Journalism Professor questions how the MSM handled the babygate rumors

University of Northern Kentucky Associate Professor Bradford wrote a paper on how the MSM handled the Trig rumors.  You can read it here.

Updated April 8, 2011 to include a copy of Professor Scharlott’s paper)

A Northern Kentucky University professor’s research about how the news media handled rumors of a pregnancy hoax by former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has gotten a spirited response from her former spokesman.

In his paper “Palin, the Press, and the Fake Pregnancy Rumor,” associate journalism professor Brad Scharlott explores how the press handled the rumor that Trig Palin may not actually be the son of Sarah Palin, asserting that there was enough evidence of a pregnancy hoax to warrant asking more questions.

“[There’s] a theory out of mass communications that ideas not in the mainstream can be squeezed out of the public sphere entirely,” Scharlott said. “I think that’s what happened with the idea that Palin may have faked the pregnancy and now, while some people may privately speak about it, no one in America wants to be quoted about it.”

Once Scharlott completed his research, he said he submitted a copy to Bill McAllister, who is currently the communications director for the Alaska Department of Law and had previously served as the communications director for Sarah Palin during her vice-presidential bid in 2008.

“[In the paper,] I suggest that he was in fact, possibly, involved in a hoax,” Scharlott said.
“In the spirit of fairness, I thought he should get a copy. That’s what journalists normally do.”

But McAllister, who was a reporter before becoming Palin’s spokesman, said Scharlott is trying to connect two things that have nothing to do with each other.

In his research, Scharlott indicates that Palin may have hired McAllister because he caught on to the pregnancy hoax rumor, but McAllister maintains he never knew anything of the rumor until she announced her vice-presidential bid.

After sending his research to McAllister, Scharlott said he was not expecting what came next.

“If we ever meet, I’ll slap you,” McAllister wrote in an email to Scharlott on April 5. “In a different era, I’d challenge you to a duel.”

McAlliser’s email continued, calling Scharlott a “scoundrel” and “despicable.” He then forwarded his response to Scharlott to five other members of the Communications Department, with the subject line “Brad Scharlott disgraces your university.”

“He should be fired, frankly,” McAllister said. “I can’t believe [the] university is going to let some idiot present a paper [like this.]”

McAllister is quick to point out, both in his emails and over the phone, that he is, in no way, speaking on behalf of the Alaska Department of Law, but as “someone who is demeaned and lied about in this paper.” Emails obtained by The Northerner were sent to and from his personal email account, and he said he spoke to reporters on his lunch break.

“I had never even heard a rumor [about this] until she was chosen by McCain, then that weekend all kinds of shit came out that no one had heard before,” McAllister said. “[Scharlott’s research] defames me and I’m just not having it.”

McAllister said that after he sent the emails to other members of NKU’s communication department, Scharlott responded to him again, this time telling McAllister that he “made a deal with the devil.”

“That blows any pretense that he’s objective or fair,” McAllister said. “It proves it is not academic rigor but vitriol.”

McAllister said he found many factual errors in the paper when he read it, such as incorrect call letters to TV stations, and facts taken out of context.

“He doesn’t come out and say it, but he is implying there is some link between the story about Trig [Paxton Van Palin] and my being hired by her,” McAllister said. “The two things have nothing to do with her. She hired me because I was the best known politics reporter in the state of Alaska.”

McAllister said he denied the charges on behalf of Palin because he was her spokesman, not because he had any role in a pregnancy hoax. He said the only part he played during Palin’s pregnancy was that of a reporter.

“Aside from interviewing her in her office when she came back to work, I had nothing to do with it,” McAllister said. “I had nothing to do with her personal life.”

Scharlott said McAllister should have responded to the research in a different way.

“If I were him, I would have tried to have been cool and calm and try to explain away in a cool and calm way what ever seemed to indicate that he was part of the hoax,” Scharlott said. “He was wildly swinging out trying to make me look bad any way he could, but he didn’t really think through what he was doing really well, or he doesn’t really understand what universities are about.”

McAllister said he normally would not have bothered responding to Scharlott, saying there are “nuts all over.”

“But he implicated me in it, and i’m just not going to stand for that,” McAllister said. “I worked in journalism for 30 years, and I have a reputation for honesty, and I’m not going to have it besmirched.”

Scharlott said he first became interested in the pregnancy hoax rumor after Palin was nominated as a vice-presidential candidate, and said he was fascinated that no one from McCain’s camp chose to rebut the rumor.

In his paper, Scharlott says that the “oddness of the McCain’s campaign response to the fake birth rumors should have caused reporters, ostensibly skeptical by training and nature, to wonder if something was amiss.”

Scharlott asserts that this topic is relevant because Palin is still saying she may decide to run in the upcoming presidential election, “because if Palin has lied about the pregnancy, it says a lot about her character, her fitness for the presidency, and maybe even her mental health.”

But McAllister continues defend himself from allegations of a hoax.

“The burden of proof ought to be on him,” McAllister said. “He said I attempted to pull a hoax on the American Public. He should have to prove that.”

Scharlott defended his research, saying he did not explicitly accuse anyone of being involved in a hoax.

“I’m saying its possible, maybe even likely, there has been a hoax, but I am not saying its proved.” Scharlott said. “The ball is in their court to provide some proof.”

McAllister is leaving his position after this week to go back into journalism, and he said his departure from the Attorney General’s office has nothing to do with Scharlott’s research. McAllister said he was not aware of Scharlott’s research until Monday, the day after the Anchorage Daily News leaked that he is leaving the Attorney General’s office.

Scharlott has submitted his research for publication and to present it at an academic event, but it has not yet been accepted.

Former Palin spokesman Bill McAllister's response in the Alaska Dispatch to the Professor's paper:

Associate professor Scharlott -- whose name aptly combines “charlatan” and “harlot,” both phonetically and symbolically -- compares himself to an investigative reporter but demonstrates none of the tenets of responsible journalism.

For example, he “buried the lead.” You have to read several paragraphs into his diatribe before you discover that the reason for my response to him was not the seemingly ludicrous premise of his “paper” -- that Trig Palin is not really his mother’s child -- but his cavalier attempt to draw me into a controversy that doesn’t concern me except in the most tangential way.

On Saturday morning, Sept. 12, 2009, I narrowly escaped death due to complications from a cancer that had been diagnosed 11 months previously. I have an incurable condition that, thankfully, is at the moment under control. But I do not know if I will get to live a normal lifespan for an American man of my generation.

It is in this context that I have adopted a “zero tolerance” policy for lies about my character. The charlatan associate professor suggests that I should have responded to his completely unsubstantiated innuendo with some helpful comment or diplomatic riposte.

No chance. At this stage of life, I’m not going to sit still when anyone alleges that I was part of an unprecedented hoax perpetrated on the American people. That’s calling me a liar. That’s calling me a conspirator. That basically says that a record of 30 years of quality journalism should be chucked into the trash because of a fleeting association with Sarah Palin.

The harlot takes at face value and very seriously my comments about slapping and a duel. That’s fine. I just think it would be incumbent upon him, then, to take every other part of my email just as seriously: That he has no reason and no proof to cast aspersions on me in regard to the Trig controversy. That to treat me as collateral damage for his ideologically inspired slash-and-burn campaign against Sarah Palin is immoral.

Let’s review the facts. On the 6 p.m. broadcast of Channel 2 News on March 5, 2008, I announced to Alaskans that the governor revealed she was in the seventh month of pregnancy. The governor shared this information with me and two other reporters just under 30 minutes before the newscast.

When the birth of Trig was announced on Friday, April 18, 2008, I was in Anchorage -- not at the valley hospital -- sitting in at an Alaska Press Club panel discussion on the presidential race, with, among others, syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. There was no conversation -- at least that I was a part of that weekend -- that included any speculation that the child was not really the governor’s.

The following Monday, when Gov. Palin returned to work, I interviewed her in her Anchorage office about, among other things, the fact that she was only the second sitting governor in U.S. history to give birth.

And that is the extent to which, as a news reporter, I had any significant involvement with the story of Gov. Palin’s pregnancy and delivery.

Mr. Charlatan, for no reason other than the fact that I was later hired by Gov. Palin, insinuates that I ignored evidence of a pregnancy hoax. But he provides no names, dates or means of communication demonstrating that I was told about such a hoax. He does not cite other reporters who were told of the alleged hoax. He does not provide any trail of evidence that a reporter should have followed up on.

The truth is I never heard of this rumor until the governor was picked by McCain for the ticket. Try to find one person who says otherwise, that they told me about it. You can’t.

And then, yes, she denied it, and as I was by then working for her, I denied it on her behalf. I certainly had no reason to believe it was true, so there was no crisis of conscience involved.

Ah, but the harlot asks, what about the photos taken on the second floor of the Capitol on April 13, the final day of the regular legislative session. Well, what about them? The KTUU and KTVA news crews interviewed Gov. Palin about her thoughts on the close of the session. What’s unusual about that? The camera was not mine, but I agreed to pose in one of the shots, which shows a seemingly very pregnant governor. How did they get on the web later? I have no idea. I was never in possession of the photos or the camera they were taken on. KTVA reporter Andrea Gusty later did a news story on the conspiracy theory involving the photos. 

She is a better person to address this than me.

What does the associate professor think I should have done? Asked for permission to feel the governor’s stomach? Question her aggressively about the progression of her pregnancy and the timing? Why? What reason existed on April 13, 2008, to do anything of the sort? I was reporting on politics, not gynecology.

Unfortunately, Palin’s polarizing national persona has created an incredibly toxic environment in which it is not considered enough to attack her. It is also necessary, at any cost, to destroy anyone who ever said a nice word about her.

After going on three years of this horrendous behavior by supposedly reputable people, it is fair to say my patience has long past worn out. I am not paid to speak for Sarah Palin anymore, and I don’t feel I have to be the one to defend her against the dozens of bogus allegations that have been leveled. But at the same time, I am not going to let it be said in my obituary -- however soon that might be written -- that I allowed unsavory, unethical political opponents of hers to shred a reputation I have built up over decades, winning numerous state, regional and national journalism awards in the process.

Believe whatever you want. But keep me out of your fantasy. Or there will be a response.

And Professor Scharlott's response to Bill McAllister in the Alaska Dispatch here:

Sarah Palin’s former press secretary Bill McAllister wrote this to me last Tuesday night. “If we ever meet, I'll slap you. In a different era, I'd challenge you to a duel.”

And Mr. McAllister, not satisfied with sharing those thoughts with me alone, put them in emails under the heading "Brad Scharlott disgraces your university" that went to many of my colleagues at NKU.

Here’s the background.

I’ve written a research paper with the title “Palin, the Press, and the Fake Pregnancy Rumor: Did a Spiral of Silence Shut Down the Story?” I have submitted that paper to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, with the hope of presenting it at the group’s fall meeting. (Papers go through a judging process.)

And, because he appears in that paper, I sent a copy of it to Mr. McAllister, asking if he had any reaction. 
 (McAllister served as Palin’s director of communications from mid-2008 to mid-2009.)

Ever since August of 2008, I have been fascinated by how the U.S. press reacted to the rumor that Palin did not truly give birth to Trig, reportedly born in April 2008, just as I have been fascinated by the claim that Obama was not born in the United States. Both rumors arose around the same time in 2008 (the Palin rumor started in Alaska), but they have had different histories.

The Obama fake-birth-certificate idea (and variants of that) have had no problem getting into the press -- hundreds of stories about whether he is truly qualified to be president have appeared in the nation’s newspapers since the start of 2008, based on a search in the Newspaper Index database.
By contrast, the idea that Palin may have staged a hoax concerning the birth of Trig has essentially become taboo in mainstream media, with only a few stories in the Anchorage Daily News treating the question in a serious way.

Eric Boehlert summarized the situation nicely last July when he wrote in Media Matters for America that “back in 2008, 99 percent of people in ‘the media’ did the right thing and ignored the Trig nonsense.” And Newspaper Index shows the same has been true since then.

Why the enormous difference in rumor coverage? In my paper, I suggest that the “spiral of silence” phenomenon came into play with the hoax rumor about Palin but not the one about Obama.

In a nutshell, a spiral of silence takes place when people perceive an idea they hold is outside of what most people seem to think and therefore censor themselves, to avoid disapproval or ridicule. And the more such people censor themselves, the more outside the mainstream the minority idea becomes, until the idea is virtually extinguished from the mainstream, at least as represented in the mass media.

A spiral of silence would seem to explain the virtual taboo in mainstream U.S. media relating to the Trig hoax rumor -- even though many Americans privately question Palin's birth story. Prominent British author Christopher Hitchens, writing from Washington, D.C, last year, observed in the Spectator, a British publication: “An astonishing number of well-informed people tell me that Sarah Palin is not in fact the mother of baby Trig, but that she is ‘covering up’ for another family member whose child he really is.”

By contrast, various factors -- such as the aggressiveness of “truthers” and the helpfulness of conservative politicians in, say, proposing legislation relating to birth certificates -- have kept the Obama rumor front and center in the nation’s media.

To make the case in my paper that the media should have paid more attention to the Trig hoax rumor, I pointed out that when the rumor first appeared in nationally prominent blog sites Palin offered no documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate, to prove her maternity.

Instead, she revealed to the world that Bristol was then pregnant, which was supposed to prove that Sarah must be Trig’s mother, given when Trig was reportedly born. But of course, if there had been a hoax, then Trig’s actual birth date is unknown.

One thing that greatly helped the McCain campaign squelch the hoax rumor was the mysterious appearance on the internet, right after the hoax rumor broke nationally, of two photos showing Palin looking very pregnant, much more so than in any other publicly available photos. (The poster of the photos was never identified.)
I
ndeed, during the previous spring, reporters for the Anchorage Daily News variously wrote that Palin “simply does not look pregnant” (at seven months) and that she “did not get big with this pregnancy” (after she reportedly gave birth). Published pictures from the spring support the reporters' observations. 

One of those two mystery photos, taken on April 13, shows Palin being interviewed by a TV reporter. The other picture shows her standing next to TV newsman Bill McAllister, who, I wrote in my paper, “coincidentally would become her director of communications three months later.” (In early April, a Daily News columnist wrote that McAllister was preparing to leave KTUU, and bloggers later wondered if he had been negotiating a job with the Palin administration while still covering it.) 

The fact that I italicized “coincidentally” is what sparked McAllister’s seeming outrage.

He wrote: “The italicized word ‘coincidentally’ … makes you a scoundrel …”
And he continued: “I can tell you that I never even heard of the fake pregnancy rumor until the VP selection. 
 Let me repeat that: As the most connected politics reporter in the state for years, I NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IT!!!!”

However, on August 31, the day McCain selected Palin, Anchorage Daily News reporter Kyle Hopkins wrote that the fake pregnancy rumor was “long simmering in Alaska.”

The day before that, a Daily News reporter had asked McAllister if Bristol was pregnant. He replied: “I don't know. I have no evidence that Bristol's pregnant.” Two days later, the McCain campaign said Bristol was five months pregnant.

What McAllister is trying to do now to me is what I write about in my paper -- a clear attempt to kill any discussion of what happened in April 2008. He could have responded to my paper by explaining the circumstances surrounding the mysterious picture he appears in next to Palin, such as who took the picture and why. Instead, he practically threatens violence against me. Let me implore him here to explain what he knows about those two mysterious pictures and how they got on the internet.

McAllister is covering Palin's ass.   Why would he have such an angry response?