The subtle genius of SNL's Palin incest skit

On Saturday, September 20, 2008, Saturday Night Live ran a skit in which reporters from the New York Times were discussing being assigned to go to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin.  The relevant dialogue went as follows:

Reporter: Uh, what about the husband?  You know he's doing those daughters.  I mean, come on, it's Alaska!

Editor: He very well could be. Admittedly there is no evidence of that, but, on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary.  And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.

The skit ends with a shot of a NYT mockup with a banner headline reading: "In Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger."  Halfway down the page is another headline, two columns wide, that reads: "While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizongly Elusive."

On its surface, the skit was designed to poke fun at the NYT and other liberal media efforts to discredit Palin, while seriously failing to understand the world outside their cloistered Manhatten existence.  Although you would think conservatives would enjoy watching the NYT be skewered, instead they are up in arms over how inappropriate it was to suggest Palin's husband and daughter was engaged in an incestuous relationship.

Fox News is on the story of course.  In this somewhat rambling "report" about the controversy, the non-news network somehow tries to tie the fabricated incest story with the all-to-real story of Sarah Palin's Downs-Syndrome baby, and perhaps suggest the skit was intended to give voice to some bizarre conspiracy theories that the baby is actually that of the Palin's eldest daughter Bristol.

The beauty of the skit was saved for the final headlines though.  First the paper creates a "what if" rumor based on nothing but ignorance of Alaska and Alaskans, then reports as news the fact that its phony story has not yet been disproven.  That, in a nutshell, is what Fox News does every day - except they don't use a live audience or a laugh track.

Sadly, I don't keep a journal of all the examples I see of this on Fox News, which I confess to watching for the entertainment value - I am often on the edge of my seat waiting to see how they'll distort reality this time.  Here are some examples.

First, on June 6, E.D. Hill, on her show "America's Pulse" characterized the Michelle and Barack Obama "fist bump" as "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently."

Following that lede, after a commercial break Hill returned with an interview with body language "expert" Janine Driver and never again mentions the "terrorist fist jab" interpretation, and certainly Driver says nothing remotely similar.  (Hill and her show were cancelled within days, so credit to Fox where it's due).

Watch it here:

 Another great example comes from Megan Kelly, whose apparent qualification to work on TV is she's blonde and kinda hot. (Note - Megan Kelly is also a graduate of Albany Law School and worked for a brief period for Jones Day, one of the world's largest law firms).

In her speech to the Democratic National Conventinon, Michelle Obama said "the world as it is just won't do." She then went on to discuss how people have to fight for a better world.

In her subsequent "analysis," Kelly says this:

Megan Kelly:  If you replace "world" with "country," you're back to the same debate, arguably, you've been having about Michelle Obama's feelings about this country.

Really?  If I replace someone's words with other words, then I can ask whether there are issues surrounding the story I just made up?  And then, perhaps, I can continue to note that, although there is no evidence to prove my fabricated story, there is no evidence to disprove it, either.

Watch Stephen Colbert illustrate the point better than I:

In this broadcast, former journalist Britt Hume reads a story that begins by restating that Barack Obama and his campaign have gone out of their way to remind people that Obama is a christian, not a muslim.  Then, Hume notes that the Jerusalem Post reported an interview with Obama's half brother Malik.  The Post story, as reported by Hume and Fox, said "if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background." 

Notably, Hume doesn't try to say Obama is a Muslim.  Rather, he engages in the "if we put it out there and nobody disproves it, maybe it is true" practice that is the hallmark of what passes for reporting on Fox News.  Worse for Hume, turns out it's not true anyway.  The last half of the sentence is a fabrication, and you can listen to the actual interview here.  You'll note that Malik Obama never says what Hume and Fox said he did.

So kudos to SNL for its sly (even if unintended) slap at Fox News and its mindless followers.  Lies, and in particular outrageous lies, are no less wrong and immoral when they are couched in the false pretense of "just wondering" and then left to grow on their own, like a noxious weed.  Sucks to be on the receiving end of that tactic for once, huh. (And a thumbs down to NBC for cowardly removing the clip from YouTube and failing to post it on its own website).