The media has failed the country by not producing a final answer on this.

This article was adapted from a paper published here by Professor Bradford Scharlott of Northern Kentucky University. The original paper includes citations.

Three years ago, a sitting state governor and candidate for the vice-presidency of the United States, Sarah Palin, told a story about how she had given birth to her fifth child, Trig.

Some details of this story quickly struck many observers as strange. As more information came to light, some observers came to suspect that, for unclear reasons, Palin had fabricated her pregnancy and lied about it--initially to her Alaska constituents and later to the country.

Palin reacted angrily to this theory, and it was quickly dismissed as "nonsense" by much of the mainstream media and ignored during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Since then, attempts to settle the question once and for all have been met with silence or anger by those affiliated with Palin.

Although Palin's supporters have successfully framed lingering questions about the Trig pregnancy as politically motivated attacks, the fact is that legitimate questions remain. And the one person who could instantly and forever put an end to the questions, Sarah Palin herself, has refused to address them.

This article looks at some of the questions that remain about Palin's story. In my opinion, given that Sarah Palin was a vice-presidential candidate at the time she told this story--and is still often mentioned as a Presidential candidate--the world deserves a final, definitive answer to this question.

The Birth Story

In her 2009 auto-biography, Going Rogue, Sarah Palin recounted the official story of the birth of her fifth child.

Early on the morning of April 17th, 2008, Palin wrote, in a hotel in Dallas, she had been awakened by the strange sensation of amniotic fluid leaking. Her child was not due to be born for another month, so this must have been worrisome. Nevertheless, Palin did not seek medical attention. Rather, she stuck to her schedule, which called for her to give a high-profile lunchtime speech in Dallas.

Later, Palin recalled that she had experienced labor contractions as she gave the lunchtime keynote address. Upon finishing this speech, she and her husband Todd rushed off to catch a flight back to Alaska with a layover in Seattle.

More than ten hours later, shortly before midnight, they reached a small hospital near their home in Wasilla, nearly an hour’s drive north of Anchorage, where she finally gave birth to Trig at 6:30 the next morning.

Palin wrote in Going Rogue that, as she dashed from the podium in Dallas, Texas Governor Rick Perry jokingly asked if she was going to have her baby then and there, and she said to herself, “If only you knew.”

If only we knew what we could believe in this incredible birth story.

Even taken at face value, the details raise questions:

Why would Sarah Palin, thinking her amniotic sac might have ruptured, wait more than 20 hours to seek medical attention, thus putting the life of her baby at risk?

Why would Sarah Palin, after the onset of contractions, board an airplane for a 3,000 mile trip?

Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s campaign manager for the 2008 election, described Going Rogue as “fiction.” Blogger Andrew Sullivan has called it a work of “magical realism." And this does seem one explanation for the behavior above: That Palin just made parts (or all) of the birth story up.

The press did not challenge Palin’s birth account after McCain selected her as his running mate, even though the key elements of the story were already available. Indeed, the press watchdog organization Media Matters for America maintained that the press had no business questioning Palin’s story. In 2010, after Palin complained that the press had promoted the rumor, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters countered that in 2008, “99 percent of people in ‘the media’ did the right thing and ignored the Trig nonsense.”

What Boehlert wrote about mainstream press performance in 2008 concerning Trig’s birth applies to the time since as well. But it’s fair to ask if the mainstream U.S. press should have treated the fake pregnancy rumor as untouchable, both in 2008 and up to the present day. After all, if there seemed to be any chance that the rumor was true, that might mean that a candidate for the vice presidency had staged a colossal hoax and lied to the country.

This article looks at what American journalists knew about the fake-birth rumor in 2008. In my opinion, there was insufficient evidence for the press to conclude that Palin was telling the truth about Trig.

Even now, three years later, some remaining questions still have not been put to rest--despite Sarah Palin herself having the ability to end them instantly, by releasing the medical records of the birth. Although Palin supporters will forever frame these questions as politically motivated conspiracy theories, they're actually not about politics. They're about determining whether a candidate for Vice President lied to the country.

Facts That Don’t Add Up

Todd Palin alone had accompanied his wife on her trip to Texas in 2008, an irregular arrangement for a trip involving official state business. After Palin’s speech in Dallas, he emailed three of her aides, saying the speech “kicked ass” but remarkably said nothing about Palin being in labor and that they were rushing back to Alaska so she could give birth close to home.

The next day, Sarah Palin’s office sent out a press release announcing the birth of the Palins’ fifth child, Trig, saying:

"The Palins were thankful that the Governor’s labor began yesterday while she was in Texas … but let up enough for her to travel on Alaska Airlines back to Alaska in time to deliver her second son."

The press release did not mention where the birth took place. But a TV crew from KTUU-TV showed up at the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center in Palmer, Alaska, after receiving a tip that Palin had given birth there. (The Mat-Su hospital did not list Trig Palin among the babies born that day.) The TV crew videotaped Palin’s parents, Chuck and Sally Heath, in a hospital room, with Chuck holding an infant he said was their month-premature new grandson, Trig. Experts have since said that the baby did not look like a newborn.

The Mat-Su medical facility lacks a neonatal intensive-care unit, which would make it a poor choice for the delivery of a premature baby with complications. (Palin said she knew from testing the baby had Down syndrome.) The Palins in their return trip to Alaska passed several large hospitals equipped with neonatal ICUs. Notably, in 2005, Palin served on the board of the Valley Hospital Association, which largely runs the Mat-Su medical facility.

Taking no maternity leave, Palin returned to work the following Monday, bringing the supposedly four-week premature baby with her – an action that if true might dismay medical professionals – and held a press conference. A reporter there asked if her water broke in Texas. She replied:

“So that was again, if, if I must get personal, technical about this at the same time, um, it was one, uh, it was a sign that I knew, um, could lead to, uh, labor being, uh, kind of kicked in there, was any kind of, um, amniotic leaking, amniotic fluid leaking, so when, when that happened we decided let’s call her [Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, the Palins’ family doctor].”

If Palin’s water indeed broke in Texas, as she seemingly confirmed, and she waited some 20 hours and took a very long flight before going to a medical facility, her actions would have been “reckless beyond measure,” according to obstetricians interviewed by Daily Beast correspondent Andrew Sullivan.

The Fake-Pregnancy Rumor and the Birth of Bristol Palin's Son Tripp

On August 28, 2008, the same day that McCain named Palin as his running mate, someone named ArcXIX wrote at the Daily Kos site: “Well, Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson.” The author quoted an Anchorage Daily News article written by Wesley Loy five months earlier, on March 6:

JUNEAU -- Gov. Sarah Palin shocked and awed just about everybody around the Capitol on Wednesday when she announced she's expecting her fifth child. …

Palin said she's already about seven months along, with the baby due to arrive in mid-May.

That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor … simply doesn't look pregnant. [Italics added.]

Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting…

A couple of days later, on August 31, 2008, reporter Kyle Hopkins, also of the Daily News, wrote:

"OK - the Palin baby speculation is inescapable at this point. The left-leaning Daily Kos posted an item Friday … a version of a rumor – long simmering in Alaska – that Palin's daughter Bristol was pregnant and the governor somehow covered it up by pretending to have the baby (Trig) herself.

The story quoted a Democratic strategist as saying, "Guys, it’s a loser. Can we not do this?" – the point being even if the rumor was true, Democrats would probably hurt themselves by pursuing it.

Apparently, ArcXIX reached the same conclusion. Three days after her initial post, she wrote that Alaska newsman Gregg Erickson had written to her that, “The press did a pretty good job of following up on the substitute child rumor. It proved baseless.” Therefore, she wrote that “if he says the rumors were investigated and debunked, that should be that.…”

About a week later I contacted Erickson myself to ask if the press had truly debunked the rumor. He did not answer directly, but wrote that in the summer of 2008, he and his wife, who had offices by Loy’s, “especially enjoyed Wesley's accounts of his pursuit of the ‘Grandma Governor fakes birth’ story.” He encouraged me to contact Loy directly. I emailed Loy but got no response.

The McCain campaign responded to the fake-birth rumor by revealing on September 1 that Bristol was pregnant – and engaged to Levi Johnston, the father-to-be – adding Bristol was in her fifth month (an odd detail--one presumably designed to illustrate that Bristol could not be Trig's mother). The response seemed odd since the release of Trig's birth certificate could have settled the matter once and for all. Moreover, the logic that Bristol could not be Trig’s mother depended on the unsupported assertion that Trig was born in April.

Bristol gave birth to her own son, Tripp, apparently on December 27. However, that birth date was not confirmed by any source outside of the Palin or Johnston families (the presumed hospital, Mat-Su, would not comment). The announcement of the birth was also oddly made by a relative outside of Alaska who had not seen the child. About seven weeks passed before the media saw Bristol's son Tripp.

Could Bristol be Trig’s mother--the original theory of those who believed Palin had faked her pregnancy? That actually seems unlikely: the odds against a teenager like Bristol having a Down syndrome baby are more than a thousand to one. So if the child that Sarah Palin presented as Trig at the Republican National Convention was not born to Sarah or Bristol, then who was Trig’s birth mother? And, if Trig was likely not born to Sarah or Bristol, why fake Trig’s birth at the Mat-Su medical facility on April 18?

There are no clear answers to these questions, and this is perhaps the most-persuasive argument that Palin's birth story is true.

But it’s undeniable that the political benefits to Palin of being able to claim she chose life for a Down syndrome child have been tremendous.

The Press Accepts Palin’s Claims, and her Doctor’s

The oddness of the McCain campaign’s response to the fake-birth rumors should have prompted reporters to wonder if something fraudulent had happened and kept them from accepting Palin’s implausible birth claims as established fact.

But reporters at top news organizations swallowed the birth story. For example, on September 8, a flattering article in the New York Times said: “She traveled to Texas a month before her due date to give an important speech, delivering it even though her amniotic fluid was leaking.” Then, continued the article, after giving birth and returning to work, “with Trig in her arms, Ms. Palin has risen higher than ever.”

And the Washington Post, on September 7, 2008, in a flattering piece wrote: “The April birth of Trig, Norse for ‘brave victory,’ turned out to be a powerful credential for the national Republican base, delighted that Palin delivered a child who tests foretold had Down syndrome.”

The idea that Palin knew in advance that she was carrying a Down syndrome baby and chose to give birth rather than abort, which stories like those above amplified, helped launch her into the stratosphere of popularity with the right-to-life wing of the Republican party.

During the campaign, Palin had promised the press she would release her medical records, a complete version of which would have answered the birth questions once and for all. At 11 p.m. on November 3, one hour before Election Day, the McCain campaign released a two-page letter from Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson regarding Palin’s health. A section on Trig’s birth read:

… She followed the normal and recommended schedule for prenatal care, including follow-up perinatology evaluations to ensure there was no significant congenital heart disease or other condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital. This child, Trig, was born at 35 weeks in good health…

Three things stand out about this statement:

1. While suggesting that the birth might have taken place at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center (Palin’s “home community hospital”), by using a tortuous circumlocution the doctor managed to avoid saying where, or when, the baby was born.

2. Palin had said in a press conference that Dr. Baldwin-Johnson had delivered Trig, and the doctor had seemingly confirmed that in a comment to a reporter, even though she is a family practitioner, not an obstetrician. In the statement, however, the doctor uses the passive voice above to describe the birth, thus avoiding saying who delivered the baby.

3. Nothing in the statement suggests the doctor had firsthand knowledge of Palin’s pregnancy; Baldwin-Johnson may simply have reiterated what Palin had told her.

If reporters found anything suspicious about this last-minute statement – Andrew Sullivan called it a giant finger to the press – they did not say so in print.

After the election, Anchorage Daily News editor Pat Dougherty assigned reporter Lisa Demer the task of putting the baby hoax story to rest by obtaining proof of the birth. Given Palin's presumed interest in shutting down the theory, one would have expected help to be be forthcoming (even on background). But Demer hit a brick wall – Palin’s office and doctor refuse to cooperate. Then Palin fired off an email to editor Dougherty on January 12, 2009, asking if the paper was “pursuing the sensational lie that I am not Trig's mother?” Dougherty published her email and his response. He wrote:

"… the Daily News has, from the beginning, dismissed the conspiracy theories about Trig's birth as nonsense. … In fact, my integrity and the integrity of the newspaper have been repeatedly attacked in national forums for our complicity in the "coverup.”

He said his only purpose in assigning a reporter to the story was “to kill the nonsense once and for all.” Noting that his reporter, Lisa Demer, had received no cooperation, he wrote:

"It strikes me that if there is never a clear, contemporaneous public record of what transpired with Trig's birth, that may actually ensure that the conspiracy theory never dies."

Dougherty wrote that Palin never responded to his email. And since that time, all reporters and editors at the paper have given what seems like a scripted answer to questions about Palin’s remarkable birth story: they see no reason to doubt it.

Why the Press Treated the Fake Birth Rumor as Taboo

Why did U.S. journalists unquestioningly accept Palin’s claims regarding Trig’s birth?

Four things about the rumor seemingly caused reporters to suspend their normal reporting instincts.

1. The view that it was deeply implausible that such a hoax could happen, especially given that a far-fetched hoax rumor involving Obama’s birth certificate had recently surfaced.

Colin McMahon of the Chicago Tribune, in a December 6, 2008 article, equated people who believe the Trig hoax rumor to “birthers” who embrace the claim Obama was born outside the United States. Neither rumor made good sense, he suggested, because it would take “a lot of people telling a lot of lies” to pull off such a hoax.

In other words, a large-scale conspiracy would be needed.

But is that true?

Federal law prevents Mat-Su Regional Medical Center from saying anything without Palin’s permission about her alleged stay there on the day of Trig’s purported birth.

But presumably, as a former hospital board member, Palin could have obtained a room the night before with very few hospital employees involved. And perhaps someone could have snuck a baby into the hospital unobserved.

2. The likelihood that one might be ridiculed or attacked for even bringing up the fake birth rumor. Palin and her supporters have consistently suggested that raising the question of the birth hoax is outrageous or even the mark of a deranged conspiracy theorist. For example, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wrote on December 5, 2008: “Did you know that Sarah Palin-haters are still trying to prove she didn’t give birth to her youngest son, Trig? These tinfoil hat-wearers are as obnoxious and unhinged as the 9/11 Truth cultists who insist that America engineered the jihadi attacks on itself.”

3. The appearance of two photos after her nomination showing a very pregnant-looking Palin.

Here are two photos that were made public when “erik09559,” who has never been identified, posted them to Flickr on August 31, 2008, three days after ArcXIX accused Palin of carrying out a hoax:

The pictures appear to have been taken minutes apart, five days before Palin’s alleged delivery of Trig. The man wearing glasses in the top photo is KTUU-TV newsman Bill McAllister, who (perhaps not coincidentally) would become Palin's director of communications in July. The other man is KTUU cameraman Dan Carpenter.

In the bottom picture, taken by Carpenter, Palin is being interviewed by KTVA-TV reporter Andrea Gusty, who has said she took the first picture. No one has ever explained why these pictures were taken. Moreover, Palin’s calendar indicated that Gusty would interview her alone. So McAllister’s presence there is a mystery he has declined to elaborate on.

The pictures show Palin looking more pregnant than any other publicly available pictures from Alaska in the spring. Indeed, her appearance in these two pictures essentially contradicts what Palin and reporters had said earlier in the year, which was that she “did not get big” in her pregnancy with Trig.

It should be noted that other photos from the spring appeared to show a remarkably thin Palin. For example, here is an Associated Press photo of Palin on March 14, about a week after she announced she was seven months pregnant and a month before the photos above. The photo appeared in the Anchorage Daily News.

The photo shows an unbelievably flat stomach for a seven-months-pregnant 44-year-old mother.

In addition, below is a photo taken at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau on March 26, just 23 days before the alleged birth, juxtaposed with Palin from the Gusty photo above.



As Palin left the museum, her coat opened. She appears to be wearing some sort of wrap around her midsection. Note that Palin’s bosom extends beyond her belly in the museum photo, while in the Gusty photo, shot just 18 days later, her belly extends far beyond her bosom.

4. The idea that, if true, the deception was an understandable, maybe even a commendable act on Palin’s part, especially since the birth hoax rumor involved children.

At least a few journalists in a left-leaning online chat group call JournoList seemed sympathetic in late August 2008 to Palin’s dilemma if she truly had covered for Bristol’s pregnancy. One wrote: “…what I see – if Trig is indeed her grandchild – is a strong woman trying to protect her family.” Another poster wrote that if the birth rumor was true and exposed, it would hurt the birth mother and the child, “So this story desperately needs a good leaving-alone.”

So what should a skeptical, truth-seeking press corps have done after rumors of the pregnancy hoax erupted in late August? For starters, journalists would not have repeated as fact Palin’s story relating to the birth, such as giving a speech several hours after her water broke. Beyond that, organizations with significant resources could have put reporters on the birth hoax story itself.

The McCain campaign never put Palin in an open press conference, thus effectively shielding her from direct questions about the alleged hoax. But journalists in editorials and columns could have raised questions about it, and then a failure by Palin and the McCain campaign to address those questions would have been noteworthy itself.

What's Next?

While some journalists may have felt in 2008 that Trig’s birth was a private family matter, Palin’s birth tale constitutes a central plank in her political identity, and may have involved unprecedented deception. Moreover, recent revelations have cast even more doubt on her birth claims.

For example, one of the independent bloggers who has relentlessly pursued this story over the past three years, Jesse Griffin of Immoral Minorty, found in recently released Palin emails a draft of a letter she would send to family and friends immediately after Trig was born.

In that letter, which Palin wrote ten days before Trig’s purported premature birth, she in effect thanked God for bringing Trig to her family early and for making the birth so free from discomfort. How did Palin know ten days in advance that the birth would be premature and comfortable? The most logical answer is that no birth occurred ten days later – Palin was preparing a hoax.

I have been told off-the-record of individuals highly placed in the mainstream media who concede Palin likely perpetrated a hoax, yet they have made no move to cover the story. Why? Fear of being pilloried? A desire to not look foolish for having been fooled in 2008? Resistance from media owners, some of whom may wish to protect the Republican Party from looking inept – or treacherous – for having picked a VP candidate capable of such a hoax?

I suspect that all those things have come into play. But now it’s time for the American press to take on what could be a story involving massive deceit by a vice-presidential candidate and answer the question once and for all. Author Joe McGinniss, whose book on Palin has now appeared, recently suggested Palin is a pathologically narcissistic psychopath. He also wrote that, regarding Trig, “anything is possible, but … it’s more possible than not that Sarah’s whole story is a lie.”

If American journalists do not finally, belatedly, look into how Palin perhaps perpetrated one of the greatest political hoaxes in our country’s history, it will stand forever as a testament to how timid and easily manipulated the press can be.

Note: A longer, footnoted version of this article is located here.

Bradford W. Scharlott, PhD, is a professor at Northern Kentucky University. He sent a draft of this article to Sarah Palin's address in Wasilla, Alaska, in mid-August, seeking comment. As yet, there has been no response.