On the success of the Sarah Palin mythology, and in particular the lie about opposing the bridge to nowhere, Jonathan Martin of Politico writes:
I think Michael Crowley is about right on this score, though. It may be cynical, but there is more upside than down in engaging in this particular brand of mythmaking.
First of all, it’s not cynical, it’s lying. Secondly, the only reason there is “upside” to this is because the press refuses to make a serious issue of said repeated lying. I understand that for the press to to admit its power in shaping public opinion would be to destroy the fallacy of an “impartial” (and malleable) press corps, but the entrenched denial is just staggering.
UPDATE: If for some reason you doubt how the press frames the issue impacts how the public consumes it, ask yourself if instead of the headline “Democrats Say Palin Initially Backed Bridge” the Washington Post had run the story, “Palin Backed Bridge”, or now that the McCain campaign has continued to repeat this lie, “Palin Continues to Lie About Support of Bridge to Nowhere”