Sarah Palin to host a show on the Discovery Channel?

[Msterbeau]

http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/sarah-palin-alaska.html

"Discovery Communications has acquired the global rights to SARAH PALIN'S ALASKA (wt), a new eight-part documentary series about the remarkable Governor Palin and her home state of Alaska. Slated to premiere on TLC, the series will be executive produced by Emmy-award winner Mark Burnett of Survivor and Apprentice fame."

The irony of this has not been lost on a lot of people. The Huffington Post article points out the obvious:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/sarah-palin-teams-up-with_n_513235.html

"In her next move, Sarah Palin is teaming up with The Discovery Company's TLC for a new series, "Sarah Palin's Alaska," which will take a documentary tour of her home state. We find it ironic that the notorious anti-environmentalist will be given a platform by one TV's biggest nature-driven companies, which owns networks such as Discovery, Animal Planet and Planet Green. In that vein, we're taking a look at some of Palin's biggest anti-environmental stances and contrasting them with the decidedly environmentally-friendly programming put on by The Discovery Company. Take a look, and let us know which pairing you find most ridiculous. "

[TitsMcGee]

Well from the clips I've seen of the preview, it's not that horrible. In one clip she's working on her husbands fishing boat.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

I just get the feeling this is one massive trolling attempt to give the chick even more of a spotlight to look absolutely retarded.

Either way I think she's just being an attention whore and has been rabidly clinging to the spotlight anyway she can.

[freydis]

[candyman]

I love how the last paragraph in your post paints nature driven companies, aka corporations, as pro-environmentalists as if thats what they really are. Now maybe people will begin to realize just what its all about. Fuck trees...they want money! Yeah they are "green" in a way but the only reason they give a shit about fuzzy animals and mist covered valleys is that it rakes in cash. Team up with Palin? Hell yeah! Not only will the show rake in the normal piles of cash...they now have Palin which means more people will watch which includes both the people that love her and hate her!

And I don't get how she is anti-environmentalist when her stances either put her on the same side, using different means, or close to the same side as Obama...oh wait that is right even if you agree that changes should be made you are totally wrong and evil if you propose different ways to go about doing it even though we are not sure who is right.

Why do I love this show? Ummm...because I love watching and hearing the complete bitch fest that comes from anyone that is against her...is there nothing else to do for some of these people? If you can't change the channel when her show is on just go take a long poop or get out a book in another room...

[Simon Bar Sinister]

It's already turning into a debacle for the network. Lack of interest from sponsors is pretty much guaranteeing her a shitty time slot, and the $$$ per episode she's getting paid...well, TDC is almost certainly not even going to make their money back.

[freydis]

I love how the last paragraph in your post paints nature driven companies, aka corporations, as pro-environmentalists as if thats what they really are. Now maybe people will begin to realize just what its all about. Fuck trees...they want money! Yeah they are "green" in a way but the only reason they give a shit about fuzzy animals and mist covered valleys is that it rakes in cash. Team up with Palin? Hell yeah! Not only will the show rake in the normal piles of cash...they now have Palin which means more people will watch which includes both the people that love her and hate her!

And I don't get how she is anti-environmentalist when her stances either put her on the same side, using different means, or close to the same side as Obama...oh wait that is right even if you agree that changes should be made you are totally wrong and evil if you propose different ways to go about doing it even though we are not sure who is right.

Why do I love this show? Ummm...because I love watching and hearing the complete bitch fest that comes from anyone that is against her...is there nothing else to do for some of these people? If you can't change the channel when her show is on just go take a long poop or get out a book in another room...

Generally one gets considered anti-environmental when they support aerial wolf hunting, and protest against placing beluga whales on the endangered list, and file a lawsuit when polar bears are added to the threatened species list.

This Discovery show is a joke. :(

Edited April 19, 2010 by freydis

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Definitely gives the show instant media coverage. Might actually get my mom to watch a documentary. (She doesn't follow politics or watch documentaries but for some reason I think she'll watch this for the "gee whiz" factor) Not sure if thats good or bad. *ponders*

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Generally one gets considered anti-environmental when they support aerial wolf hunting, and protest against placing beluga whales on the endangered list, and file a lawsuit when polar bears are added to the threatened species list.

This Discovery show is a joke. :(

Did you know that neither Beluga whales nor polar bears actualy meet the criteria to be considered endangered?

[freydis]

Did you know that neither Beluga whales nor polar bears actualy meet the criteria to be considered endangered?

Polar bears were supposed to be listed as "Threatened" status, if I recall. Cook Inlet Beluga whales as endangered. However:

To be considered for listing, the species must meet one of five criteria (section 4(a)(1)):

1. There is the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.

2. An overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

3. The species is declining due to disease or predation.

4. There is an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

5. There are other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Those are the criteria.

Beluga whales are considered endangered in the US because in the US (Cook inlet) theres something like less than 300 of them. Their numbers have been greatly depleted over the last decade or so because of increases in ship traffic and the pollution from that ship traffic. Sounds like it meets criteria #1. Did you know however, that internationally, the Beluga whale has a status of *critically* endangered? This was determined by the IUCN.

Polar bears are listed as threatened and not actually endangered as yet, because their habitat is shrinking.

I think that her repeated choices to support business over conservation is a damn shame. In many other states, this wouldn't have been as big an issue, but with most of her state having been a sensitive wilderness habitat, it deserved a bit more consideration. She could have found a better balance.

I think Discovery has a history of being a firm supporter of conservation. Putting Palin in a show on their network is so obviously for ratings. This was a dumb move.

Edited April 19, 2010 by freydis

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I think Discovery has a history of being a firm supporter of conservation. Putting Palin in a show on their network is so obviously for ratings. This was a dumb move.

In the end they are a business, theoretically it could end in people boycotting TDC but i doubt it. As long as they don't continually annoy their "base" this is probably a very well calculated business move.

I do understand and I guess "agree" with your underlying point there, but viewed via a different lens, in the end, this show could bring viewers that convert into long-term viewers that TDC otherwise would have zero access to.

I would like someone to ask her if she thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old though. I'd put that as a test for office.

[candyman]

Generally one gets considered anti-environmental when they support aerial wolf hunting, and protest against placing beluga whales on the endangered list, and file a lawsuit when polar bears are added to the threatened species list.

This Discovery show is a joke. :(

You seem to be under the impression that there is a set list of things that you must support and be against to be an environmentalist. Just to let you know...there is not otherwise a TON of people I know that are really into this whole "green" movement thing would be anti-environmentalist even though they are really far from it.

You are taking a few things she supports and are tossing out the other things that could make all the difference. Have you ever dealt with wolves in your area? Even here is Wisconsin they provide a huge problem with herd management. I only know a few people in Alaska but from what they tell me wolves have a long way to go before we come close to wiping them out.

Polar bears...while they are few the scientific community is still split down the middle when it comes to how they are supposed to be in terms of numbers and population areas. So you can't really put her down until there is a firm decision that states which side is correct. It can be argued that their habitat is shrinking...however a good sized portion of their habitat is solid land which as far as I know does not shrink regardless of the global temperature.

I am really not trying to bash you here. I generally don't pay attention to environmental stuff like this however since I went to college in Madison for 4 years the majority of my teachers were hardcore environmentalists and much to my surprise they all argued over these points and many others. They stated that things are not well and that something should be done about it...but they also stated that many of the "facts" out there are filled with bullshit that muddles the truth which is tearing apart the scientific community and the general community.

So in short its likely that like most people considered anti-environmentalist that she really isn't...there are just different ways to go about doing it and none of them are wrong...they just aren't how you would do it. How do you expect people to work together to help the planet if the mentality that we have now stays the same?

[Destroit]

And I don't get how she is anti-environmentalist when her stances either put her on the same side, using different means, or close to the same side as Obama...oh wait that is right even if you agree that changes should be made you are totally wrong and evil if you propose different ways to go about doing it even though we are not sure who is right.

+1 for sound logic . Logic...something that has been lost on most Americans.

Liberals love slinging mud at Palin because she is actually a sound-minded legitimate threat to their biased agendas. Hitler did the same thing, took out all "threats" to his personal genocide-agenda. Same tactic, just less extreme it seems. Like...I love how liberals are supposed to be all "open-minded" compared to conservatives (or so they proclaim) but then sling mud at her DAUGHTER for having a kid underaged and constantly have to pull the "woman" card on Palin. YEAH...way to show you're really out for woman's rights and equality. Just an example, there's a HUGE amount. Like the fact that liberals continually sued Palin for lawsuits they KNEW didn't exist and they had no right to file just so she would go bankrupt so she couldn't afford to run for president in 2012. CHILLLLDISH! I don't care HOW you cut that. What are we five now?

+1 for sound logic . Logic...something that has been lost on most Americans.

Liberals love slinging mud at Palin because she is actually a sound-minded legitimate threat to their biased agendas. Hitler did the same thing, took out all "threats" to his personal genocide-agenda. Same tactic, just less extreme it seems. Like...I love how liberals are supposed to be all "open-minded" compared to conservatives (or so they proclaim) but then sling mud at her DAUGHTER for having a kid underaged and constantly have to pull the "woman" card on Palin. YEAH...way to show you're really out for woman's rights and equality. Just an example, there's a HUGE amount. Like the fact that liberals continually sued Palin for lawsuits they KNEW didn't exist and they had no right to file just so she would go bankrupt so she couldn't afford to run for president in 2012. CHILLLLDISH! I don't care HOW you cut that. What are we five now?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Chernobyl

[creatureofthenyte]

http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/sarah-palin-alaska.html

"Discovery Communications has acquired the global rights to SARAH PALIN'S ALASKA (wt), a new eight-part documentary series about the remarkable Governor Palin and her home state of Alaska. Slated to premiere on TLC, the series will be executive produced by Emmy-award winner Mark Burnett of Survivor and Apprentice fame."

The irony of this has not been lost on a lot of people. The Huffington Post article points out the obvious:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/sarah-palin-teams-up-with_n_513235.html

"In her next move, Sarah Palin is teaming up with The Discovery Company's TLC for a new series, "Sarah Palin's Alaska," which will take a documentary tour of her home state. We find it ironic that the notorious anti-environmentalist will be given a platform by one TV's biggest nature-driven companies, which owns networks such as Discovery, Animal Planet and Planet Green. In that vein, we're taking a look at some of Palin's biggest anti-environmental stances and contrasting them with the decidedly environmentally-friendly programming put on by The Discovery Company. Take a look, and let us know which pairing you find most ridiculous. "

My opinion;

The Huffington Post is a left-wing leaning, liberal democrat friendly, media organization.

The only way they would Ever say Anything Nice about Sarah Palin, would be after they were paid an insidiously huge cash bribe.

It's no surprise at all, that they would say things like what they said in that post.

Edited April 19, 2010 by creatureofthenyte

[phee]

[freydis]

You seem to be under the impression that there is a set list of things that you must support and be against to be an environmentalist. Just to let you know...there is not otherwise a TON of people I know that are really into this whole "green" movement thing would be anti-environmentalist even though they are really far from it.

I'm not under any impression.

You were remarking that you didnt see how people were calling her anti-environmentalist. I pointed out why people were calling her that.

You are taking a few things she supports and are tossing out the other things that could make all the difference.

Like what?

Have you ever dealt with wolves in your area? Even here is Wisconsin they provide a huge problem with herd management. I only know a few people in Alaska but from what they tell me wolves have a long way to go before we come close to wiping them out.

No where that I saw objected to aerial wolf hunting because of threats to their population. People spoke up against it because it's inhumane at worst, unsportsmanlike at the least. Nor are their numbers such to consider them an overpopulated nuisance.

I understand farmers taking precautions against wolves killing their stock. I think hunting them down and slaughtering them via helicopter is needlessly barbaric. If youre going to hunt them, schlep into the woods with a rifle and give the creature a sporting chance.

Polar bears...while they are few the scientific community is still split down the middle when it comes to how they are supposed to be in terms of numbers and population areas. So you can't really put her down until there is a firm decision that states which side is correct. It can be argued that their habitat is shrinking...however a good sized portion of their habitat is solid land which as far as I know does not shrink regardless of the global temperature.

No, actually, the preferred habitat of the polar bear is ice.

So in short its likely that like most people considered anti-environmentalist that she really isn't...there are just different ways to go about doing it and none of them are wrong...they just aren't how you would do it. How do you expect people to work together to help the planet if the mentality that we have now stays the same?

What mentality is that, exactly?

[freydis]

+1 for sound logic . Logic...something that has been lost on most Americans.

Liberals love slinging mud at Palin because she is actually a sound-minded legitimate threat to their biased agendas. Hitler did the same thing, took out all "threats" to his personal genocide-agenda. Same tactic, just less extreme it seems. Like...I love how liberals are supposed to be all "open-minded" compared to conservatives (or so they proclaim) but then sling mud at her DAUGHTER for having a kid underaged and constantly have to pull the "woman" card on Palin. YEAH...way to show you're really out for woman's rights and equality. Just an example, there's a HUGE amount. Like the fact that liberals continually sued Palin for lawsuits they KNEW didn't exist and they had no right to file just so she would go bankrupt so she couldn't afford to run for president in 2012. CHILLLLDISH! I don't care HOW you cut that. What are we five now?

[phee]

Liberals love slinging mud at Palin because she is actually a sound-minded legitimate threat to their biased agendas. Hitler did the same thing, took out all "threats" to his personal genocide-agenda. Same tactic, just less extreme it seems. Like...I love how liberals are supposed to be all "open-minded" compared to conservatives (or so they proclaim) but then sling mud at her DAUGHTER for having a kid underaged and constantly have to pull the "woman" card on Palin. YEAH...way to show you're really out for woman's rights and equality. Just an example, there's a HUGE amount. Like the fact that liberals continually sued Palin for lawsuits they KNEW didn't exist and they had no right to file just so she would go bankrupt so she couldn't afford to run for president in 2012. CHILLLLDISH! I don't care HOW you cut that. What are we five now?

I have no issues with Palin because she is a woman... I have issues with her because I think she is terrible for the country.

I would assume that most DGNrs who are against Obama it has nothing to do with the fact that he is black right? (No I didn't think so...) So if I understand the reasoning here... When a "liberal" like me has a problem with Palin, I AM being sexist... but when a "conservative" like you has an issue with Obama, it's NOT because you are racist....

(Can anyone else see the problem here?)

And by the way... that "Hopey Changy" stuff is working out great for me Miss Palin.... thanks for asking you Maverick you!

[creatureofthenyte]

I have no issues with Palin because she is a woman... I have issues with her because I think she is terrible for the country.

I would assume that most DGNrs who are against Obama it has nothing to do with the fact that he is black right? (No I didn't think so...) So if I understand the reasoning here... When a "liberal" like me has a problem with Palin, I AM being sexist... but when a "conservative" like you has an issue with Obama, it's NOT because you are racist....

(Can anyone else see the problem here?)

And by the way... that "Hopey Changy" stuff is working out great for me Miss Palin.... thanks for asking you Maverick you!

Phee,

I would never call you sexist, because you have a problem with Sarah Palin.

You have your views, and I have mine.

Apparently, our views on Mrs. Palin, are polar opposite to each other.

I'm okay with that..really.

What I Do have a problem with,

is the Democrat party's seemingly unwavering fixation on playing the race card.

To be used, as a means to district voters' attention away, from whatever debauchery the Democrats may be planning to pull.

Apparently, some people are now playing the gender card, in retaliation against those who dislike Mrs. Palin.

I'm not one of those.(I'm not saying you were saying I was, just stating that for clarity)

All this tit-for-tatt stuff between the 2 parties has to stop!

This is why so many people get pissed off at politics and just say screw it, and stop paying attention.

I mean, so she's got a new show, if you don't like her/it, change the channel

Edited April 20, 2010 by creatureofthenyte

[phee]

Phee,

I would never call you sexist, because you have a problem with Sarah Palin.

You have your views, and I have mine.

Apparently, our views on Mrs. Palin, are polar opposite to each other.

I'm okay with that..really.

What I Do have a problem with,

is the Democrat party's seemingly unwavering fixation on playing the race card.

To be used, as a means to district voters' attention away, from whatever debauchery the Democrats may be planning to pull.

Apparently, some people are now playing the gender card, in retaliation against those who dislike Mrs. Palin.

I'm not one of those.(I'm not saying you were saying I was, just stating that for clarity)

All this tit-for-tatt stuff between the 2 parties has to stop!

This is why so many people get pissed off at politics and just say screw it, and stop paying attention.

I mean, so she's got a new show, if you don't like her/it, change the channel

I have no issue with her having her own show... I am a firm believer in the "change the channel" system when it comes to most media

What I take issue with is actually the Race card CARD; If you will. (Although I do understand the retaliation)...

My issues with Palin are about her... well her politics and her hate mongering.

[freydis]

Phee,

I would never call you sexist, because you have a problem with Sarah Palin.

You have your views, and I have mine.

Apparently, our views on Mrs. Palin, are polar opposite to each other.

I'm okay with that..really.

What I Do have a problem with,

is the Democrat party's seemingly unwavering fixation on playing the race card.

To be used, as a means to district voters' attention away, from whatever debauchery the Democrats may be planning to pull.

Apparently, some people are now playing the gender card, in retaliation against those who dislike Mrs. Palin.

I'm not one of those.(I'm not saying you were saying I was, just stating that for clarity)

All this tit-for-tatt stuff between the 2 parties has to stop!

This is why so many people get pissed off at politics and just say screw it, and stop paying attention.

I mean, so she's got a new show, if you don't like her/it, change the channel

I dont think the outcry is a party thing.

Its more that a respected network with a history of support for conservation places a person hosting a show who has backed laws the network would likely have issues with--thats where the issue lies.

It would be like the History channel hiring a rapper known for misogyny to host a show on the history of the women's rights movement.

And yes, I think the entire outcry is aimed at changing the channel, as it is the most effective way to show displeasure to a TV network.

[creatureofthenyte]

well her politics and her hate mongering.

Which hate mongering would this be ?

So much horrible stuff has been said about her, and a lot of people don't see anything wrong with that.

If she says something critical of Obama, or the democrats, soon afterward we hear things like: "Oh she's a racist moron!!"

[phee]

Which hate mongering would this be ?

So much horrible stuff has been said about her, and a lot of people don't see anything wrong with that.

If she says something critical of Obama, or the democrats, soon afterward we hear things like: "Oh she's a racist moron!!"

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." - about Obama's health care plan, Aug. 7, 2009...

(Yes critical of Obama, but since there are no death panels... it is there to stir up hate and fear)

one example

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." - about Obama's health care plan, Aug. 7, 2009...

(Yes critical of Obama, but since there are no death panels... it is there to stir up hate and fear)

one example

Changing thier name in the Law does not change what they are. The Law does in fact have panels that decide who gets to have medical treatment and who does not.. all based on cost effectiveness... not on quality of care or quality of life... but on how much it's going to cost. Some of the left pundits pushing for this overhaul have admited to panels to "ration" health care in this mess of an overhaul.

Do you really think this bill, with no real provisions to lower premiums or costs, is somehow going to lower costs by 30% per year (this is what Obama has publicaly claimed over and over) without killing some people?

[phee]

Changing thier name in the Law does not change what they are. The Law does in fact have panels that decide who gets to have medical treatment and who does not.. all based on cost effectiveness... not on quality of care or quality of life... but on how much it's going to cost. Some of the left pundits pushing for this overhaul have admited to panels to "ration" health care in this mess of an overhaul.

Do you really think this bill, with no real provisions to lower premiums or costs, is somehow going to lower costs by 30% per year (this is what Obama has publicaly claimed over and over) without killing some people?

yes... I do....