is my belief that they do not want the truth revealed about Palin because she will generate a lot of news if she decides to run for 2012. It's all about page clicks.

I don't have any friendships with anyone on this blog. I merely called them by name because I was addressing a point that they had made. Also, I have not disagreed with the physicians, in fact I have read their interviews with great interest.

Karen

5/19/2011 01:08:04 am

@Rubbernecking,
You make a good point about the LA Times' coverage of Schwartzenegger. A close relative is a reporter who has covered several corruption cases over the last few years (Spitzer, Rangel, police corruption, etc). It can be dangerous business. He often uses phone booths (good luck finding those) instead of office or cell phones, receives a lot of flack from all directions. Has to have balls of steel, to be frank. And now, the media has been so gutted due to the drop in circulation that they have lost so much talent, and grit, frankly, and have staff made up of interns and very green reporters who haven't even seen what a real newsroom looks like. When I was a reporter this trend in newsrooms started. I had interned for a paper that had been Gannett, and got a job with them two years later when they had been bought out by a godawful conglomerate of no-nothings who owned a bunch of community newspapers. It was like being in Alice in Wonderland. Went from having reporters who had gone on to the Chicago Tribune, to CNN, to some great papers to a fricking joke. All the real newsmen and women hand left the building. It was horrible. I'm sure it's gotten much, much worse in the 18 years since I left the business.
I agree with @lydia on this, too. (btw, just thanked you on LN's blog)

daisydem

5/19/2011 01:18:13 am

Anon55: the shoot was done in December '07 and yes, the magazine was on the stands (mine came by mail to the office)in late January. There was already talk about the 2008 election, so I was piqued by the article as the closing paragraph was something to the effect of "don't be surprised if either or both of these Governors are players on the national stage in the future." [not a direct quote; this was the gist though] So I called my son who at the time was more politically aware and involved than myself and asked him if he knew anything about either of these governors - one Democrat, the other Republican (or so she said in her article). He knew who Sibelius was; nothing about Palin. Then we just forgot the article like I said - da dum: UNTIL late summer and Palin was selected by McCain. I have always found it intriguing that the article was done, they were mentioned as players nationally and lo and behold, that came to pass that same year! (or well, for Sibelius I guess it was early 2009 after the inauguration. I have looked at some of the photos since and wondered if it were really even Palin in them or a look-alike. I know photographic touch-ups can do magical things though. I know the choice of pics for her and clothes were obstensibly to show her as the Alaskan "frontierswoman" she supposedly is/was; but even at 5 months, I would think the photographers would see something or take some shots in her "regular" clothes, rather than a coat, or see the rest of the family (i.e., Bristol?). This was well before she made the pregnancy announcement though.

comeonpeople

5/19/2011 01:29:16 am

Rubbernecking said:
I think some of you are over-simplifying how difficult it can be get to get sources to participate. I also think that some people in AK have not had good experiences participating with outside press and blogs. I'm thinking of a Vanity Fair piece which made some of the named sources appear as flakey. IM also had some long running disagreement with one of the main palin blogs.

How sad though, when the safety of innocent fetuses and mother's lives are at risk. If we are to believe what is "out there" ..that CBJ said it wasn't unreasonable for Palin to fly, and that MatSu delivers premies without a NICU , then we are asked to be OK with unsafe medical practices. I don't know, if I worked at MatSu, I'd question the actions of my institution. Not to disparage Alaskan healthcaree workers, but really, have they no pride? Have they no professionsl responsibility to question? Has the media no responsibility? I keep going back and placing myself or a doctor I work with in this situation. The doctors would surely, for the safety of future patients and for their professional accountabiltiy, make a claryfying statement. I know my institution would not willingly go along with the fraud of a faked birth. Despite being the best of the best, we will send pts to the other best of the bests, to get a treatment they have and we don't..and if someone said they received something with us that they really didn't, that would need to be clarified also, for the safety of others and the integrity of the institution.
e

comeonpeople

5/19/2011 01:37:19 am

rubber necking said
There's a closed information loop within some of the research circles on this story. One of the shibboleths is "An FP cannot deliver a DS baby." It is stated as an inconvertible fact by several different commentators--despite that Laura has interviewed two physicians on this very blog who do not confirm this assessment. See her interviews on 4/22 and 4/28.

A FP can deliver a DS baby. The AAFP standards on high risk deliveries is very clear. The FP physician has to have certification in high risk deliveries as well as practice hours doing high risk deliveries. I've read through their standards and think it is not unreasonable to check what extra certification and practice hours the good doctor had to qualify her to do a high risk delivery. Also, might not be a bad idea to see if she was properly insured. She took a huge risk (if this were true, which it can't be). For goodness sakes, truly qualified high risk ob/gyns are leaving the field en massebecause of high malpractice insurance. We are being asked to believe and not question that a regular FP with possibly no extra certs and practice hours attneded the high risk birth of a governor in an ill equipped hospital??
Insane.

MicMac

5/19/2011 01:44:03 am

Rubbernecking, points well considered.
And I have not supported my statement re: FPs by any documented links to date.

Nonetheless, my first child was born with disabilities, presided over by an FP in a Western US rural area, with a hospital similar in size and capability to MatSu - the condition was not known before delivery, and the FP was horrified to discover that he had been following a high risk pregnancy.

He stated to me that FPs were not qualified to follow such a pregnancy, and, had he known, he would have immediately handed me over to a specialist OB/GYN in a larger city, and that a pediatrician specialist should have been present at the birth, under these circumstances, to look after the needs of the child. This was in the early 80s, decades before Palin "delivered." He was a good doctor, and I appreciated his candor. He said he ALWAYS referred out any pregnancy that was high risk as it was not appropriate for an FP to follow anything other than a presumed normal birth.

Subsequently, due to my child's ongoing medical problems, I had to move to a large urban area for his treatment at a university hospital. During the ensuing years, I met with many specialists, and in particular our new pediatrician, all whom were equally horrified at the fact that an FP presided over my son's birth. We had to tell our story many times over, each time we met a new specialist - each one stated that in no way was it acceptable medical protocol for an FP to follow a high risk pregnancy. I would take a gander at this statement being made, say, perhaps two dozen (at least) times - we saw a lot of specialists, a lot.

They all complimented the doctor for his candor; however, they confirmed that what he said was true.

MicMac

5/19/2011 01:52:01 am

(Gee, I hope I am not taking up my fair share of space here.)

To my mind, the issue of the FP is not the strongest suite in this story, anyway. It might well be found that CBJ had the certification or experience to do what she did.

The main point is that the hospital was not adequate for this sort of delivery, especially under these circumstances. Especially BY CHOICE, not expediency, as they drove right through Anchorage. Exposing MatSu on this point, might be the most direct path toward "proving" that Palin did not deliver there at all. And putting pressure on the journalists to look into this matter might change a few minds.

rubbernecking

5/19/2011 03:26:31 am

Laura's interviews also asked about a DS delivery at a community hospital without a NICU.

I think it's very challenging to pursue a malpractice investigation without any patient cooperation or some indication that Trig was actually harmed at birth.

I think MatSu could also reasonably make a case to the press that the investigation is politically motivated, and not related to patient health. The doctor you want to investigate is no longer on Active Status at their hospital. They've never confirmed or promoted the Palin birth story in any way.

Mistakes at hospitals occur all the time. But you usually don't see a whistle-blower come forward unless there's a long pattern of wrong-doing.

Sharon_Too_Also

5/19/2011 05:05:51 am

@Lidia17

Lidia - I am so in your camp. Shout it loud as you can and as often as you can. I'm clapping. and shouting with you.

I am no pollyanna but when I read Laura's account of her conversation with Dougherty - and the post at IM - and realized that he for sure knew the truth, well, I just found it hard to believe that he could not care one whit about his reputation. For god's sake, why would anyone go into journalism if all they wanted to be was a tool?

It just goes to show that you are never too old to be naive.

MicMac

5/19/2011 05:19:42 am

I agree with you overall, rubberneck. But I am not suggesting a medical malpractice investigation, nor any particular investigation of CBJ. I am suggesting that this is an appropriate story for an investigative journalist to cover, just on the MatSu angle alone. Investigative, not investigation.

A news story that would review the publicly known facts, then raise specific questions regarding the publicly known medical decisions made by MatSu, which should be embarrassing. Perhaps some well researched links indicating exactly what the accepted standards are nationwide.

That it also would be appropriate for this journalist, in the development of this story, to press MatSu for a statement as to its standard protocol re: high risk births. NOT TO COMMENT ON THE PALIN PREGNANCY. Perhaps share with MatSu what the trajectory of the story would be. . .that their medical protocol on the night in question is about to be. . .well, questioned, the the media. Would they care to respond?

But I also think it within the venue of such an investigative inquiry to also ask what doctors were on duty or called to duty the night of April 18, 2008, but that is my supposition that this would not violate HIPPA and is proper for the public domain.

Again, no specific inquiries re: CBJ or Palin. Just, MatSu. . .What Were You Thinking? Explain yourselves.

Mhurka

5/19/2011 05:22:24 am

I wonder why Mr. Dougherty never even entertained the possiblity that the pregnancy hoax might be true-especially after Palin refused to cooperate. A reluctance to be suspicious is definitely not a desirable quality in a reporter.

Lidia17

5/19/2011 06:04:38 am

Mhurka, PD did indeed entertain the possibility—the likelihood, even—that Mrs. Palin's story wasn't true.

That he chose, then, to scuttle the story is obvious.

The question is: who is he afraid of? The Palins are scary enough… but is there someone bigger leaning on him?

I only say "someone bigger" because the silence is UNIVERSAL.

Lilybart

5/19/2011 09:06:33 am

Remember, when a source goes on record, their life is turned upside down. The bots attack and the media swarms. Many people stay mum to avoid that circus.

We knew a camera guy on the Edwards campaign and so, we knew loooong before about Edwards love child. Why didn't he talk when he was done with the campaign? Who would believe him and what a nightmare!

So until it becomes very important for someone to confess, I understand the silence.

voiceinwind

5/19/2011 01:25:00 pm

FWIW, CBJ was awarded the 2009 March of Dimes "Friend of Nursing" award. And I read an article awhile back after googling her name that CBJ was a former President of some hospice group at that community hospital. It just doesn't make any sense that CBJ would choose to deliver a baby with DS at a hospital ill equipped. Or that she would allow a woman to bypass the hospital in Anchorage and drive another hour after being aware that the woman allegedly experienced amino fluid leakage 18 hours earlier. Anyway, a lot of brain storming here, makes my brain ache. And I agree with Lidia17.

Laura Novak link

5/20/2011 07:10:24 am

I'm not sure I would have thought to go back and look at Mr. Dougherty's blog page after all this time. But he directed me there. Told me, basically, to go read it b/c he could not remember all the details and he would not do an interview with me.

So, that's where I stumbled across that odd phrase. Competent reporters don't report on a fantastic story unless they can prove it's untrue.

I'm still scratching my head over this.

Bob

6/3/2011 10:57:48 pm

re:"Competent reporters don't report on a fantastic story unless they can prove it's untrue."

Is it possible that Mr. Dougherty meant that it is a reporter's responsibility to report a story only if they could document that it was false or true?

Is it possible that someone that works with words for a living would omit the words "or true" unintentionally?

psp parts link

5/16/2012 07:33:28 pm

Your live information's are really very nice thank you for sharing.

Comments are closed.

Laid to Rest (?)

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives