ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

Palin Billed State to Be Stay-at-Home Gov

Sarah Palin in October 2007 (Credit: Clark James Mishler/Getty Images)This morning’s Washington Post takes a bite out of another one of Gov. Sarah Palin’s reformer boasts. In addition to touting her supposed opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere,” Palin has crowed about cutting back on the perks of being governor.

During her speech before the Republican National Convention last week, Palin said she “got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for”: “that luxury jet,” which she “put on eBay,” and the governor’s personal chef. (The jet actually didn’t sell on eBay and was then sold to an Alaskan businessman.)

But as today’s Post reports, Palin apparently believes “our citizens should have to pay” for her to live at home. The capital of Alaska is Juneau, but Palin prefers to stay in her family home in Wasilla, which is about 600 miles away. Palin commutes to work in a state office building in Anchorage, a 45-minute drive.

Palin has drawn a per diem allowance for 312 nights spent at home since she took office 19 months ago, the Post reports, for a total of $16,951. Per diem expenses are supposed to cover officials when they’re traveling on state business. The Post quotes “officials” as explaining that Palin has drawn the per diem because her “duty station” is Alaska’s capital, Juneau—the logic being that in staying at home, Palin is effectively traveling.

As a gubernatorial spokeswoman succinctly puts it, “The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it.”

The Post also dives into the Palin family’s travel expenses billed to the state—a total of $43,490. Palin did indeed drastically cut the amount spent on personal gubernatorial travel from her jetting predecessor Gov. Frank Murkowski, a drop from $463,000 in 2006 to $93,000 in Palin’s first year in office.

But the Post also details a list of flight expenses incurred by Palin’s husband and children. It’s not clear from the story whether this violates Alaskan laws.

On the one hand, the state’s finance director tells the Post, “We cover the expenses of anyone who’s conducting state business. I can’t imagine kids could be doing that.” On the other hand, that same director points out the looseness of the laws. Palin’s spokeswoman argues that Palin is entitled to have her family’s travel costs reimbursed because many of the hundreds of invitations Palin receives include requests for her to bring her family, effectively making the trips a matter of state business.

This story is inappropriate and the headline biased.

Is it newsworthy? Certainly it is newsworthy for the Washington Post; but for Pro Publica, allegedly an unbiased news source? Let’s see—Palin stays at home, reduces her budget vastly (relative to her predecessor), incurs some relatively minor travel expenses related to her family, and this is all written up in a style designed to sensationalize the facts. The implication in the headline is that Palin did something surprising or underhanded (that undermines her self-promoted stance as cost-cutter). She probably did neither. As news, this is questionable. Unfortuately, one could argue it verges on propaganda-distortion.

In a similar vein, your headline “Palin’s lawyers continue to undermine investigation” is extremely biased in its use of the word “undermine.” One could argue that Palin’s lawyers are protecting their client in precisely the way that lawyers do. Try being creative. Try finding out whether Democrat funding is flowing into Alaska to push this “investigation.”

This story raises a serious question. Are you pitching for the title of “Huffington Post Lite” or are you serious about being source of objective information, rendered dispassionately, and filtered by critical minds?

The fundamental problem you face is this. The mainstream media, especially the NY Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press, are substantially biased. So if you hide behind a definition of “objectivity” that says you “count heads” among “respected” sources in determining your coverage, then you will always end up with a distorted view of what is “newsworthy” or unbiased.

A perusal of your lead pages shows a startling contrast. Barack Obama has been an announced candidate for months. John Edwards was a presidential candidate for months. Both have huge skeletons in their closets. Yet you’ve uncovered (or covered) virtually nothing about either. Nothing on Obama in months, mounds of stuff on Palin in just a few days! This may match the levels of coverage in “respected” sources like the NY Times. Uh, so??

To *be* a new standard, Pro Publica needs to *set* a new standard. 

Think about it.