In her book "Going Rogue", Sarah Palin claims that The Atlantic (meaning Andrew Sullivan) "ran" with the disgusting story claiming that Trig Palin was actually the son of her daughter. Sullivan takes umbrage at her claim, saying that he never "ran" with the story but simply asked questions. This incident is one of the things I've noticed time and time again from many on the rightwing side of things: they don't put a high value on precision and getting things as correct as possible. That allows their opponents to do things like what Sullivan is doing.

Personally, I think Sullivan "ran" with the story, and no doubt every Palin fan would agree. However, what most of the latter don't understand is that there are also plenty of people who would agree with Sullivan, and those are the people who need to either be convinced or counter-acted. In this case, instead of saying that Sullivan "ran" with the story, she should have pointed out that he was obsessed with the issue, that he published a series of passive-aggressive questions, that he is not in any way a journalist, and that he linked to an absurd - and since deleted - post at the DailyKos in order to buttress his claims that the issue was something that needed to be addressed. It's worth bearing in mind that the title of Sullivan's post where he linked to DailyKos was titled "Things That Make You Go Hmmm". That's not exactly journalism, now is it?

And, I don't know if it's in the book or not, but with all the money involved she could certainly have hired a researcher to compile a list of Sullivan's lies, whether about her or about other topics.

Here's what she says in the book:

Formerly reputable outlets like the Atlantic ran with the loony conspiracy theory that I was not Trig's mother - perhaps it was Bristol or Willow, they suggested. Even the Anchorage Daily News reporters, who knew better, couldn't get enough of the story.

Sullivan replies (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/
palin-witness-fact-check-iv.html):

I'm not going to go over all this again, but suffice it to say that Palin is right that I certainly thought that the stories in the public record were fantastic and merited probing further and asked the campaign itself to issue some medical records to nip the crazy - but not quite impossible - rumor in the bud. They reacted with outrage that the question was even askable. Alas, the only objective evidence we ever got in the end was a one-page, general statement from her doctor, issued a few hours before polling opened last November. So I'm guilty for treating this as a genuine factual question - rather than as a self-evident absurdity to be dismissed. I'll take my lumps for that (and have). But I haven't "run with" any alternative to the most likely fact that Trig is indeed Sarah's biological child. I just refuse to lie about my own skepticism of everything Palin says without proof. As for Willow being Trig's mother, I have to say that has never occurred to me for an instant and the Dish has no such reference. Maybe Palin is thinking of some other outlet.

Now, read the "Hmmm" post:
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/
things-that-mak.html

Especially see the DailyKos post he linked to from that post; while they deleted it, a copy that matches what I recall but which may be different is here.

And, a few days after the post above, he backtracked:
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/
she-looks-pregn.html