Poor Alex Spillius. Writing in The Age about McGiniss's "book" on Sarah Palin his libido gets into a spasm of titillated titillation.
After the usual run through of all the lurid, and as he admits, unsubstantiated (and in fact denied) allegations he takes the anti-Palin media line that if doesn't matter if the tales are true or not as "the allegations do have a certain ring of truth to them."
With all things Palin as far as the media is concerned if they are true or not as long as they have been stated then that seems to be good enough. Doesn't seem to work the other way though. If for example I say that President Obama was deeply involved in the JFK assassination whilst high on cocaine surely there is "a ring of truth to at least part of that statement?
How much more incredible is that than advising that Palin "snorted cocaine off an oil drum in the snow in the Alaskan wilderness?"
For Spillius to determine that "the most damaging' aspect of the revelations was that Palin liked shopping and People magazine is just bizarre.
Anyway, Spillius admits he was taken by Palin's charms so perhaps his interest in all things salacious regarding her stems from lust; "Sex appeal has always been part of her grip on the public imagination. She positively oozes it, as I discovered at a black-tie party in Washington a few months ago. Lighting up the room, she displayed the magnetic and, dare I say it, Clintonian laser beam that can stun and seduce all at once.
This vision of the lovely Palin leads to, after reading the pulsating McGinniss chapters an uncontrollable titillation for Spillius; "The idea of a conservative Christian woman with fashionable glasses, a lithe body and a twinkle in her eye who turns out to have (had) a wicked side (and, if McGinniss's sources are to be believed, a brief ''fetish'' for black men) titillates on so many levels that it hardly bears thinking about".
Really, the level of journalism is at its nadir.