Monday, June 13, 2011

Andrew Sullivan's Two Options

Andrew Sullivan wrote in "The Day Trig Was Born," in part:
... It seems to me we have two options. It's possible that Palin simply made up her drama of labor, or exaggerated it for effect, when in fact it was a routine, if rare, pregnancy, and she had mild warnings that the birth may be premature, and she gussied that up into a tall tale of her pioneer spirit, guided by her doctor, who refused to take the NYT's calls as soon as Palin hit the big time. I think that's the likeliest explanation, given the sheer world-historical weirdness of the alternative.

But it's also possible that she never had that baby at all. I mean, if you read the emails and independent reports above and were asked if this woman were in labor with a special needs child, and that her water had already broken, would you believe it? Just put all the facts in front of you and ask yourself that question. ...
Sullivan recognizes that it is possible that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin and even states that it is likely that she did. I agree with him, because no one has proven that she did not. Like Sullivan, I am inclined to believe that what has commonly been called the "wild ride" -- the trip from Texas to Alaska just before the birth -- is nothing more than a tall tale; however, I would not go so far as to say, like Sullivan, that Palin told the story, "guided by her doctor, who refused to take the NYT's calls as soon as Palin hit the big time."

The "investigation" into the "faked pregnancy" is like one done by The Keystone Cops. It is completely amateurish. The "investigators" don't obtain original, source material; for example, in "Sarah Palin and The Neonatologist - Part Two - POW!" a poorer picture was used than one that is available at the L.A. Times; one attributed to an Associated Press photographer, by name!

All of the "photo proof" -- one way or the other -- should have been analyzed by a professional, who would have asked the photographers questions like: What was the lighting? How far away were you from the subject? Which camera was used? What was the focal length of the lens? What size is the camera's sensor? ... . And a professional investigator would have asked for the pixels from the camera, knowing that news organizations often tweak a photo in order to get publishable contrast and color values.

Some will say, "Look! Here's a photo showing that she wasn't pregnant;" ignoring or dismissing photos that tell a different story; and ignoring a very important fact: If you added up the exposure times of all the photos taken of Palin during that time, they probably wouldn't amount to an hour out of her life, if that. It typically takes less -- much less than -- one second to take a photo. There are 3600 seconds in an hour.

Well! Believe it or not! I'm a neonatologist now, too. I've written about a newborn.


Dis Gusted said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joie Vouet said...

Is that a good-cop/bad-cop routine playing out at Laura Novak's blog? One cop isn't trying as hard as the other.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what is going on in your life, but this used to be one of the blogs I checked daily because it was fun to read. Here lately, all you seem to do is snark at other bloggers about what they are posting instead of presenting information objectively. I do not care if this gets approved, since I see you have already removed someone else's comment, but I am very disappointed with the direction this blog seems to be moving. And the last comment you made in this particular posting was completely unnecessary about being a neonatologist. If you were referring to the postings Laura Novak has done lately, how do you know that wasn't really a neonatologist's point of view?

Joie Vouet said...

10:53, I don't doubt that was really a neonatologists's point of view.

The deleted comment claimed Sarah Palin is mentally ill. I can't say that, so neither can a commenter. We can all say she's crazy, though. There is a difference between calling someone "crazy" and calling them "mentally ill." The former doesn't require certain qualifications, like anyone who writes about newborns can call themselves a neonatologist.

By the way, I am being serious, not snarky.

Anonymous said...

You are not being serious. You are being snarky. I agree with 10:53 that the tone of this blog has changed.

0>w/hole>1 said...

Dunno....I'm finding the time stamp argument persuasive.

But then, I want the weirdest story to be the true one because it'd a) be an object lesson for reporters, and b) be more amusing to me.

Probably mostly "b".