Laura Novak and Professor Scharlott discuss the difficulties of getting the "babygate" story into the mainstream media.

Courtesy of Laura Novak's blog:

LN: Anyway, I know that in this time since we’ve worked together, you’ve re-written your paper and pushed it out into the world a few more times. Tell us where you are with all of that. 

BS: I’ve rewritten it in magazine format. The original format was as an academic research paper, but it was in truth always more of a journalistic expose than a theoretical paper. The theory part, about the spiral of silence, was only the last five pages; the first 20 pages was an expose of Babygate. So in rewriting it, I have made its form true to its overriding original purpose: to expose the shortcomings of the press in covering Babygate, which necessitated exposing Babygate itself. 

LN: They go hand in hand don’t they? And I can say having read all the versions that you make an excellent case for both. Your writing is tight and sophisticated. And it’s also evolved as you’ve worked through the story. Explain what your goal was with that. 

BS: The rewrite is shorter, bolder, and much more forceful than the earlier paper. In the original paper, I avoided any mention of Gryphen’s “Tale of Two Trigs” theory. In the rewrite, I include that stuff. And I think the multiple Trigs idea has probably spooked some magazines from accepting the article. That does not surprise me. In April, I would not even mention in radio interviews the possibility of different babies being shown as Trig at different times. I did not have a strong sense then that that part of the story was almost certainly true and crucial to understanding what happened. But now I do feel that way. 

LN: And yet, the editors you’ve submitted to are still not biting. What kinds of things are they saying? 

BS: Here is part of a nice rejection note I got from a British publication: “Thank you for your interesting read. I am sorry but I am not sure that it is something we would take on as I would need to start from scratch to satisfy myself of all sources etc. and I am not 100% sure that even this would get to the bottom. What is needed is a whistleblower. Her daughter's doctor – or something.” The online editor of a different publication, one in the U.S., indicated he definitely would use my article, in fact would feature it, based on seeing my original paper. After I sent the revision, he decided he’d better check with his publisher, who said no. 

LN: How did you react when you heard back from both these editors? 

BS: Their reactions did not surprise me. If you haven’t really familiarized yourself with the facts surrounding the hoax, it does sound a bit surreal. 

LN: In your paper you are very critical of the press for being timid and easily manipulated by Palin. Now you sound sympathetic to those who will not accept your revised article for publication. Aren’t you being inconsistent? 

BS: Well, I need to draw a distinction. It was the press corps covering Palin in 2008 that deserves the most criticism. There were red flags back then that a hoax had probably happened. When the McCain campaign responded to the fake-birth rumors by throwing Bristol under the bus and claiming she was five months pregnant – and thus could not be Trig’s mother – the journalists’ bullshit sirens should have been blaring. (As it turns out, since more than one baby has almost certainly been displayed as Trig at different times, there’s no telling what relation Bristol has to the current “normal ears” Trig with Down syndrome.) As for current editors who are encountering much of this Babygate stuff for the first time, I can understand how they might find my revised paper on the very edge of believability, despite all the evidence I present. 

LN: So isn’t this a Catch-22: Many editors find the Babygate saga unbelievable because no one in the mainstream press has written about it, but no one in the mainstream press will write about it for fear that people will find it unbelievable? 

BS: Yep. That sums it up nicely.

There is much more and I do encourage you to to click the link at the top and read the rest at Laura's blog.

As most of you who have been visiting here at IM know all too well, this problem with being taken seriously by the MSM  is one of the most frustrating parts of this campaign to reveal, what may in fact be, one of the most amazing political hoaxes of all time.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the efforts of Brad and Laura to find a way to present the evidence in the most palatable way possible so that newspapers and periodicals will find it impossible to resist.

 I would also like all of you to know that they are not alone in their struggle to get the truth about this perplexing mystery out to the public.  Fred and his researchers have also been working their fingers to the bone trying to craft a book that will be difficult, if not impossible, for the MSM to ignore.

And toward that end they have started to carefully comb through Palin's recent email dump and discovered some very interesting inconsistencies. As many of you know, contrary to what Palin supporters and journalists at large seemed to think, there were things to discover in those emails.

I personally was able to find some very interesting emails myself which demonstrated Sarah's lack of compassion, proved she orchestrated fake letters to the editor, and convinced at least one holdout that she most likely faked her last pregnancy.

Fred and his researchers have dug even deeper, and hope to bring out some information that will impress even jaded "babygate" experts like us.

And if that was not enough to wake you up this morning, I also have a potential lead that may finally answer one of the biggest questions surrounding the "babygate" saga.

Stay tuned.