The problem? The Times article, even as first published, did not alter Palin’s standing with the public. Her standing, after all, is already well defined in the public eye. Liberals regard Palin with disdain. Moderates and some conservatives perceive Palin to be an inarticulate polemicist. Others on the right view Palin as a crusader for truth. Regardless, the editorial does not alter these viewpoints. They were formed long ago. More problematic for Palin, she has cultivated a divisive public persona. Whatever we think of Palin, the vast majority of us would agree that she is a partisan populist known for her combative comments.

It’s her brand.

Another indication of Palin’s weak case is its claim that previous New York Times reporting cost her a Fox News contributor position. We are asked to take this suggestion at face value without any associated evidence. And that’s because there is no evidence. In reality, Palin’s firing was likely down to her unwillingness to research topics prior to relevant interviews.