I was shut down or refused 7 times. The other effort resulted in an off-the-record phone call. In all cases, the party-line was toed: The editors and reporters are “intelligent” and they thoroughly investigated claims that the then-governor did not give birth to Trig Palin. And they came away satisfied that she, in fact, did so.
What was it specifically that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion?
No one said, other than the fact that reporter Lisa Demer talked to Mrs. Palin’s doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson and it was “clear” that it was Mrs. Palin’s baby. And that to suggest otherwise is “ridiculous.”
Collectively, the answer was that to pursue this matter was akin to the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories and that people are simply going to believe what they are going to believe.
All right, then tell me what Dr. Baldwin-Johnson said and I’ll believe you.
But by then, the answers to my inquiry were getting shorter and decidedly snippier.
So I searched – again - for a story that the Daily News might have written that I might have missed that might have made it all “clear.” And I couldn’t find one.
So why then, if the pursuit of the hoax story, and the inability of some people to believe Mrs. Palin’s version of events, was "ridiculous", did the paper, in fact, try to investigate it in late December, 2008?
And why did managing editor, Pat Dougherty write this to Governor Palin if, in fact, Lisa Demer talked to the doctor and it was “clear?”
This is the nut-graf of the entire nutty exchange between Dougherty and Palin in late December 2008:
And is your paper really still pursuing the sensational lie that I am not Trig's mother? Is it true you have a reporter still bothering my state office, my very busy doctor (who's already set the record straight for you), and the school district, in pursuit of your ridiculous conspiracy?”
This was my reply:
Yes, it's true.
You may have been too busy with the campaign to notice, but the Daily News has, from the beginning, dismissed the conspiracy theories about Trig's birth as nonsense. I don't believe we have ever published in the newspaper a story, a letter, a column or anything alleging a coverup surrounding your maternity.
In fact, my integrity and the integrity of the newspaper have been repeatedly attacked in national forums for our complicity in the "coverup." I have personally received more than 100 emails accusing me and the paper of conspiring to hide the truth (about Trig’s birth.)
(I should acknowledge, however, that many people who commented on adn.com have alleged a coverup. Many of those were deleted as soon as we saw them, but many were not.)
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.
If that's true, why has Lisa Demer been asking questions about Trig's birth?
Because we have been amazed by the widespread and enduring quality of these rumors. I finally decided, after watching this go on unabated for months, to let a reporter try to do a story about the "conspiracy theory that would not die" and, possibly, report the facts of Trig's birth thoroughly enough to kill the nonsense once and for all.
Lisa Demer started reporting. She received very little cooperation in her efforts from the parties who, in my judgment, stood to benefit most from the story, namely you and your family. Even so, we reported the matter as thoroughly as we could. Several weeks ago, when we considered the information Lisa had gathered, we decided we didn't have enough of a story to accomplish what we had hoped. Lisa moved on to other topics and we haven't decided whether the idea is worth any further effort.
Even the birth of your grandson may not dissuade the Trig conspiracy theorists from their beliefs. It strikes me that if there is never a clear, contemporaneous public record of what transpired with Trig's birth, that may actually ensure that the conspiracy theory never dies. Time will tell.
Let me repeat what Mr. Dougherty wrote in case your eyes glazed over:
I think I was clear that we were not asking about Trig’s birth in an effort to validate the conspiracy. Instead we were focused on the persistence of the conspiracy allegations. In the end, we didn't think the story was worth the effort required to develop it.
In other words, the editors and reporters at the Daily News who said the doctor made it “clear” that Mrs. Palin gave birth to Trig couldn’t then debunk the hoax by printing how very clear the doctor allegedly made it?
Come again?
And the managing editor of the newspaper feels he needs to say this to an elected official whose story he is trying to nail down without her cooperation:
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.
Come again, again?
About Palin’s abrupt, breathless and incoherent speech announcing her resignation, Carey writes in the LA Times:
“not once did she provide a convincing explanation of why she is leaving office. We are left to guess. The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is this: Palin did not tell the truth when she said she is leaving for the good of Alaskans. She is leaving for her own good. With Sarah Palin, "me" always comes first. And with Sarah Palin, the personal and the political are never separate but totally intertwined. In fact, they are the same thing.”
I don’t know who or what really resides at the corner of dumb and stupid. I only know that if the doctor truly did make clear that Mrs. Palin gave birth to Trig, then that would have nipped the story in the bud. And those “intelligent” journalists up there wouldn’t have to shoo me away with the classic yet passive-aggressive tactic of: Believe us, and also, too, it’s all Obama birth certificate territory, otherwise and anyway so you’re the annoying one for asking and we’re too busy to deal with this other than to assure the governor that we’re on her side. Because that’s what the top newsman in a state does, he assures the governor that he’s really on her side. And stuff.
Call me stupid. Because none of this adds up, unless of course, you do the math, as this team of bloggers had already discovered.
In the words of a long-time journalist in Alaska, "It was completely confounding that he (Dougherty) would offer to help Palin out by debunking the hoax, and then drop the story when she stonewalled him. I don't get it either." Or, as this journalist also pointed out, "Is it possible that the ADN was told something off-the-record by Cathy Baldwin-Johnson that called them off the story? Maybe they boxed themselves in with a rash agreement." If so, then I say these folks aren't so "intelligent", and this story not as "clear" as they'd like us to believe.