As pointed out here countless times, the mainstream media has a habit of asking extremely weak questions, not coming up with any sort of follow-up, accepting answers that are just stock speeches as if they contained new information, and not asking about immigration matters unless necessary.

But, all that's going to change! In fact, the Washington Post's Anne Kornblut is gleefully soliciting tough questions from their readers (link). What caused the change? Why Sarah Palin of course:

With the sequestration of Gov. Sarah Palin set to end with her ABC interview later this week, the next issue on the table is: What are the most important questions that Palin should be asked?

...We're casting a wide net -- and hoping readers of all stripes will contribute in the comment thread below. We will assess questions posted here on the Trail over the course of the day -- post your comments by 6 p.m. EST -- to come up with a "best of" list.

Bill Burton, the Obama spokesman, declined to play along, not wanting to give any assistance with the Palin interview prep...

I support her trying to have Palin asked tough questions, but I'm curious as to why when she's had access to the Obama campaign she hasn't asked them anything discomforting, at least as far as I know. For instance, this post about Obama preparing for a speech could have simply been compiled from a campaign press release, including this ground-breaking paragraph:

He said: "This speech is different."

Pravda couldn't have done it better!

Also, Kornblut was apparently among those who asked Obama about his VP choice before that became public. Everyone knew how he'd respond to inquiries, but Kornblut presented the predictable response to those inquiries as if they were breaking news and, of course, didn't ask him a real question about something else (link).

On the wacky! side of things, Kornblut "reported" on those wacky, "ridiculous" questions the Obama campaign has been faced with (link). She also rolled in some myth-building about the MSM doing real reporting.

Back in April, she thought that because Clinton and Obama agreed on so many things it was difficult to think up questions for them (link). Obviously, it's not so difficult because many people disagree with both of them, but Kornblut couldn't figure that out.

And, she's even acted as the The Trail's own TV Guide, letting us know that Hillary was going to be on SNL (link).

The bottom line is that the Washington Post should start doing real reporting by asking all the candidates tough, specific questions about their policies. Instead, they spread smears and are quite selective about who they subject to tough questions and what they ask about.

UPDATE: Apparently the above wasn't bad enough, because on 9/12 Kornblut offered "Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush" (link). She completely distorted Palin's point (link). The WaPo later changed part of the article... without noting that it had been changed (link). And, either the Army or the WaPo appears to have violated protocols relating to noting details about the deployment of likely enemy targets (link). Also, in "Obama Ridicules McCain's Economic Response" (link) she follows ten paragraphs transcribing and paraphrasing BHO's remarks at an appearance with one paragraph from the McCain campaign. She also included this, bolding added:

As he wrapped up his speech, Obama's advisers embraced two apparent gaffes by their rivals -- economic adviser Doug Holt-Eakin's claim that McCain had created the BlackBerry, and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's admission that neither Palin nor McCain would be qualified to run a major corporation.

The use of "admission" is highly questionable in this case, as it means (per dictionary.com) "confession of a charge, an error, or a crime; acknowledgment... an acknowledgment of the truth of something... a point or statement admitted; concession". In this context, its use implies that there's some standard way of judging that neither McCain nor Palin are qualified to run a large corporation and that Fiorina was admitting that the standard showed them not to be so qualified. In fact, her "admission" is simply her opinion. A word like "statement" or "claim" would be more appropriate in this case. That's a minor point, but it does shed some light into Kornblut's thinking. And, have no fear: there will no doubt be more questionable articles from her in the future.

9/17/08 UPDATE: At the end of today's corrections page, the WaPo has printed a "clarification" (link):

A Sept. 12 Page One article quoted Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin as telling a brigade of Iraq-bound soldiers that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." The report linked Palin's comments with the idea that Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, said Palin was referring to al-Qaeda in Iraq, a terror group that formed after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and claims to be allied with the global al-Qaeda organization.

They "forgot" to note that they changed the article shortly after it was published.

Possibly related: