If you think listening to VP candidate Sarah Palin speak is bad, it’s actually worse when it’s reproduced in phonics in writing by reporters in the MSM. I can’t remember a time when a politician’s annoying accent and pronunciation was so faithfully reproduced in the media. Well, there was Billy Carter’s colorful language punctuated by “ain’t.” But one is left to wonder about the intent of the media in reproducing the peculiar Alaska vernacular that is PalinTalk (hmmm, an anagram for “plain talk?”).

Here are a couple of examples from today’s Washington Post:

• “John? John?” Sarah Palin called to John McCain. “Can I add somethin’?”
• A woman wanted to give her the chance to address those who say Palin can’t be a mother and vice president. “Well, let’s prove ‘em wrong,” Palin said to cheers.
• She talked about her role if the ticket is elected: “Let me tell you, I know a little bit about energy. That’s gonna be my baby when I get to Washington, D.C.”

My question is, would the Washington Post reproduce the phonics if Palin spoke like the cartoon character Sylvester the Cat or Elmer Fudd? They don’t reproduce every one of Barack Obama’s professorial ums or ers he inserts into sentences. Obama is also prone to dropping his Gs when he wants to sound less “elitist” or to make a homespun point, but I don’t recall seeing that phonically represented.

It’s either a) because it makes Palin sound like just “plain folks” or b) it makes her sound stupid and therefore unfit to be veep or c) because it’s all about accuracy in reporting, the foundation of our free press, and to hell with the English language.

I don’t know which it is, but I’m gonna start watching it in this here space. Oops! It’s infectious.